Page 6 of 6 FirstFirst ... 23456
Results 76 to 84 of 84

Thread: OT - Pension Benefits Now and Then

  1. #76
    Every American who works for a bunch of years should be able to retire at a reasonable age, with a retirement income just high enough to live modestly, say $60,000/yr or 75% of their salary, whichever is lower. (Maybe $36,000 minimum.) If they want more than that, they should've saved.

    Why not more than that? Because they are no longer working. This would be a good target for Social Security and all public sector pensions. If companies in the private sector wanted to offer more, they would be free to do so, of course.

    This would put all Americans on more of an equal footing in their old age. After all, a retired police captain and a retired dishwasher are both contributing the same amount to society... after they are retired.

    (Hey TandemBear, I'm not trying to yank your chain here -- same topic a few years ago -- well, maybe I am, a little, lol.)

  2. #77
    One of the big economic profit makers in the Government outsourcing efforts was in the area of pensions. All bidders (to replace Government workers) had to provide a pension to employees after 5 years; Their proposals had to include this cost, typically 5-7% of base wages. This was sort of a hold harmless provision so that former Government workers who had lost their pensions would have some sort of replacement. Problem is that if there was a break in service during that five years the clock would reset. Contractors would furlough employees for a couple of weeks without pay after 3-4 years and the pension clock would reset to zero and the paid in pension funds would become corporate profits. This allowed some bidders to submit proposals where they appeared to lose money, until they reset the pension clocks and scooped up the pension funding as profit.

    Quote Originally Posted by Big C_Cal View Post
    Every American who works for a bunch of years should be able to retire at a reasonable age, with a retirement income just high enough to live modestly, say $60,000/yr or 75% of their salary, whichever is lower. (Maybe $36,000 minimum.) If they want more than that, they should've saved.

    Why not more than that? Because they are no longer working. This would be a good target for Social Security and all public sector pensions. If companies in the private sector wanted to offer more, they would be free to do so, of course.

    This would put all Americans on more of an equal footing in their old age. After all, a retired police captain and a retired dishwasher are both contributing the same amount to society... after they are retired.

    (Hey TandemBear, I'm not trying to yank your chain here -- same topic a few years ago -- well, maybe I am, a little, lol.)

  3. #78
    Quote Originally Posted by Unit2Sucks View Post
    Sounds like hedge funds didn't do great for calpers but I haven't seen anything that indicates it moved the needle. Just sounded like a lot of complexity. Do you think calpers is lying about their results?

    Everything else I will grant you but I don't think calpers has done a bad job on the investment side or has been swindled. They made informed decisions and generally obtained good returns. Most people would be happy matching those returns in their 401(k).
    CalPERS quit the hedge fund sleeve because they were too big. The amount needed to invest in that asset class to move the needle for CalPERS would flood the market and reduce their ability to be selective. CalPERS size was prohibitive, not the performance of hedge funds.

    Hedge funds should under perform in bull markets. Their value is that they should be relatively uncorrelated to the public stock and/or bond markets, adding another income stream and limiting downside risk. The issue with the proliferation of hedge funds are that many are simply beta managers whose returns are highly correlated to the public markets. For this reason, CalPERS needs to be selective but their current size denies them this prerogative.

  4. #79
    One of our favorite football coaches in another state gets a nice pension


    http://image.oregonlive.com/home/oli...8f9acbd96c.jpg
    Mike Bellotti has been at or near the top of PERS recipients since leaving the University of Oregon.

    No. 2: Mike Bellotti
    Mike Bellotti, former University of Oregon football coach, receives $44,750 a month.

  5. #80
    Quote Originally Posted by Unit2Sucks View Post
    I'm not an expert by any stretch on pensions, but I am surprised to hear of people having pensions that pay more than $210k per year which is the current maximum allowable payout under the tax code. See here: https://www.irs.gov/retirement-plans...benefit-limits

    My old law firm had a pretty good pension that maxed out at the IRS limit and I assume that was universal applicable, but perhaps it doesn't apply to public employees?
    This is for employees with less than 10 years of service and retire under ages 62-65.

  6. #81
    Quote Originally Posted by tequila4kapp View Post
    Condolences on your wife's passing.

    Sorry about the disappointment over your pension. I know it is anecdotal, but I was just playing golf with a firefighter who was complaining about efforts to cap salaries at 100K for pension calculations (my reaction: people get paid 100K to be a regular every day fire fighter? WTF?). I think the devil is in the details and the particular agency one works for matters.
    Private message me if you want to ride along as an everyday firefighter for a "day." I'll even buy your dinner assuming we get one.

