gbpfan1231 Posted March 23, 2011 Share Posted March 23, 2011 http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000142405...IDDLETopStories The article talks about the increase in public workers retiring. This article gives an example of a married couple from Wisconsin. They say they don't want to retire and complaining that retirement is supposed to make people happy but it is making them sad. Then why are they retiring? Yes you may take less money home because you have to pay into your pension and some health costs but you are still getting paid and you are still going to get your pension if you retire in say 4 years. What am I missing here - what is forcing these people to retire? I also can't believe this couple from Wisconsin is complaining to a national newspaper about this bad situation. They are in mid 50's and can retire and they even say in the article that the woman will still collect almost her former salary. Who else could retire in mid 50's and get almost full salary and who would complain? This is insane!!! By the way these two people make a combined salary and benes of over $190,000. I think I would work a couple more years and live high off the hog!! I know my last couple paragraphs are beating a dead horse from earlier topics but my first question does not make sense to me? Why the rush to retire? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Big Country Posted March 23, 2011 Share Posted March 23, 2011 They are retiring because they fear losing planned for benefits. What I don't get is the bittersweet thing they are saying... they are retiring, will be locked in such that they are earning close to what they were pre-retirement, and then are coming back and substitute teaching as well. Seems like they get their cake (income) and can eat it too (work only when they want as a substitute) If they keep working and end up in a deal where they lose those pension benefits or have them reduced, it would have been foolish of them to have kept working like you suggest. Seems to me that retiring is the safe play. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tosberg34 Posted March 23, 2011 Share Posted March 23, 2011 (edited) Couple things about the article: They put in their papers in mid-March after lawmakers voted to rein in most public-employee collective-bargaining rights. Clearly a lie. If they were rights then ALL of us would have them. They are called "privileges" - which is a far cry from being an actual "right". Give me a break. A teacher for 35 years who earns in the high 50s She clearly lied about her salary to gain sympathy votes. Here is her real salary and benefits totaling more than 81K. And here is her husband's totaling about 105K. Lying about her salary already precludes me believing anything else she has to say. Yeah, you have it tough. Don't know why the WSJ of all papers would not fact check their numbers when they are clearly available. Not only am I losing salary and benefits and facing a bigger work load, but now they are taking away my rights See first two points. Looks like you'll be getting close to your current salary even in retirement. Again, another lie. But the loss of veterans threatens to erode the quality of public services that make communities attractive, Maybe, but nobody is irreplaceable. A fact that many in public service seem to forget. People always step up to fill the void. Thank you for your service and you've done a wonderful job, but if you want to retire go ahead. The sun will rise tomorrow and life will still go on. Your retirement just opened up an opportunity for someone else - just like someone's retirement opened up an opportunity for you when you were young. Edited March 23, 2011 by tosberg34 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gbpfan1231 Posted March 23, 2011 Author Share Posted March 23, 2011 They are retiring because they fear losing planned for benefits. What I don't get is the bittersweet thing they are saying... they are retiring, will be locked in such that they are earning close to what they were pre-retirement, and then are coming back and substitute teaching as well. Seems like they get their cake (income) and can eat it too (work only when they want as a substitute) If they keep working and end up in a deal where they lose those pension benefits or have them reduced, it would have been foolish of them to have kept working like you suggest. Seems to me that retiring is the safe play. I see what you are saying but I did not read or hear anything about any public workers losing benefits. With this many people opting to retire was something in the works to change the pension rules or eliminate certain things that it makes sense to retire? I can see it makes sense with these two they basically lose nothing and may even gain by continuing to work as substitute teachers. Insane! No way in hell I am going to be able to retire in mid 50's. