- This topic has 111 replies, 22 voices, and was last updated 11 years, 7 months ago by
CA renter.
-
AuthorPosts
-
February 22, 2013 at 1:54 PM #759986February 22, 2013 at 1:59 PM #759987
no_such_reality
Participant
February 22, 2013 at 2:03 PM #759988Anonymous
GuestBG, although I know I’m wasting my time here trying to explain this to you, I do want to point out one important flaw in your thinking. You are exclusively focused on federal workers because all the news is talking about the furlough that was announced. But in the defense business there are far more contractors than federal workers. They are the ones who will get axed in the long run. A reduction in force for federal workers is rare and they will be the last ones to go. The impact on the non-federal defense workers is the problem. Do some research and get back to me.
February 22, 2013 at 5:28 PM #759994CA renter
Participant[quote=bearishgurl]ltsdd, it is clear here that you have no experience in government.
My kids had SEVERAL elementary-school teachers who didn’t retire until their 36th-38th year. One teacher didn’t retire until he had taught 40 consecutive 4th grade classes in two district schools. He had their class pics posted on one his classroom walls in chronological order. Yes, showing him standing next to his class sporting every variation of sideburns, full beard, horn-rimmed glasses and Angel Flight pants :=0
A LOT of my kids’ classmates parents were in those photos!
He and his colleagues stayed on for their love of teaching and the kids. CA public school teachers can retire with 30 yrs svc with full pay but many don’t.
They LOVE getting up in the morning and going to school.
[/quote]
Just have to clarify this point. Teachers do NOT get 100% of their pay upon retirement.
“The age factor is the percent of final compensation to which you are entitled for each year of service credit, determined by your age on the last day of the month in which your retirement is effective. It is set at 2% at age 60. The age factor is decreased if you retire before age 60 and increased to a maximum of 2.4% if you retire later than age 60. If you retire with at least 30 years of earned service credit, a 0.2% career factor will be added to your age factor, up to a maximum age factor of 2.4%.
Service credit is the accumulated period of time, in years and partial years, during which you receive creditable compensation for service as a member of the Defined Benefit program.
You may be able to purchase service credit or receive additional credit for unused sick leave.
CalSTRS estimates that the median benefit replaces 60% to 65% of a CalSTRS member’s pre-retirement income. The average monthly member-only benefit is $4,329.**”
http://ctainvest.org/home/CalSTRS-CalPERS/about-calstrs/calstrs-retirement-benefit.aspx
———-
So, even if a teacher works full-time, without any breaks in service, for 40 years, they would receive 96% of their pay. Of course, the number of teachers who actually work 40 full years is miniscule. Most of the “lifers” (usually women without families of their own) will work ~30 years, max. At 30 years, they make ~72% of their pay upon retirement. The vast majority of teachers never make it that long since the attrition rate is extremely high in the teaching profession.
February 22, 2013 at 7:01 PM #759998bearishgurl
Participant[quote=CA renter][quote=bearishgurl]ltsdd, it is clear here that you have no experience in government.
My kids had SEVERAL elementary-school teachers who didn’t retire until their 36th-38th year. One teacher didn’t retire until he had taught 40 consecutive 4th grade classes in two district schools. He had their class pics posted on one his classroom walls in chronological order. Yes, showing him standing next to his class sporting every variation of sideburns, full beard, horn-rimmed glasses and Angel Flight pants :=0
A LOT of my kids’ classmates parents were in those photos!
He and his colleagues stayed on for their love of teaching and the kids. CA public school teachers can retire with 30 yrs svc with full pay but many don’t.
They LOVE getting up in the morning and going to school.
[/quote]
Just have to clarify this point. Teachers do NOT get 100% of their pay upon retirement.
“The age factor is the percent of final compensation to which you are entitled for each year of service credit, determined by your age on the last day of the month in which your retirement is effective. It is set at 2% at age 60. The age factor is decreased if you retire before age 60 and increased to a maximum of 2.4% if you retire later than age 60. If you retire with at least 30 years of earned service credit, a 0.2% career factor will be added to your age factor, up to a maximum age factor of 2.4%.
Service credit is the accumulated period of time, in years and partial years, during which you receive creditable compensation for service as a member of the Defined Benefit program.
You may be able to purchase service credit or receive additional credit for unused sick leave.
