Tuesday, November 22, 2016

Pension Costs Going UP

Calwatchdog reports pension costs are likely to increase even more:

"Although no action has been taken, it’s clear the California Public Employees’ Retirement System, or CalPERS, might again lower its expected rate of returns on investments. That means cities and other member agencies would have to pay more to make up the shortfall."

That makes it likely our recent tax increases weren't the end of it.

37 Comments:

At 9:28 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

20th century pension plans are antiquated and based on last century's statistics. People live longer and stay physically fit well beyond the age set for retirement. I don't understand why old people don't work more.

I would like to understand the requirements of older retired people better but the vast umbrella of socialist programs currently in place make it difficult.

Where should I get good info Fred?

 
At 9:39 AM, Blogger Fred Mangels said...

I don't know. I'm also not sure about older folks being able to continue working. Gary Johnson, and others, have proposed raising the age to collect social security to something like 70 years or older. That makes me shudder as I can barely handle the physical aspect of my job now, at 61.

The bottom line, seems to me, is if people saved for their own retirement via IRAs and such they could retire when they're able to without needing government permission. That's easier said than done, though. We both had IRAs we had to use for medical expenses so they're gone now.

Next August I turn 62 and am planning on applying for social security, assuming it's still available.

 
At 10:04 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Bummer to hear about your physical limitations Fred, can you change jobs? And, August is only nine months in the future. What makes you think Social Security will be unavailable then? My understanding is that Trump doesn't want to upset old people too much.

If the new administration makes Social Security unavailable as you intimated, what will be your plan of action? It's good to get information on how others are managing their transition into old age.

 
At 10:14 AM, Blogger Fred Mangels said...

Changing jobs might be difficult for a 61 year old with no particular skills. It's kinda scary being in this position.

By most accounts there aren't enough people paying in to social security as there are drawing from it, thus the people you hear saying it's going broke. It might be a while before the money runs out, though, and something I read recently pointed out it wouldn't go broke in the normal sense of the word. They'll just print money to cover that debt, pretty much as they do now. That person did say social security payments will likely not get cost of living raises.

If social security doesn't work, I guess I'll have to try and keep working, no matter how painful it might be physically (and emotionally). I've told myself I'll still keep some of my accounts- the easy ones, if for no other reason than to get myself out of the house. Otherwise, I'd be sitting here all day, every day.

 
At 10:16 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Does anyone know how the government retirement age has changed over the years? Do people live longer now? When Social Security was enacted, didn't people die on average at a younger age? It makes sense to me to raise the age of retirement in tandem with the rise in life expectancy.

I suppose we could impose a time/monetary limit on benifit collection, but wouldn't that make some beneficiaries angry?

 
At 10:41 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Bummer to hear about your deteriorating health Fred. That definitely make aging harder. I hope it doesn't deter you from accomplishing your goals.

I suppose retirement is different these days. When I was young lots of retired people in my area were actively engaged with the community and worked hard to make it a nice place to live. Is Eureka anything like that? I don't know anyone in town over 50, or I'd ask them.

It's interesting to speculate what the current crop of local retirees will do in our community.

 
At 10:56 AM, Blogger Fred Mangels said...

"Does anyone know how the government retirement age has changed over the years?"

I read somewhere not long ago that the first person to draw social security beat the system. Social security was designed with a life span of 45 or 60 years in mind. I forget which but that was the life expectancy at the time. The first SS receipient was some lady that lived to the ripe old age of 90 something, getting a lot more out of SS than she put in.

While it's true people are expected to live much longer now, I question their ability to continue working up into their 80s or 90s. Maybe some can, but not most, for either physical or mental reasons.

 
At 11:00 AM, Blogger Fred Mangels said...

Just found this doing a search for "first recipient of social security". No mention of her age at death, but she made out quite well with social security:

Ida May Fuller worked for three years under the Social Security program. The accumulated taxes on her salary during those three years was a total of $24.75. Her initial monthly check was $22.54. During her lifetime she collected a total of $22,888.92 in Social Security benefits.

 
At 11:04 AM, Blogger Fred Mangels said...

" I don't know anyone in town over 50, or I'd ask them."

You could always stop by the Senior Center on California Street in Eureka, find a few old folks, and ask.

 
At 11:25 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...


"You could always stop by the Senior Center on California Street in Eureka, find a few old folks, and ask."

Do they offer an outreach program to help young people understand them? Hell, while it sounds reasonable, I wouldn't know how to either initiate or sustain such a conversation.

Are there any bars in town where the self-styled retired intelligensia hang out and enjoy good conversation? Back in the days when print media ruled, when I wanted a drink and good conversation about local issues, I would head for watering holes frequented by the press. I'm still searching for stimulating bar talk in Humboldt.

