Question on Public Employee/Elected Officials Retirement Benefits?

The company from which I retired required 29 years service and age 58 for full retirement benefits, based of course on service and salary. They had a stipulation that the amount of retirement they paid plus Social Security could not exceed 65% of your salary at retirement.

They have recently eliminated the company retirement for new employees using instead the 401k plan. They will match an employee contribution of up to 6% of their salary, an immediate 100% return. I believe this type retirement is superior to a conventional plan and eliminates the problem of company liability, unfunded or otherwise.

I believe the solution to the huge unfunded liability of most retirement plans is the 401k plan. Under that plan an employee could

1. have some control over investment and earnings,

2. change jobs without adversely affecting his retirement,

3. retire at whatever age he desired, assuming of course he was financially able.

 

Additional comments.

I believe it is essential that the age for receiving Social Security and Medicare be increased to 70 and furthermore that both be means tested.

 

What about a small town sheriff that is elected this his position. Let's say he has been the sheriff for 35 years and done a great job. Let's say he's never made more than $55,000 a year. Should there be no retirement pay "PERIOD" for this guy?

I believe in fair retirement plans for any jobs. Fair means that someone elected to a 2 year stint shouldn't be getting much of anything. Retirement plans should be based upon years of service, employer matching, and employee contributions.

 

Let's assume he wasn't. So, you are saying that a guy that spends his whole life working a job, working it hard, earning only a modest income, shouldn't be eligible for some type of employer match for retirement? We'll have to disagree on that. As a taxpayer, I have no problem with a fair retirement program for workers.

 

I think all government employees should have a 401k, not a pension. We should match up to 5%. This is their 401k, and they can put as much into this as they want. Thus, they can collect in their retirement as much as they want.

 

Create and institute the same pension program for government workers that you would like for yourself.

 

My suggestion is that overtime pay should not be included in retirement calculations. This should resolve the bad publicity problem.

Public employees getting 2% of normal pay rate per year is reasonable. A 50% cap on new hires is reasonable.

Almost any cap on NEW HIRES is reasonable. People don't like it, they will not sign on.

Changing the rules on old timers is plain theft because one's pension is deferred compensation. It is not my fault that you anti-union people let your employers steal your jobs and pensions.

 

...Which of course is funded by the other guy.

 

Social Security is a "ponzi scheme" and therefore a system of welfare. It is going broke. The only short term fix is means testing. I have suggested the following to my Congress people. Of course they embraced it heartily, you might say they jumped on it with both feet!!!!!!!!

"MEANS TESTING

1a. Any couple with an income in excess of $100,000, exclusive of Social Security, should have their Social Security income reduced proportionally [i.e., each $1,000 increase in income would reduce Social Security by 2%], Therefore, any couple whose income, exclusive of Social Security, exceeds $150,000 would not receive Social Security.

1b. Any single person with an income in excess of $75,000 should have his/her Social Security income reduced proportionally [i.e., each $1,000 increase in income would reduce Social Security by 2%], Therefore, any single person whose income, exclusive of Social Security, exceeds $125,000 would not receive Social Security.

1c. Any couple with an income in excess of $150,000 should have their Medicare premiums increased proportionally. Any couple with an income in excess of $200,000 should provide their own health coverage.

1d. Any single person with an income in excess of $100,000 should have their Medicare premiums increased proportionally. Any single person with an income in excess of $150,000 should provide their own health coverage.

The above income limits are only illustrative since I Ihave no idea how close the so-called trust fund is to default. However, it is absolutely necessary to address entitlements now, not 10 years from now as Rep. Ryan, whose intestinal fortitude is commendable, suggested."



As for increasing the age for SS and Medicare this would obviously be done incrementally.

In an aside I use the website Congress.org to email my Congress people.

 

I agree wholeheartedly. This is one way to institute term limits!

 

I totally disagree. Social Security is not the problem. Congress is however for spending the SS money as general revenue. Also there is n reason to raise the age limit. That too is an excuse to Congress and continue to spend the SS money for their pet projects instead of what t was intended for. SS has always and still is paying for itself contrary so what the government is spreading is lies.
SS is not in the red, our government is in the red while SS is in the black, There is 2.4 trillion in IOU's that the government owes SS so it is in the black.
SS is not scheduled to run out of money until sometime around 2025 to 2035 depending on who you believe. By the time the baby boomers will be dying off at a rather fast pace while the percent of those who sigh up will fall off so all will be fine.
What I am in favor of is returning SS to what it was intended. Stop paying out benefits to children and the disabled prior to the original age which was 62 and 65. If the government wants to pay for those programs, great, but do it through another means and not SS.
As for Medicare that is a problem as any socialized medicine is. The Republicans who pushed this were wrong about it just like the Democrats said they were. There are many things that Medicare should not be paying for. Such things as, electric wheel chairs, drugs that only add 90 days to to a life and cost nearly 100,000 dollars a month, cell phones, and more.
What can be done is make the cost of Medicare representative of the cost to administering it either by raising the amount that is paid in while doing away with things that it should not be paying for.

 

>>Elected officials - NO RETIREMENT PAY - PERIOD!

>I agree wholeheartedly. This is one way to institute term limits!

Then only multimillionaire could afford to take the job. This should make you all happy.

 

Social security is broke. Congress has stolen the money for other purposed. the unfunded liability for SS amounts to trillions and there is no way that two workers for each retired baby-boomer can meet the payroll.

I would advise anyone, say 50 and under, not to count on SS but provide for your own retirement.

So where is the government going to get the money it owes the SS. In fact SS did not take in enough money last year to meet payout.

SO Dream ON! But if you are under 50 better start saving!

 

That is factually incorrect.

Social Security is currently paying out more money than it takes in.

That is like telling your wife, "Honey, I invested all of our retirement money in Madoff's ponzi scheme. He is in jail and all of the money is gone. But don't worry everything is fine because he still owes us the money."