CalSTRS estimates that the median benefit replaces 60% to 65% of a CalSTRS member’s pre-retirement income. The average monthly member-only benefit is $4,329.**”
http://ctainvest.org/home/CalSTRS-CalPERS/about-calstrs/calstrs-retirement-benefit.aspx
———-
So, even if a teacher works full-time, without any breaks in service, for 40 years, they would receive 96% of their pay. Of course, the number of teachers who actually work 40 full years is miniscule. Most of the “lifers” (usually women without families of their own) will work ~30 years, max. At 30 years, they make ~72% of their pay upon retirement. The vast majority of teachers never make it that long since the attrition rate is extremely high in the teaching profession.[/quote]
CAR, that is interesting that CalSTRS bases their retirement formula of age at time of retirement. Obviously, in CA, there is a HUGE incentive to work as a public school teacher until at least age 60. An avg of $4329 is much higher of a monthly annuity than I would have figured for a PS educator. I have at least a dozen relative-teachers and public school administrators in two “flyover” states who received 100% of their highest year’s pay as a retirement pay after 30+ years but their pay was obviously much lower than CA school districts pay. I think the the highest paid one is getting a retirement of a little more than half of that but he was a longtime PS Principal.
I should mention that unused sick leave can be substantial, amounting to thousands of hours for a “healthy” teacher where the district not have a “use or lose” policy. Perhaps this (unfair) policy is prohibited by CEA contracts.
I feel so fortunate that my kids were all educated by the highest-seniority, award-winning teachers. They had the good fortune to attend the best schools in the district at the time and that is where the high-seniority teachers flock to. They were ALL wonderful!
February 22, 2013 at 7:02 PM #759999Participantdupe
February 22, 2013 at 7:20 PM #760000Participant[quote=deadzone]BG, although I know I’m wasting my time here trying to explain this to you, I do want to point out one important flaw in your thinking. You are exclusively focused on federal workers because all the news is talking about the furlough that was announced. But in the defense business there are far more contractors than federal workers. They are the ones who will get axed in the long run. A reduction in force for federal workers is rare and they will be the last ones to go. The impact on the non-federal defense workers is the problem. Do some research and get back to me.[/quote]
That’s not what the local news reports are saying, deadzone. They’re talking about some (DOD and Port District) civil service jobs and military functions being axed in SD.
Since no other Piggs have thus far, why don’t YOU take the challenge I posted earlier in the day and get back to me?
[quote=bearishgurl on February 22, 2013 – 9:18am.]Does any Pigg have any concrete evidence from a reliable source, (preferably someone close to the “horses mouth”) that Defense contracting is going to be cut or decimated after the “Federal sequester” takes effect March 1?[/quote]
February 22, 2013 at 8:01 PM #760001GuestAre you seriously retarded BG? Just read today’s F-ing UT.
February 22, 2013 at 8:30 PM #760002ltsddd
Participant[quote=bearishgurl]ltsdd, you didn’t do the math right so there is no sense in arguing with you.
[/quote]That’s the best you could do? Show me how my math wasn’t right. Better yet, please humor me with 1 scenario where a federal employee retiring under FERS would be able to replace 100% of their salary with the pension and TSP.
[quote=bearishgurl]
ltsdd, instead of worrying about how the Federal sequester is going to affect the household finances of retiring DOD workers transitioning to a pension and investments, you might do better in life to apply yourself for one of these jobs and see if you can last long enough to become vested in FERS and receive a 5% TSP funds match :=0
[/quote]I will let you know when I need advice on life and financial management.
[quote=bearishgurl]
Now, go back to work and finish raising your own family (if you have one) so YOU can eventually “retire.”[/quote]Yeah, I get it. When you fail (which is quite often for you) at making a coherent debate, change tactic. Stay classy lady. Stay classy.
Now, back to the delusional assertions that you made
[quote=bearishgurl]The Federal workers that will be let go will retire under FERS.
….
With both of these plans combined, there should be NO loss of income for today’s Federal retirees.[/quote]Please stop introducing more irrelevant bull to the thread and deviate from the original assertions that you made. Just please show me an example how someone could retire under FERS could realize the same income with the FERS and TSP.
February 22, 2013 at 8:48 PM #760003Participant[quote=deadzone]Are you seriously retarded BG? Just read today’s F-ing UT.[/quote]
The Navy has said that current budget problems could force it to slash $219 million of spending in San Diego, most of which was to be used to modernize and repair warships. Hundreds of millions more could be eliminated if an automatic budget cut known as sequestration kicks in on March 1. BAE Systems San Diego Ship Repair notified 1,368 workers this week that they face the risk of being laid off due to the budget problems.
http://www.utsandiego.com/news/2013/feb/22/shipyard-workers-layoffs-san-diego/
I understand that the UT will print anything “newsy” that moves but WHERE did the Navy actually state this?? Why is Congressman Peters and NASSCO/(SW Marine?) all riled up over this?
Re: mandatory cuts triggered by the 2011 Budget Control Act, WHERE is the directive, letter or report signifying the Navy’s intentions? And, if these plans were broadcast via word-of-mouth, WHO stated the Navy’s specific reduction-in-force and cancellation/nonrenewal-of-contract plans for SD and WHEN did they state this?
