|
Post by bblwi on Sept 17, 2014 10:20:30 GMT -6
I think where presidents go wrong and in my estimation this is Obama's largest error is not be an advocate for the people and citizens, the Congress be dammed! The bully pulpit is granted to the president and his/her leadership can move a nation. A president should advocate for all citizens and what is good for society. Congress persons can and do advocate for their state or district. Those two political missions are very different and far apart. A president always working to secure the blessing of Congress or blaming them etc. is not the leader that he/she should or could be. A president that tries to manipulate or placate a Congress will typically wind up with successes or ratings similar to the Congress. This is one of the reasons I feel that ex governors etc. make better presidents than Congress persons. They have to make hard decisions and in many cases failure is an option and one they are willing to risk. We have several huge issues to address and many politicians will not even talk of them during an election year and then for that matter when they are asking for political donations the rest of their terms. I am not a strong believer in term limits. I do believe we have had great and capable Congress persons in the past and we have some now and will in the future. Political experience does not have to mean, being bought and or slanted to one issue or discipline over another but we have rewarded that method over time and that is why we get what we get and that can be short term as well as long term.
Bryce
|
|
|
Post by trappincoyotes39 on Sept 18, 2014 19:01:59 GMT -6
Term limits would get in people that want to make positive change and also do away with the one term and your duly vested for retirement Too. How many people can work a job for 4 years and walk away with a lifetime retirement package?
We will then see people really trying to make a difference versus being their to add to the problems. Give them 3 terms max and then talk small retirement if they make it to 3 terms..........
DC is so full of it self and just spending money like we can just make more daily it gets real tiring and the people in this country are getting tired with both sides that is a fact.
|
|
|
Post by PamIsMe on Sept 18, 2014 23:36:35 GMT -6
"...this is Obama's largest error is not be an advocate for the people and citizens, the Congress be dammed!"
Isn't the President's doing that with Executive Orders exactly what the GOP and Tea Party are griping about?
"How many people can work a job for 4 years and walk away with a lifetime retirement package? "
Actually, it's 5 years which would be into the third term before they are eligible for a pension, and they do pay into it themselves.
Members of Congress are eligible for a pension at age 62 if they have completed at least five years of service. They are eligible for a pension at age 50 if they have completed 20 years of service, or at any age after completing 25 years of service. The amount of the pension depends on years of service and the average of the highest three years of salary. By law, the starting amount of a member’s retirement annuity may not exceed 80 percent of his or her final salary.
We have to be a little realistic, who would run for office if there were no benefits included? Bad enough that one has to be rich to run for office these days.
I'm all for a term limit but I think it should be 5-2 year terms for a Congressman and 3- 4 year terms for a Senator. Someone needs to have some leadership experience. I find it interesting that the President is limited to two terms but not the legislators. Then there's the Supreme Court with their lifetime appointments. I think 20 years and/or 80 years old, which ever comes first, should be their limit.
Cheers, Pam
|
|
|
Post by trappincoyotes39 on Sept 20, 2014 7:11:38 GMT -6
Pam they pay Into it . I pay into my retirement as well but I don't get it after 5 years of service Sign me up for that good grief. So between 70-80 percent of annual salary and PAC money and other things they live pretty good after 5-10 years. Pam we have state reps and city councilmen that run and get elected for far less money and far less perks in each and every state. I was a city council member for almost 5 years and received 50.00 per meeting I didn't do it for the money, either do many smaller state senators or house of reps at the state level. I never received any retirement from the city either. Figure out the hours I put In on avg each month and I was making less than 3.00 per hour If I didn't move I would still be active on that council. They call it public service for a reason.......,., One has a choice to do it or not.
|
|
|
Post by bblwi on Sept 20, 2014 19:37:45 GMT -6
Each state or municipality may have their own. Your example is not anywhere near what we have here in WI with our WRS plan. First you are not more than 50% vested until you reach the age of 54. If you terminate prior to 54 you receive half in a lump sum. An annuity is not an option. At age 55 you can only take it as an annuity. We have many options. Also ours is based on a formula based on years of service times a multiplier and an average of your highest 3 years salaries for your base. You maximize your multiplier factor at somewhere between 65and 70% not 80% as your example indicates. It is a very good system and it is one of the highest in the nation for being paid up. There is almost no contingent liabilities as is the case with many. We cant draw an annuity here with only 5 years of service or payment into the system. If you only work 5 years your amount you receive would be small unless you have a very, very large salary. I worked 31 years and had 2 years credit for military service and my multiplier % was about 56% of my highest 3 year wage averages. I also took the lower monthly cash payment and kept the payments at 100% after the death of the first person, me or my wife. My wife does not have a retirement plan as she did not work out of the home for more than about 8 years and this way I can keep her income up higher if she outlives me, which based on the genetics of our families is very likely.