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Riffraff Posted March 23, 2011 Share Posted March 23, 2011 When times get tough, benefits can be the first to go. Seems like the public workers are cashing in before the retirment rules change. Probably a higher retirement age mixed in wwith lower benefits. Example: Washington state gov has had a hiring freeze for a few years and the also have no pay raises for a few years. More work for the same or possibly less pay. They said in the article that the pay gap between working and retiring shank to make working for the same institution less reasonable. An example would be: Say they make $50k a year working, but are eligible to retire with $35k. Obviously not all inclusive, but they are essentially working for $15k a year since they are giving up the other $35k to stay employed by the current employer. Basically they can stop working and live off roughly $1k less a month. I'd do it. That's for sure. Or they could still get other jobs while drawing the retirement pay. Double dip. .... At least that's my take on the article. Could be way off though. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gbpfan1231 Posted March 23, 2011 Author Share Posted March 23, 2011 When times get tough, benefits can be the first to go. Seems like the public workers are cashing in before the retirment rules change. Probably a higher retirement age mixed in wwith lower benefits. Example: Washington state gov has had a hiring freeze for a few years and the also have no pay raises for a few years. More work for the same or possibly less pay. They said in the article that the pay gap between working and retiring shank to make working for the same institution less reasonable. An example would be: Say they make $50k a year working, but are eligible to retire with $35k. Obviously not all inclusive, but they are essentially working for $15k a year since they are giving up the other $35k to stay employed by the current employer. Basically they can stop working and live off roughly $1k less a month. I'd do it. That's for sure. Or they could still get other jobs while drawing the retirement pay. Double dip. .... At least that's my take on the article. Could be way off though. I think you are probably right but it does beg the question about what are all the complaints?? Also - by doing this complaining are they not also proving out that being able to retire mid 50's and still make basically the same money is maybe the reason states are going broke? Isn't this scenario exactly what needs to be fixed??? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Footballjoe Posted March 23, 2011 Share Posted March 23, 2011 I have a city government job and qualify for full retirement benefits. I didn't read the article but here are a few things keeping me from retirement. There are deductions taken from the retirement money that I would not have to pay out if working. First off, I would have to start paying my own health insurance (currently the company pays for mine, not my wife's) along with my wife's and its at a slightly higher rate than if I was working. So my health insurance would more than double. Also, if I want my wife to get survivor benefits (get a check if I died) that would cost me $500 a month. On top of that I still have to pay taxes. Getting another job is OK if you can find one that pays half way decent. I have been looking for another city government job so I could get a good health insurance plan at a reasonable price but so far the salaries that are being offered is the pits. I have noticed that the hiring salaries are not what they use to be. I was offered one job out of state but I do not think the amount offered was enough to make the move, although I am beginning to think otherwise. Another point is the vacation leave. I get 24 days a year vacation and 12 days sick. If I started a new job that would be drastically reduced. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gbpfan1231 Posted March 23, 2011 Author Share Posted March 23, 2011 I have a city government job and qualify for full retirement benefits. I didn't read the article but here are a few things keeping me from retirement. There are deductions taken from the retirement money that I would not have to pay out if working. First off, I would have to start paying my own health insurance (currently the company pays for mine, not my wife's) along with my wife's and its at a slightly higher rate than if I was working. So my health insurance would more than double. Also, if I want my wife to get survivor benefits (get a check if I died) that would cost me $500 a month. On top of that I still have to pay taxes. Getting another job is OK if you can find one that pays half way decent. I have been looking for another city government job so I could get a good health insurance plan at a reasonable price but so far the salaries that are being offered is the pits. I have noticed that the hiring salaries are not what they use to be. I was offered one job out of state but I do not think the amount offered was enough to make the move, although I am beginning to think otherwise. Another point is the vacation leave. I get 24 days a year vacation and 12 days sick. If I started a new job that would be drastically reduced. All that seems very normal - you sure you work for govt? Few things you mentioned are different here in WI - the people in the article get full benefit coverage until age 65 so that is not a deterrant and they also have the surviving spouse collecting the pension if one of them passes away. Sounds like a slam dunk that this couple will have no issues retiring. I am not shedding any tears for this couple. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.