 
At 11:31 AM, Blogger Fred Mangels said...

I'm unaware of any oldie bars.

 
At 11:47 AM, Blogger Bob Wallace said...

" We both had IRAs we had to use for medical expenses so they're gone now."

Did you have health insurance?

If you did, did your policies leave a lot uncovered?

 
At 12:16 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Doesn't have to be an oldie bar. Remember how I used to enjoy chatting up the local reporters? They were usually young. What bars are good for intellectually stimulating conversations with non-oldies?

I am considering going to the Elks club for their cribbage night.

 
At 12:29 PM, Blogger Henchman Of Justice said...

Pensions are exactly why a limited, small government is the only way.

Quit hiring, quit making bigger and bigger....

Don't be persuaded by takers in life who want free services....

 
At 12:32 PM, Blogger Henchman Of Justice said...

Ya,

JW was telling a twenty something that those under 40 years of age don't know shit.....the twenty something got up and done left.....

Ya, America is a division of divisiveness.....what a hoot.

 
At 12:33 PM, Blogger Fred Mangels said...

"Did you have health insurance?"

We didn't when the wife was first diagnosed with cancer. Now she's on Medicare and I'm on an Obamacare plan with Anthem Blue Cross.

We first had the get the wife on Medicare which required liquidating assets which included our IRAs.

 
At 12:34 PM, Blogger Henchman Of Justice said...

Pensions are why takers and deceivers are in great proportions as public employees......that is why they vote liberal and progressive.....to take and be given their shill pay offs.....

 
At 12:36 PM, Blogger Fred Mangels said...

"Doesn't have to be an oldie bar"

I'm really not into the bar loop. Too expensive for me to frequent any of them so I never do. Maybe someone else here can pipe in with some info.

 
At 1:01 PM, Blogger Bob Wallace said...

Medicare or Medicaid/Medical? There is no net worth limit for Medicare.


Obamacare wasn't available at that time?

People should not have their retirement accounts wiped out by medical costs. That's just not right. We got out of that mess with the ACA and it looks like Ryan and Trump are going to put us right back into it.

Working people are about to get screwed.

 
At 1:08 PM, Blogger Fred Mangels said...

Probably MediCal. I get the two mixed up even now. Whichever it was, you couldn't have more than $3000.00 in assets: cash, cars, or other stuff you could sell.

 
At 1:17 PM, Blogger Bob Wallace said...

OK, Medi Cal (California's version of Medicaid) makes sense. That system is designed for those who are too young to receive Medicare and totally destitute.

Obamacare/ACA and Medicare have no net worth screens. Donald Trump qualifies for Medicare, age and legally in the country are the only requirements.

That's too bad about the two of you having to liquidate assets. We're going to have to survive Trump and put Obamacare back together afterwards. I hope the millions of people opposed to Trump who didn't bother to vote or voted for someone who had no chance of winning learn something from what they've caused.

 
At 1:27 PM, Blogger Fred Mangels said...

Trump has planned one change I've been hearing support for for years: opening up health insurance markets across state borders. Most I've heard from say that would be a significant improvement.

As it is now, you can only get insurance from companies based in California. This change would allow more competition and probably spread the misery insurance companies have with Obamacare, that being they're forced to accept people with pre- existing conditions that cost the most to take care of. Yet they pay the same as everyone else. Something I guess I take advantage of.

If Trump follows through, we'll see if that helps things.

 
At 1:37 PM, Blogger sky hammer said...

There are many problems with CALPERS.
Until recently, State workers paid nearly nothing to CALPERS for retirement and only recent hires pay a little more, still way to little.
Another problem is that cops, firefighters and others can retire at age 50 with 90% of their pay and benefits.
Also since California is so leftists, CALPERS is prohibited from investing in that fit into into California's leftest beliefs, so CALPERS vastly under performs the market.
If you read the Social Security Act, the money was supposed to go to the States, which would decide how the money was spent. That didn't happen, so now everyone gets a cut.
Also, FDR just wanted more monet to fund the Govt. during the Depression and to placate the vast #'s of the unemployed.
I stopped paying into Social Security in 1985. I had just received my Masters in Economics. I realized that paying into SS was a waste.
Since 1985, all my income was "unearned", thus I was exempt from SS taxes. At the time it gave me an immediate 15% raise in my pay. I then invested that saved tax money and more when I could. Plus, with unearned income, my income tax rates were and still are lower than they would be with earned income.
I now have several Million $ to retire on
and most of that money is tax free.
I paid enough into SS for 10 years to pay for my medicare and supplemental policies.
Anyone with a high school education should have seen that SS is pyramid scheme and those that entered SS early would benefit.
As far as health insurance goes, I am being screwed. In 1985 I bought a policy that I liked, until Osama canceled it, as it didn't insure me for things I don't need, want or can't use.
In 2000, I had a knee replacement, it cost me $250, my insurance cost me $5k.
In 2015, I had another kneed replacement with Osama Care. I have the gold plan, costs me $13,000/year and I had to pay $15k in additional costs.
At least a third of my premium is for things I don't want or can't use.
I have to pay for child medical, eye and dental insurance, I have no kids.Never wanted any as I am selfish. I have to pay for birth control, pregnancy,mental health, drug rehab,the list goes on, all things I don't need.