Bryce
|
|
|
Post by PamIsMe on Sept 21, 2014 0:51:50 GMT -6
"I was a city council member for almost 5 years and received 50.00 per meeting I didn't do it for the money.."
It also didn't cost you several million to run for the City council nor did you have to rent a place in DC and fly back and forth to your home state on weekends. Even in my little town one has to spend some decent money to run for the School Board or Village Board. There's really no comparison there between a City Council member and a US Representative or Senator. The only thing I'd say they have in common is that there is an element of ego involved in all of them. I know, you'll say that isn't true TC lol
Cheers, Pam
|
|
|
Post by trappincoyotes39 on Sept 21, 2014 6:35:44 GMT -6
Pam sure there is it is called public service that is what these jobs are. I fully understand cost to run and be in the state legislator in SD one must find housing at the state Capitol in Pierre and that isn't cheap either and also many long drives for meetings and such and they do not make a lot of money. So yes public service does take place.
You could easy enough change the process for elections with a cap system on cost to advertise that would equalize the playing field. It gets expensive to run for DC because we allow them to spend what ever they can raise to do so. The rich get backed by the rich so it limits the pool of people and the rich have no lock on common sense for sure.
Pam no ego on my part I ran because I got sick and tired of hearing the boys in the coffee shop complain about city business and how nothing gets done and every choice made was the wrong one. So I could tell them if you want change run and make positive change happen.
Bryce your retirement program sounds a lot like that of a Missouri's here a teaching retirement will replace 70-80 percent of your normal take home salary depending on years of service. They take your highest 3 years of salary to figure your final amount rule of 80 for full benefits. I know some guys who retired at 52 after 28 years teaching.
3 ways to get paid you can take a lump sum of every dollar put into your retirement and invest as you wish, take money on yourself and get more per month or take money as you do on your spouse and get some less per month. I know a AD that retired at 53 his wife still works for the school he took out a 15 year term policy for 1 million and his premiums are cheap enough that taking his retirement in just himself still keeps his monthly amount higher that way. His wife won't retire for another 6-7 years so she is covered if something happens until her retirement kicks in.
Thing is again NO one walks away with what are congressional leaders get for only 5 years of service............ Not just retirement plus their benefits. ACHA is great for every American yet not for our congressional people hum? They write their own rules which I find odd, that should be done by an outside party when it comes to their benefits and perks.
|
|
|
Post by bblwi on Sept 21, 2014 15:58:41 GMT -6
We sure would not live "pretty well" after 5-10 years in our system as a regular employee.(by definition) Here if you are not a political or protective status employee you would not be able to annuitized at 52 and you would take a large hit even at 55. We use the rule of 85 as our norm. That would be age 55 and 30 years at the earliest with about a 7-12% penalty for being under 57. Many times that is waved when they want to encourage older more expensive employees to retire early. In my district I was 58.5 years old with 33.5 years of total service and I was not at 60% so your formulas must be better than ours. Here regular employees typically need to be at about 40 years to max out on the formula and age does not figure in your pension formula it figures in your ability to qualify for full retirement benefits. The real plus of systems like ours is that you start saving day one of employment. Many feel that state or municipal employees are getting a great deal and that is why they retire early. Actually when you start saving at 22 years of age instead of say 35 or 40 it makes all the difference in the world. The other reason for early retirement is that administration would like to see you move on even if you can contribute greatly to your position. It is a way of saving dollars and more likely eliminating and or combining positions etc. A vast number of early retirees find very rewarding work after retiring. Many with 25-35 years of experience and healthy are considered very desirable employees by many firms or those that want to contract with retirees. I have had dozens more job offers in my 7-8 years of retirement than I did in my 31 years of working but then I was not looking very hard then. I was not looking at all since retirement and they all found me.