  7. #82
    Quote Originally Posted by FuzzyWuzzy View Post
    I'm sorry you take offense but just about the only people who don't think public safety pensions are too generous are public safety personnel (and their families). The average firefighter retiring at age 50 after a HS education and 30 years of service will get over $100K per year for the rest of his life, plus health care benefits. These are not fire chiefs but rank and file guys. If he dies first, his spouse will get the annual payment. To put that in perspective, if a healthy 50 year old went to an insurance company and said I want to buy a $100K annuity for my life and the life of my spouse, it would probably cost $4 million. That is a large pile of money well beyond the reach of virtually any non-entrepeneurial worker who is not taking economic risk. A worker without a pension might have to save something like $60K per year for 30 years, to accumulate a pile of money like that. That is why you regularly have 5,000 applicants for 5 junior firefighter jobs. The market is telling you the pension is too generous.

    And unless they are working overtime, the firefighters I know work 2 days on, 6 days off. That's a little over 40 hours a week.
    Firefighters aren't healthy at age 50. Average in my agency, a very large one, is a retirement age in excess of 50. Firefighters brag about the schedule. If he's working 2 out of 8 he's not working for a public agency. If he's working for a public agency he's not working 2 out of 8.

    Also...OT is not included in CalPERS calculation. Sorry, but it's not.

  8. #83
    Quote Originally Posted by BearlyAggie View Post
    Firefighters aren't healthy at age 50. Average in my agency, a very large one, is a retirement age in excess of 50.
    By 50, we all have health problems. In general, firefighters are no less healthy, or expected to have lower life expectancies, than the rest of the population, adjusted for race, gender, income, education, etc. The retirement age of 50 was purely an example. If your average firefighter retires at age 51 with 30 years of service, he is still getting a pension of $100K plus per year, plus cost of living increases, for the rest of his life and his spouse's life, a figure that is simply unattainable for almost anyone else not in public safety or the top 1% of income. Then he is going out and getting a part time (or even full time) job in retirement that pays him a salary on top of that.

    Quote Originally Posted by BearlyAggie View Post
    Firefighters brag about the schedule. If he's working 2 out of 8 he's not working for a public agency. If he's working for a public agency he's not working 2 out of 8.
    "2 out of 8" was not intended to be a real schedule. It was to illustrate that firefighters work about 25% of their living, breathing hours. As do the rest of the full-time working population. Do you dispute the 25% figure? Real firefighter schedules are different, as you know, and depend on the agency.

    Quote Originally Posted by BearlyAggie View Post
    Also...OT is not included in CalPERS calculation. Sorry, but it's not.
    Did I say that it was? In my example he's still getting a retirement annuity of $100K+ per year, plus cost of living increases, starting in his early 50s and continuing for the rest of his life and his spouse's life, without working a minute of OT.

    You would probably need to save $4 million in cash to replicate that level of retirement annuity. It is quite literally impossible to save that much if you are a salaried employee in virtually any occupation other than public safety. I'm not a financial guy but I think you would need to save in excess of $60,000 per year for 30 years, assuming a healthy return on your savings.

    Take a physician, who attends 4 years of college, 4 years of med school, and 4 years of residency (and the attendant student debt); she is 30 years old before starting to make any real money. Let's say she is now making $250K. After federal and state income taxes, social security taxes and medicare taxes, they are left with $125K to spend. After paying her student loan payments, she is left with $100K. You think she is saving $60K of that? How about an insurance claims adjuster making $50K or a bartender making $80K. You think there is any way they are retiring after 30 years of work?

    I feel a little guilty for saying that public safety pensions are overly generous because I know that pension reform would hurt those in your occupation. But the flip side is that the level of post-retirement benefits afforded to your cohort is paid for by, and hurts, the rest of us (and our kids and grandkids, because our generation can't possibly pay off the debt were are incurring for retirement benefits).

    We either need to lower public retirement benefits, starting with the most generous ones, or we need to raise taxes, or some combination of the two.

  9. #84
    The problem with the GOP and public pensions is that they look at the amounts of the generous public safety pensions and
    attack the problem by reducing the fully funded pensions of other public employees. So far I haven't seen anyone do an
    analysis that shows the cost lifetime pension benefits of a public safety officer compared to a planning inspector, or other
    non-public safety administrator. When San diego reports half it's employees are public safety positions; and they have a pension
    crisis (due to PS employees generous and early pensions); they respond by reducing the benefits of the non-public safety employees;
    completely ignoring the bulk of the problem.


    Quote Originally Posted by FuzzyWuzzy View Post
    By 50, we all have health problems. In general, firefighters are no less healthy, or expected to have lower life expectancies, than the rest of the population, adjusted for race, gender, income, education, etc. ...

    I feel a little guilty for saying that public safety pensions are overly generous because I know that pension reform would hurt those in your occupation. But the flip side is that the level of post-retirement benefits afforded to your cohort is paid for by, and hurts, the rest of us (and our kids and grandkids, because our generation can't possibly pay off the debt were are incurring for retirement benefits).

    We either need to lower public retirement benefits, starting with the most generous ones, or we need to raise taxes, or some combination of the two.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •