Question on Public Employee/Elected Officials Retirement Benefits?

Discussion in 'Politics' started by righteousdude2, Dec 11, 2011.

?

Would You Favor a Limit, or Set Ceiling on Public Retirement L

  1. Yes

    3 vote(s)
    50.0%
  2. No

    1 vote(s)
    16.7%
  3. I'd love to see all retirees get no more than (share amount in comment)

    1 vote(s)
    16.7%
  4. I think a public retiree should receive what they earned

    1 vote(s)
    16.7%
  5. My suggestions are noted as follows....

    4 vote(s)
    66.7%
Multiple votes are allowed.
  1. righteousdude2

    righteousdude2
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 14, 2007
    Messages:
    10,458
    Likes Received:
    136
    As you may, or may not know, Californians are screaming their heads off over the current retirement system and the "fat-cat" plans.

    I would love to see this nation, and each state, county, city and municipality have a maximum dollar amount for any retiree.

    I was thinking $99.999.99 per year, would be the very top of that amount. This would stop the so-called "fat-cats" from getting six-figure retirement checks for the remainder of their life's!

    So, sound off, and not only give your opinion and why, but please use the poll. :type:
     
    #1 righteousdude2, Dec 11, 2011
    Last edited by a moderator: Dec 11, 2011
  2. OldRegular

    OldRegular
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 21, 2004
    Messages:
    22,678
    Likes Received:
    53
    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.
     
  3. OldRegular

    OldRegular
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 21, 2004
    Messages:
    22,678
    Likes Received:
    53
    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.
     
  4. Salty

    Salty
    Expand Collapse
    20,000 Posts Club
    Moderator

    Joined:
    Apr 8, 2003
    Messages:
    22,065
    Likes Received:
    214
    Disagree!!! (on the means testing) increase to age 70 should be in steps. Can you image you having a retirement plan (say 401K) and you are informed - because you made over X amount of dollars - we don't have to pay you anything this year!
    As long as you contribute to SS - you should be eligible to receive it.

    Regular govt employees - often they retire from one govt and work for another ( eg city to state) so they receive retirement from the city while drawing full pay from the state. I propose your retirement pay be reduced by the amount you are making from another govt job. I suppose we could exempt military, police and firemen.

    Elected officials - NO RETIREMENT PAY - PERIOD!
     
  5. TCassidy

    TCassidy
    Expand Collapse
    Administrator
    Administrator

    Joined:
    Mar 30, 2005
    Messages:
    12,123
    Likes Received:
    1,297
    Social Security and Medicare, just like everybody else. If they want more they can do as the rest of us have to do. Pay into an IRA/401k for 40 or 50 years.
     
  6. righteousdude2

    righteousdude2
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 14, 2007
    Messages:
    10,458
    Likes Received:
    136
    Salty.....

    ,,,,You deserve a huge AMEN! :thumbsup:
     
  7. matt wade

    matt wade
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 6, 2009
    Messages:
    6,156
    Likes Received:
    76
    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.
     
  8. Salty

    Salty
    Expand Collapse
    20,000 Posts Club
    Moderator

    Joined:
    Apr 8, 2003
    Messages:
    22,065
    Likes Received:
    214
    Well, I assume he was a deputy sheriff for at least 25 years. That he gets retirement for - but once elected....
     
  9. matt wade

    matt wade
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 6, 2009
    Messages:
    6,156
    Likes Received:
    76
    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.
     
  10. Ruiz

    Ruiz
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Jun 9, 2010
    Messages:
    2,021
    Likes Received:
    0
    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.
     
  11. Crabtownboy

    Crabtownboy
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 12, 2008
    Messages:
    16,609
    Likes Received:
    155
    Create and institute the same pension program for government workers that you would like for yourself.
     
  12. billwald

    billwald
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    Jun 28, 2000
    Messages:
    11,414
    Likes Received:
    0
    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.
     
  13. Arbo

    Arbo
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Dec 4, 2010
    Messages:
    3,942
    Likes Received:
    1
    ...Which of course is funded by the other guy.
     
  14. OldRegular

    OldRegular
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 21, 2004
    Messages:
    22,678
    Likes Received:
    53
    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.
     
  15. OldRegular

    OldRegular
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 21, 2004
    Messages:
    22,678
    Likes Received:
    53
    I agree wholeheartedly. This is one way to institute term limits!
     
  16. freeatlast

    freeatlast
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Mar 1, 2004
    Messages:
    10,295
    Likes Received:
    0
    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.
     
  17. billwald

    billwald
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    Jun 28, 2000
    Messages:
    11,414
    Likes Received:
    0
    >>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.
     
  18. Salty

    Salty
    Expand Collapse
    20,000 Posts Club
    Moderator

    Joined:
    Apr 8, 2003
    Messages:
    22,065
    Likes Received:
    214
    I do agree with your suggestions above

    It is not theft - if something is not done there will not be anything for anyone.
    and what does private union jobs have to do with union public jobs.

    No one forces a person to retire (normally) if you want full pay keep working.



    Bill great fiction! The purpose of no retirement for elected officials would be to ensure term limits. That was the intention of the founding fathers and endorsed by President Washington. Politicians get too cushy in their jobs.

    In addition, I wouldn't have a problem if an elected official had the same right as a GI. With less than 5 years govt service, a politician would be guaranteed his civilian job back just like GI has under the
     
  19. OldRegular

    OldRegular
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 21, 2004
    Messages:
    22,678
    Likes Received:
    53
    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!
     
  20. targus

    targus
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 10, 2008
    Messages:
    8,459
    Likes Received:
    0
    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."
     

Share This Page

Loading...