Bryce
|
|
|
Post by trappincoyotes39 on Sept 21, 2014 17:02:25 GMT -6
Here they take 15 percent of your annual salary and match that with another 15 percent so 30 percent annually without any interest goes into retirement, for young teachers that is a hit for sure, but make it to retirement and your not to bad off. Superintendents say he makes 100,000 that is 30,000 per year being put into retirement 15,000 of his and 15 from the school district.
They upped that rate a few years ago was at 12 percent.
This year they added 5.5 billion in earnings to the retirement program alone. very large program for sure .
You do not receive SS benefits though here in Missouri you can only get your SS from jobs that you paid into SS outside of a Missouri school district.
|
|
|
Post by bblwi on Sept 21, 2014 18:55:24 GMT -6
Sure you don't get SS but then you don't pay in either so that is another 5.49% you can add to your retirement so that lowers the cost of pension to less than 10%. A 15% matching is outstanding. At 30% per year saved one could accumulate a million easily in even 20 years of teaching. If your average salary for 25 years was only 40K that would be 12,000 per year put into your account or 300K. With even a modest 4% growth one would have 450K by the time you were 48 if you started at 23 years of age. If you went an additional 10 years with even a 2 % raise you would gain another 400K. An 80% of 700k would be 56k per year. That would be a very workable retirement and especially if your spouse had a good career as well.
Bryce
|
|
|
Post by PamIsMe on Sept 21, 2014 23:43:58 GMT -6
"ACHA is great for every American yet not for our congressional people hum?"
On January 1, 2014, Members of Congress and their staff will lose their current employment-based health insurance and will instead be offered coverage in the health insurance exchanges established under the new health care law.
"(D) MEMBERS OF CONGRESS IN THE EXCHANGE
(i) REQUIREMENT- Notwithstanding any other provision of law, after the effective date of this subtitle, the only health plans that the Federal Government may make available to Members of Congress and congressional staff with respect to their service as a Member of Congress or congressional staff shall be health plans that are–
(I) created under this Act (or an amendment made by this Act); or
(II) offered through an Exchange established under this Act (or an amendment made by this Act)
================= My single sister-in-law retired from the Missouri school system and is able to live quite well on her retirement pay without social security. I always wondered how they got out of paying into it.
Cheers, Pam
|
|
|
Post by trappincoyotes39 on Sept 22, 2014 5:07:27 GMT -6
Well that is good to know. Wondering what they are paying a month for coverage under the exchange? Listed as available or not available rates? SS you do not have to pay into but you will also not get it back either as a govt entity. it was a big fight had at the state level and the governors office wanted to teach the teachers a lesson, so they did away with SS, besides if your taking 15 percent from a teachers salary for retirement plus all other cost and you add in SS on top of that wow you would starve as a teacher in Missouri until you retired
|
|
|
Post by bblwi on Sept 22, 2014 13:37:51 GMT -6
I agree but with 30% going away each year that is enormous and very favorable for an employee. I would have gladly given up my SS if our state would have paid in 15% for us and yes I would have paid in the 15 as well. I would have about 25% more after 33 years in my monthly retirement check than I do with the both combined now. With the average working baby boomer having les than 100K in retirement today one can see why SS is a critical need for them and why they won't support legislation to take away their benefits. One will probably see a lot more employees working to and past age 66 years 10 months to maximize SS if they can keep working and handle the job. Employees that work where there are huge pressures to kick them out will have to deal with the negative work environments if they plan to defy management and stay on the job. Both retiring early and seeking other employment and staying longer impact our younger work force entries considerably. We are seeing more and more US workers not getting established in careers full time until their late 20s and even mid 30s. This impacts their retirement dates as well and those will be at an older age as well.
With housing no known to be a poor asset for cash in later life, high cost of transportation, food, housing, raising children, educating children etc. it is really difficult for younger families to get a good start on saving for retirement and or building a good retirement revenue stream. With unbelievably low interest rate returns the investments need to go into the more risky securities that have their cycles. Hitting the wrong cycle can really destroy one's retirement revenues. As one of my older bosses stated to me when he retired in the mid 1990s, being born at the right time can be the most important date in your life. He retired and saw his retirement portfolio more than double in 4 years. He was smart enough to secure that growth and got good interest rates until the last few years.
