PDA

View Full Version : i guess this must be the plan on how to get rid of retirement obligations



chad
2nd August 2010, 10:49 AM
raise the retirement age to 88 or 90. then no one will be able to collect it anyway, so who cares if it's insolvent. :-\

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/08/02/cash-strapped-states-push_n_667189.html

In response to the massive pension obligations owed to soon-to-retire baby boomers, at least 10 states have voted to push back the retirement age of their employees, the Wall Street Journal reports. Those hoping to receive a full pension will have to work longer or pay a higher penalty for retiring early.

Such measures follow last week's announcement that state governments plan to fire nearly 500,000 employees in the coming year. Across the country, states face unpaid bills, furloughs and pay cuts for government workers.

It also complements a larger federal debate currently taking place: delaying Social Security benefits. House Minority Leader John Boehner, for instance, controversially told the Pittsburgh Tribune-Review he favors pushing back the retirement age to 70 years old.

How much would it save? No one knows for sure, but Alice Munnell, director of the Center for Retirement Research at Boston College, told the WSJ. "Increasing the retirement age is the single most important thing [states] can do" to tame future pension costs, because it reduces the number of years the state is paying a benefit.

The most affected state is Colorado, where the retirement rule -- the sum of a worker's age plus years of service --has been increased to 88 as of 2011, and 90 as of 2017, the WSJ reports. Arizona's retirement rule is 85. Find out if your state is affected here.

The moves mimic the growing austerity push in European countries like France (where the retirement age has been pushed back to 62) and Britain (where the retirement age has been scrapped altogether.)

cortez
2nd August 2010, 10:53 AM
the more goobermint they create the faster it self implodes :P

VX1
2nd August 2010, 11:22 AM
House Minority Leader John Boehner, for instance, controversially told the Pittsburgh Tribune-Review he favors pushing back the retirement age to 70 years old.
I'll accept the same retirement age and benefits as my "representatives", please. After all, if they are representing me, seems the rules they impose on me, must also apply to them. When the rules your representatives impose don't apply to themselves, you are being ruled, rather than represented. Simple as that.

Ponce
2nd August 2010, 11:55 AM
Retire at 62 eight years ago and never been sorry about it......the few dollars lost for not waiting to be 65 was not worth the wait.

At 70 I am very healthy and never get sick but..........I can feel my body slowing down, I think that a good age to retired everyone would be 67........even across the board.

In what is to come it will not matter since you will be retired even if you don't want to because there will be no jobs to retire from.........a company in the US is coming out with a glass called "Gorilla Glass" invented back in the 60's and which will make BILLIONS......and guess where they are going to open the new factory? JAPAN.

Anyway, I feel that I just got under the wire by retiring at 62 and happy about it......plan your future right and a bright future you will have..........but of course that's not counting WWIII.

First post of the day...............good morning to one and all.

Saul Mine
2nd August 2010, 04:35 PM
House Minority Leader John Boehner, for instance, controversially told the Pittsburgh Tribune-Review he favors pushing back the retirement age to 70 years old.
I'll accept the same retirement age and benefits as my "representatives", please. After all, if they are representing me, seems the rules they impose on me, must also apply to them. When the rules your representatives impose don't apply to themselves, you are being ruled, rather than represented. Simple as that.


That is worth repeating.

ShortJohnSilver
2nd August 2010, 04:51 PM
In what is to come it will not matter since you will be retired even if you don't want to because there will be no jobs to retire from.........a company in the US is coming out with a glass called "Gorilla Glass" invented back in the 60's and which will make BILLIONS......and guess where they are going to open the new factory? JAPAN.

First post of the day...............good morning to one and all.


To be fair though they do have a factory in Kentucky also ... but making the glass near where the rest of the cell phone and/or flat screen TV is assembled makes sense. It DOES show how little manufacturing of even high tech items takes place in the USA.

StackerKen
2nd August 2010, 05:51 PM
the sum of a worker's age plus years of service --has been increased to 88 as of 2011

that doesn't seem totally unreasonable to me

30 years on the job and you can retire at 58

The Union I belong to (carpenters) requires a person to be a whopping 68 before they can draw their full pension

OR
30 years on the job (hours worked)...and you can draw the full amount at any age.
They wanted to change that recently...but we voted to just put more $$ towards the fund instead.

I have 29 and a half years vested ....but work has stopped for now :(

Talk about bad timing >:(