Advance thanks to any Pigg for their diligent research on this topic 🙂
February 22, 2013 at 8:55 PM #760004GuestI think this is mostly political posturing. Other than the furloughs, I don’t think anybody knows for sure exactly where the cuts will be or how it will play out. The point of sequestration is it is supposed to be “across the board” so that by defintion will negatively impact every aspect of DoD.
The bottom line, people WILL lose jobs. This is NOT good for the local economy. The majority of those who lose their jobs will NOT be able to just ride off into the sunset like the retirees in your fantasy land scenario.
February 22, 2013 at 9:07 PM #760005Participant[quote=ltsdd][quote=bearishgurl]The Federal workers that will be let go will retire under FERS….[/quote]…Now, back to the delusional assertions that you made[/quote]
Actually, this statement is partly in error. If the retirement applicant has ~30 yrs of service, he/she will be retiring under CSRS/TSP (w/o agency match) or CSRS/FERS (w/partial agency match). The combined ~70% retirement under CSRS for a 30 yrs service PLUS TSP contributions over most of the employee’s tenure should make the annuity 90%+ of his/her’s average of their top three years pay.
[quote=ltsdd]Please stop introducing more irrelevant bull to the thread and deviate from the original assertions that you made. Just please show me an example how someone could retire under FERS could realize the same income with the FERS and TSP.[/quote]
They could do it with FERS and TSP contributions with an employer match of 5%.
Why don’t you study the different allocations to determine which one was the best investment since 1982-1983?
Here, let me get you started:
https://www.tsp.gov/investmentfunds/shareprice/sharePriceHistory.shtml
I think this is a “good project” for you, ltsdd. And when you’re done with that, please get back to the Piggs with your “findings.”
At that time, I’ll have some more “exercises” up my sleeve for you to complete to determine the actual monthly retirement pay of our “theoretical longtime-SD DOD worker.”
February 22, 2013 at 9:14 PM #760006Participant[quote=deadzone]I think this is mostly political posturing. Other than the furloughs, I don’t think anybody knows for sure exactly where the cuts will be or how it will play out. The point of sequestration is it is supposed to be “across the board” so that by defintion will negatively impact every aspect of DoD.[/quote]
Okay, then. Instead of “posturing” along with the pundits, why don’t you wait until after March 1 to determine what, if any, non-events actually do take place in SD.
You might sleep easier if you take this stance 🙂
February 22, 2013 at 9:28 PM #760007GuestAnd why don’t you wait until after March 1st before giving any more uneducated opinions and speculation about subjects you no nothing about.
February 22, 2013 at 9:32 PM #760008Participant[quote=bearishgurl][quote=ltsdd][quote=bearishgurl]The Federal workers that will be let go will retire under FERS….[/quote]…Now, back to the delusional assertions that you made[/quote]
Actually, this statement is partly in error. If the retirement applicant has ~30 yrs of service, he/she will be retiring under CSRS/TSP (w/o agency match) or CSRS/FERS (w/partial agency match). The combined ~70% retirement under CSRS for a 30 yrs service PLUS TSP contributions over most of the employee’s tenure should make the annuity 90%+ of his/her’s average of their top three years pay.
[/quote]Good job. Bonus credit for admitting your mistakes.
[quote=bearishgurl]
[quote=ltsdd]Please stop introducing more irrelevant bull to the thread and deviate from the original assertions that you made. Just please show me an example how someone could retire under FERS could realize the same income with the FERS and TSP.[/quote]They could do it with FERS and TSP contributions with an employer match of 5%.
[/quote]Oh, so now you’re not so sure. I knew you’d come around, eventually. Again, good job.
[quote=bearishgurl]
Why don’t you study the different allocations to determine which one was the best investment since 1982-1983?Here, let me get you started:
https://www.tsp.gov/investmentfunds/shareprice/sharePriceHistory.shtml
I think this is a “good project” for you, ltsdd. And when you’re done with that, please get back to the Piggs with your “findings.”
At that time, I’ll have some more “exercises” up my sleeve for you to complete to determine the actual monthly retirement pay of our “theoretical longtime-SD DOD worker.”[/quote]
Actually, wouldn’t it be easier for you to stick your nose into your neighbor’s (the one that retired with $300K+ in TSP) to hear it directly from the “horse’s” mouth? Besides, I am not so sure about my math – I still couldn’t figure out how 80%=100%.
BTW., I don’t have a problem with one profession vs another or how cushy one job vs another, etc. So, whatever these federal employees get in retirement is of non-consequential as far as I am concerned. I do have problems with people yapping nonsense, unsubstantiated bullshit and try to convince people that they are facts.
-
AuthorPosts
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.