Bryce
|
|
|
Post by PamIsMe on Sept 23, 2014 1:51:48 GMT -6
"Hitting the wrong cycle can really destroy one's retirement revenues."
Tell me about it. The Beav retired when Clinton was President and interest rates were 7%+ His pension was 100% vested and we invested it and thought we could live on the interest for many years. That didn't work out too good, not to mention health insurance costs went thru the roof. Not having a mortgage was a help, and we both have had various part-time work to keep us busy and with extra cash. But in the end, we both ended up taking our SS at age 62. We really couldn't wait any longer. If we didn't have SS and Medicare we'd be in a world of hurt.
I worry somewhat about our kids, they were older than we were when they had kids and we were 25 and 30 when we had them. It'll be a challenge for them to help their kids thru college and then retire themselves. Time goes faster than they think it does.
Pam
|
|
|
Post by jim on Sept 23, 2014 3:54:39 GMT -6
But in the end, we both ended up taking our SS at age 62. We really couldn't wait any longer. If we didn't have SS and Medicare we'd be in a world of hurt.
Pam
I bet if you would have pinched pennies and waited a couple years you would have more than made up for the later start getting SS. The longer you live you would be seeing why you should have tried to wait to collect the SS. Jim
|
|
|
Post by trappnman on Sept 23, 2014 7:20:08 GMT -6
I started collecting at 62.
Why? simple math- the difference in waiting wasn't enough to wait-
in 10 years, waiting until 66 was about a break even, waiting til my 70s only made sense if I lived until my mid 80s
|
|
|
Post by jim on Sept 23, 2014 13:11:58 GMT -6
More than simple math, if you expect to live to a ripe old age(like Pam and Beav hope to) you would come out way ahead. The trapping life should help us get there. Bryce should have some thoughts on this. Jim
|
|
|
Post by PamIsMe on Sept 23, 2014 16:25:00 GMT -6
Everyone hopes to live to a ripe old age, but SS is an insurance and it partly depends on the fact that a good share of people don't live to a ripe old age, especially the ones that wait to collect. 13 years ago the difference between collecting at age 62 and 65 wasn't that much. Now that people have to wait longer, it's a bigger difference, but you have to live long enough to make it pay. When you get into your 60's and see friends dying, it's not so much of an incentive to wait.
The Beav retired at age 58 in 1997 when Clinton was President. If the interest rates would have stayed around 7% and we hadn't had to start taking principle out of the retirement account we could have waited. If he'd have worked until 62 we'd have had a lot more in the retirement fund, but the job stress probably would have killed him.
In any case, we're comfortable and that's fine.
Pam
|
|
|
Post by trappnman on Sept 24, 2014 8:49:27 GMT -6
its nothing but simple math- how can calculating dollars, be determined any other way. lets say (for simple math) your retirement at full retirement age would be $1000
collecting at 62- would reduce that by $250 a month.
so 4 years at $750 a month, would be $36,000 in my pocket the day I turn 66.
$36,000 divided by the $250 a month less, would mean it would take 144 months to reach the swing point of more money in your pocket.
so the point where I would start being money ahead, would be the day I turned 78. and after that, the increase would be $3000 a year. when I turned 80, I'd still only be $6000 LESS by waiting.
and at 62, will I live another 16 years to reach the break even point? maybe- but %wise not.
|
|
|
Post by bblwi on Sept 24, 2014 16:50:31 GMT -6
I waited until I was 65 to collect SS. Why? SS was going up 8% per year and for 3 years that is over 25% more per month, so I worked and did not collect. My job had 3 wage freezes and two 3% pay cuts and one 1% raise over the 5.5 years after my first retirement. My pension went up 7 percent my first 3 years and down 21% the last 4, so SS was by far the only investment that was going up fast. For me that is about 5K per year more by waiting. That replaces 125K of retirement funds that are returning 4% and that is a big deal with low rates. I still have a much higher % of my retirement in securities than they suggest for a 67 year old and I am looking at options to get that to about 40-60 stocks, fixed instead of about 65-35 now. I am, glad that for the first 8 years I have had them in securities because that has helped me build the nest egg I will need. Time to lose one of the jobs and soon, grouse season and trapping are right around the corner. LOL
Bryce
|
|