Sure. But it takes effort to do so. There are too many people that put off saving for retirement. Then they hit 60 and realize it's too late. What I'm saying is that for a society, pensions worked well because it didn't require intervention and you couldn't just put it off. Taking it out of the hands of individuals was the best for society because there are too many irresponsible individuals.
John Deere strike imminent?
- Thread starter ISUCyclones2015
- Start date
Sure. But it takes effort to do so. There are too many people that put off saving for retirement. Then they hit 60 and realize it's too late. What I'm saying is that for a society, pensions worked well because it didn't require intervention and you couldn't just put it off. Taking it out of the hands of individuals was the best for society because there are too many irresponsible individuals.
Here is what I can tell you about Pensions
1. Principal is the #1 servicer of pension plans
2. I work at Principal
3. Principal has cut so much from their own pension plan that EE's don't even consider it a big benefit.
So if Principal is killing off their own pension plan......
1. Principal is the #1 servicer of pension plans
2. I work at Principal
3. Principal has cut so much from their own pension plan that EE's don't even consider it a big benefit.
So if Principal is killing off their own pension plan......
As long as the pension had a responsible pension manager...
We'll have to disagree. I don't think taking things out of the hands of individuals is generally a good thing.
If they would say, keep half your SS tax but never receive a penny from it I would sign up immediately. I prefer the control myself.
I would opt out of the system in a heartbeat if I could.
Being forced to invest at a 0% (or worse!) real rate of return isn't some great breakthrough.
In fact, it is a serious hindrance to poor Americans building wealth.
Every IPERS member can set up an account at anytime and see how much money they will receive each month when they hit their rule of 88 and how much more they will receive if they go on and teach longer. We looked over my wife's last night as she is planning on retiring sometime next year. So there should never be any mystery to what a person is going to receive from IPERS.
If you hit your rule of 88 you are entitled to 60% of your highest five year wages, that is going to be less than they are currently making and many would have to purchase insurance on the own., But at age 62 when they can start drawing SS, everyone of them is making more drawing IPERS and SS both pre and post tax, then what they are currently making at their IPERS covered job now.
I have only know one person that retired at 55, and he returned to teaching half time within 6 months of retiring, double dipping getting his full IPERS and 50% of his former salary. We had 2 teachers do the same thing this past year, they started back Oct. 1st, both in the early 60's.
Last edited:
Or starving to death when they do not any other retirement plans like the majority of Americans.
No, SS is an insurance program. The mandatory savings program you own the money.
IPERS has nothing to do with insurance for its members, so whether the city or school offered them anything would totally be up to that city or school. Generally speaking school administrators get theirs covered through their buy out when they leave, my wife will get 5 weeks vacation paid out to here, so its just a year by year basis for many.
My wife and continue to stay on the cities insurance program but she will have to pay for it, but since its a group plan its cheaper then if she had to purchased as an individual.
You can call it whatever you want, but for a majority of Americans, that is all the money they will have coming in when they retire.
I agree with you that people are generally stupid.
To quote President Selina Meyer, "I've met some people, some real people, and I got to tell you, a lot of them are ******* idiots."
This is not a justification, however, to force those of us who know what we're doing into a system that generates near-zero or even negative (in real terms) returns in the long term.
It is also no justification for forcing people who have little spare income in the first place to lock up so much of it into assets that generate essentially no return. When what little they have to invest is locked up in a strategy that is so risk-adverse as to be destructive... you're not actually helping them.
No financial advisor would recommend such destructive levels of conservatism.
You're holding them back. No wonder they'll never catch up.
By the time I retire we're gonna be talking about Universal Basic Income because by that time all the jobs we know and love today, like turning wrenches and flipping burgers, are just gonna be covered by automation.
I guess on the merits of one is forced and one is not, I can see that. But the same can just be said about people just deciding they aren't going to work at any point of their life or pay their bills, so I just don't find it to be a compelling argument that there is a drastic need for a company/employer parallel to SS. As for SS going away, probably not happening beyond means testing.
Many of her coworkers mention they don’t understand the cost of insurance and that you really need to earn close to the same when you retire. Those are the things many of them say they learn in their meeting. You can disagree with that but that is what they say.
Reminds me of the once and final refutation of the labor theory of value --
Someday soon, a capitalist will lay off the last of his workers yet see no negative effect on his income or his profit as the fully-automated factory continues to produce.
I was thinking around 60% had retirement plans. While that is still a low number, it’s not the majority only having SS.
It is going to take some pretty heinous tax increases to keep it able to pay its promised benefits.
Most research suggests means testing is like the pumps on the RMS Titanic --
"The pumps will buy you time, but minutes only."
Sub out minutes for months or maybe a few years and that statement holds.
Lots of Boomers in this thread that I'm sure don't care, though. They "got theirs" and will get out before those tax increases hit on their children and grandchildren. Must be nice to pay less into a system than you're going to get out and force others (and oftentimes others who were very young or not even born when all these decisions were made) with the threat of violence to cover for your own multigenerational mismanagement and greed. And yes, I mean violence. If you don't pay your taxes, men with guns come and put you in a cage.
I’m not one of these people that say we shouldn’t have anything going for retirement. I think we should transition away from SS to a mandatory retirement savings program.
So really believe that one of the reasons that people in the US are poor is that they are required to pay into SS, and without that, they would then work themselves out of poverty and build wealth.
Would you care to enlighten me on how this would work?
