Retirement - What services does your country provide?
-
@scottalanmiller said:
@MattSpeller said:
@scottalanmiller said:
@MattSpeller said:
@Dashrender said:
@MattSpeller said:
Solid pensions from both the company I work at and the one prior.
Unless you work for the government, that's not the same - and even if you do, that's not what I'm really going for... What you're talking about is employer benefits, even if the employer is the gov't.
DBPP baby
Defined benefit pension plan. 75% of your last 3 years of pay averaged until you croak.
That REALLY screws people who try to do any work towards the end. That is an "early retirement system" for sure.
It's so that you can go half time to train your replacement in the last months / year and take no hit on your pension
How does it do that? If you take half time you would lower your average. It would make me never do half time or take any downgrade in pay.
Most are just your last year. With the average if you have any health issues or want to ease into it there's less effect on your pension.
-
@MattSpeller said:
@scottalanmiller said:
@MattSpeller said:
@scottalanmiller said:
@MattSpeller said:
@Dashrender said:
@MattSpeller said:
Solid pensions from both the company I work at and the one prior.
Unless you work for the government, that's not the same - and even if you do, that's not what I'm really going for... What you're talking about is employer benefits, even if the employer is the gov't.
DBPP baby
Defined benefit pension plan. 75% of your last 3 years of pay averaged until you croak.
That REALLY screws people who try to do any work towards the end. That is an "early retirement system" for sure.
It's so that you can go half time to train your replacement in the last months / year and take no hit on your pension
How does it do that? If you take half time you would lower your average. It would make me never do half time or take any downgrade in pay.
Most are just your last year. With the average if you have any health issues or want to ease into it there's less effect on your pension.
Less than what? I've never heard of any plan that would have more of an effect on it.
-
@scottalanmiller said:
@MattSpeller said:
@Dashrender said:
@MattSpeller said:
Solid pensions from both the company I work at and the one prior.
Unless you work for the government, that's not the same - and even if you do, that's not what I'm really going for... What you're talking about is employer benefits, even if the employer is the gov't.
DBPP baby
Defined benefit pension plan. 75% of your last 3 years of pay averaged until you croak.
That REALLY screws people who try to do any work towards the end. That is an "early retirement system" for sure.
How is this a screw though? Because what? you assume people in their last few years normally go part time instead of staying full time until retirement?
-
@Dashrender said:
@scottalanmiller said:
@MattSpeller said:
@Dashrender said:
@MattSpeller said:
Solid pensions from both the company I work at and the one prior.
Unless you work for the government, that's not the same - and even if you do, that's not what I'm really going for... What you're talking about is employer benefits, even if the employer is the gov't.
DBPP baby
Defined benefit pension plan. 75% of your last 3 years of pay averaged until you croak.
That REALLY screws people who try to do any work towards the end. That is an "early retirement system" for sure.
How is this a screw though? Because what? you assume people in their last few years normally go part time instead of staying full time until retirement?
That's what he stated. He specifically said that people in their last few years were expected to go part time. This would totally hose them.
Lots of people slow down before totally retiring. Think about every person working at Walmart as a greeter. They made way more twenty years ago, I guarantee.
Lots of people from high demand fields make the most in their 40s and 50s, not 60s or 70s.
-
@MattSpeller said:
@Dashrender said:
@MattSpeller said:
Solid pensions from both the company I work at and the one prior.
Unless you work for the government, that's not the same - and even if you do, that's not what I'm really going for... What you're talking about is employer benefits, even if the employer is the gov't.
DBPP baby
Defined benefit pension plan. 75% of your last 3 years of pay averaged until you croak.
Actually I hate these types of systems, they allow employees to screw the employer/government.
The firefighters in Omaha have a plan like this - it's the last 6 years instead of three. So they just decide early when they plan to retire.. then they milk the damned clock for all they can possibly get, typically working 1.4 - 1.7 times normal driving their retirement numbers high.
Of course the city (or whomever is in charge of fire fighter schedules) is also to blame for this shit, because they should simply not allow those employees to have more than normal hours.
What's worse... Most Firefighters around here retire at 45-50 years old...
-
@scottalanmiller said:
@Dashrender said:
@scottalanmiller said:
@MattSpeller said:
@Dashrender said:
@MattSpeller said:
Solid pensions from both the company I work at and the one prior.
Unless you work for the government, that's not the same - and even if you do, that's not what I'm really going for... What you're talking about is employer benefits, even if the employer is the gov't.
DBPP baby
Defined benefit pension plan. 75% of your last 3 years of pay averaged until you croak.
That REALLY screws people who try to do any work towards the end. That is an "early retirement system" for sure.
How is this a screw though? Because what? you assume people in their last few years normally go part time instead of staying full time until retirement?
That's what he stated. He specifically said that people in their last few years were expected to go part time. This would totally hose them.
Lots of people slow down before totally retiring. Think about every person working at Walmart as a greeter. They made way more twenty years ago, I guarantee.
Lots of people from high demand fields make the most in their 40s and 50s, not 60s or 70s.
yes, but he didn't mention about reduced hours until after you said it was terrible solution.
-
@scottalanmiller said:
@MattSpeller said:
@Dashrender said:
@MattSpeller said:
Solid pensions from both the company I work at and the one prior.
Unless you work for the government, that's not the same - and even if you do, that's not what I'm really going for... What you're talking about is employer benefits, even if the employer is the gov't.
DBPP baby
Defined benefit pension plan. 75% of your last 3 years of pay averaged until you croak.
