[quote=briansd1]CA renter, I really don’t follow your logic. . . [/quote]
brian, part of this “topic” is that when pensions were “enhanced” at the City and County level here in SD, the employee contributions not only became mandatory but employees who were already contributing to the “system,” in addition to employees just beginning to contribute had 2-3x as much taken from their paychecks as “retirement contibutions” than under the old plan. The “Class C” employees (all forms of public safety workers) begin contributing at younger ages as their earliest eligible regular retirement age is set at 50 (instead of 55) and so the removal of 2-3x their previous contributions out of their paychecks hit them harder and younger.
Much of the money invested in a local public sector employee’s pension (percentage depends on age and retirement “tier”) is actually the employee’s own money with which they have no say on how it is invested.
That’s what a lot of the public doesn’t seem to understand. Beginning at age 45, these non-safety public employees under a newer “enhanced” retirement system also don’t have a choice as to how much is deducted and/or how much this contribution is raised every year (on their birthdays).
Employees who retired under an older, much less generous system and “tier,” such as myself, didn’t have to make these types of ever-growing contributions out of their paychecks.
