| reply to r81984
Re: Retirement (I'm not trying to stir up the pot...just an observation) 
Another point that should be added against pension failure is:
-When the government (state or federal) borrows against the pension funds.
-When the borrowed pension funds are not replaced.
-When pensions are invested in risk.
What good are pensions when the very controller is, well, stealing from the workers?
Pensions do work but not with the scale of inflation, the failed investments let alone no checksums or regulation (SEC failed with all the previous scandals...can we even trust investment bodies?) , inclusion of OT, and don't forget, longevity.
*My father has a pension, he's over 80 and took early out when 64. My Bro-n-law has a pension (IBM) and he's 65 (he was given early out at 59...). Friend's father was 55 when he left Verizon, plus was vet. His wife worked at Government installation and her pension, with his, is more than they made together when working.
I'm just against those collecting pensions*, plus SS plus taking jobs to afford their fishing boat, that vacation home and other hobbies (not cost of living...). 
(Let's say a NJ state director moves from one department to another. When he retired, he was not only eligible for pension (based on last 3 years salary averaged--now updated to 5 years) but also of the previous department pension work (double pensions).
Or how pensions can be based on last 3 years of salary, but include...get this...overtime).
Say a law officer works last three years at $62K, $65K, and $67K. Averaged @ $64.6K, a pension on 80% of worked salary should be $52K/annually + medical. Now, include OT in those three years (say $30K annually), the 3yr average is now $94.6K ...making the 80% rule $76K !!! The pension is MORE than the salary was.
This example shows the increased salary with based OT. That has to stop, right?
PS. I know when I retire, SS will be negative... WTF! Yet annually that SS letter shows how much I am to collect at age 65... lol...
--
Splat |