That REALLY screws people who try to do any work towards the end. That is an "early retirement system" for sure.
-
@Dashrender said:
@MattSpeller said:
@Dashrender said:
@MattSpeller said:
Solid pensions from both the company I work at and the one prior.
Unless you work for the government, that's not the same - and even if you do, that's not what I'm really going for... What you're talking about is employer benefits, even if the employer is the gov't.
DBPP baby
Defined benefit pension plan. 75% of your last 3 years of pay averaged until you croak.
Actually I hate these types of systems, they allow employees to screw the employer/government.
The firefighters in Omaha have a plan like this - it's the last 6 years instead of three. So they just decide early when they plan to retire.. then they milk the damned clock for all they can possibly get, typically working 1.4 - 1.7 times normal driving their retirement numbers high.
Of course the city (or whomever is in charge of fire fighter schedules) is also to blame for this shit, because they should simply not allow those employees to have more than normal hours.
What's worse... Most Firefighters around here retire at 45-50 years old...
Anything that uses your last couple years makes you want to retire the moment you can bust ass, drive up the rate and check out. It's a terrible system. Maybe it should be on your lifetime total, not average. A person working six years gets as much as a person working fifty on those systems!
-
@scottalanmiller said:
A person working six years gets as much as a person working fifty on those systems!
Yeah - OK I'm sure there are thing about required length of service, etc.
For example in the local major primary school district they have the retiring rule of 85, Years of service + age = you can retire at full benefits.
-
@Dashrender said:
@scottalanmiller said:
A person working six years gets as much as a person working fifty on those systems!
Yeah - OK I'm sure there are thing about required length of service, etc.
Yeah, but unless that length requirement is even (e.g. 40 years and you retire period, no matter when you started) it isn't fair.
-
@scottalanmiller said:
@Dashrender said:
@scottalanmiller said:
A person working six years gets as much as a person working fifty on those systems!
Yeah - OK I'm sure there are thing about required length of service, etc.
Yeah, but unless that length requirement is even (e.g. 40 years and you retire period, no matter when you started) it isn't fair.
I see what you're saying, haven't decided if I agree or not.
-
@Dashrender said:
For example in the local major primary school district they have the retiring rule of 85, Years of service + age = you can retire at full benefits.
That's not fair, but better.
If you start working at age 20, you get to retire at 53 but you have to work for 33 years to earn that.
To retire if you started at 40, you get to retire at 62, but you only had to put in 22 years of work. The system pays you a lot more for doing a lot less.
-
@Dashrender said:
@scottalanmiller said:
@Dashrender said:
@scottalanmiller said:
A person working six years gets as much as a person working fifty on those systems!
Yeah - OK I'm sure there are thing about required length of service, etc.
Yeah, but unless that length requirement is even (e.g. 40 years and you retire period, no matter when you started) it isn't fair.
I see what you're saying, haven't decided if I agree or not.
Agree that it is fair for some people to get paid for every year that they work and some not? That's basically what it amounts to. Other than the fact that you could just opt not to work so long, which I'll give is your own fault if you are foolish enough to work without full pay. But it screws the best people and rewards the lazy.
-
@scottalanmiller said:
@Dashrender said:
For example in the local major primary school district they have the retiring rule of 85, Years of service + age = you can retire at full benefits.
That's not fair, but better.
If you start working at age 20, you get to retire at 53 but you have to work for 33 years to earn that.
To retire if you started at 40, you get to retire at 62, but you only had to put in 22 years of work. The system pays you a lot more for doing a lot less.
That's not how it works, I'll have to dig into my old paperwork to sort it out but it's something* like 25 or 30 years and each company that employed you has their own system and would give you a % based on your years worked for them.
*this may be inaccurate, but it's the best I can do for now
Edit: this is also the reason why I have 3 different pension paperwork things to sort out and merge into one big "glob" and invest / take care of myself. Not an issue if you work for the same place for however long it takes to build retirement thingys.
-
When my dad retired from the US AirForce I guess you could say he screwed himself. You retire with full benefits at 20 years. you get no bonus for working more than 20 years, other than if you are making more money after 20, then you retire at the whatever that pay was. He retired at 25 years. I suppose the argument could be that he could have retired 5 years earlier making the same or even more than he was in the service, AND receiving his military retirement pay.
-
@Dashrender said:
When my dad retired from the US AirForce I guess you could say he screwed himself. You retire with full benefits at 20 years. you get no bonus for working more than 20 years, other than if you are making more money after 20, then you retire at the whatever that pay was. He retired at 25 years. I suppose the argument could be that he could have retired 5 years earlier making the same or even more than he was in the service, AND receiving his military retirement pay.
Yeah, he more or less worked for free for five years, I would guess.
-
@scottalanmiller said:
@Dashrender said:
When my dad retired from the US AirForce I guess you could say he screwed himself. You retire with full benefits at 20 years. you get no bonus for working more than 20 years, other than if you are making more money after 20, then you retire at the whatever that pay was. He retired at 25 years. I suppose the argument could be that he could have retired 5 years earlier making the same or even more than he was in the service, AND receiving his military retirement pay.
Yeah, he more or less worked for free for five years, I would guess.
Why do you say that? I'll give you that he worked for only 50% because military retirement is 50% pay. He was able to take major advantage of the situation though.. those 5 years were spend running the skeet range on base for like 15 hours a week at full pay. The rest of the time he worked off base at another job. So for him, he earned half is old pay for 15 hour instead of 40 in a super easy job on the range. lol