 
At 1:45 PM, Blogger Bob Wallace said...

The warning I've heard about opening markets across states is that some states have very low standards and there would be no way for a state that takes better care of its citizens to require better policies.

Do we really want policies that would satisfy the people running Alabama or Mississippi?

What gain would an insurance company have if they were allowed to sell across state lines? They'd still have to set up local networks. They'd still have to process income from customers and pay providers.

Do we really want to go back to the point at which if you got sick your health insurance company could dig through your medical records and find an excuse to kick you off? Did you have measles, mumps, or even acne when you were a kid? Did you ever have an accident that required treatment? That used to be a good enough reason for booting you off if you started costing them money. Even if that previous disease or injury had nothing to do with your current problem.

The only way to get insurance for all is if all have insurance. The math simply doesn't work if the 'currently healthy' opt out.

Yes, there was an early load on insurance companies because the sick signed up quickly. That was expected and pricing allowances were made. Over a few years the penalty would be high enough that the healthy young would sign up and the cost of people with pre-existing conditions would average out. And that would allow premiums to drop.

We have to ask ourselves what kind of a country we want. Do we want a country where people like you get screwed if you or a close family member gets sick or hurt?



 
At 1:51 PM, Blogger Fred Mangels said...

"What gain would an insurance company have if they were allowed to sell across state lines?"

It would open it up to more competition and I suspect might also spread the costs over a larger number of people. I've heard complaints about in- state requirements since I've been hearing about health care problems.

 
At 1:56 PM, Blogger Fred Mangels said...

"Do we really want policies that would satisfy the people running Alabama or Mississippi?"

I'd say the question is more who should decide what health insurance you want? You, or the government?

 
At 2:01 PM, Blogger Bob Wallace said...

I don't buy the 'more competition' thing.

Any insurance company that wants to can offer healthcare insurance in Humboldt County. Only Blue Cross does. There are 11 companies selling health insurance in California but 10 of them don't want to sell here.

Those companies are not here because there are so few people here and setting up networks costs money.

In-state requirement is another way of saying that your state wants you to get good coverage and not the sort of crap-coverage another state might allow.

 
At 6:15 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Bob, don't pretend your understand why insurance companies don't like Humboldt. First look at hospital reimbursement rates, and whether our local hospitals hit insurance company targets for increased compensation (e.g., the percentage of a hospital bill that the insurance company is willing to pay). Insurance companies don't like to support craptastic medical care because such care is more expensive (and more frequent) for a multitude of reasons.

 
At 6:34 PM, Blogger Bob Wallace said...

Willard, why don't you learn about how rural areas in general have far fewer insurance options.

 
At 7:59 AM, Blogger Henchman Of Justice said...

Which is why medical is a sham.

A society where the value of the dollar is exponentially much less, society has set the impoverished level at $13,000 + level.......it is all about disqualifying, excluding as many folks as possible......it is what person with absolutely nothing is the most dangerous type of person to society.......ya get society to pay for everything that somebody has nothing of.....

All these services are designed to not pay out, just pay in....

 
At 8:04 AM, Blogger Henchman Of Justice said...

Bob,

If you voted Shillary,

Because it sounds like Trump it was not.....

Tries to make anyone who did not vote at all as the people who lost Hillary the election.....

Maybe people have integrity still, but Bob, fuck no integrity at all but a public pensioner taker......and blame artist for pro bono lifestyles of the public employee who really needed Clinton to win so ad to continue her lies to protect the government shills.

 
At 8:11 AM, Blogger Henchman Of Justice said...

Yes, it is a set up to pay off enough people in exchange for aiding and abetting full gubbamint takeover......public employees are paper pushers who launder money, no different than cartels, in order to make sure of just one thing:

When shit hits the fan, if enough shills are paid off or promised pay offs and perks and benefits, the gubbamint feels a bunch of shills will fight on behalf of furthering the deconstruction of the American Republic by way of faux democracy (oligarchy).

 
At 8:14 AM, Blogger Henchman Of Justice said...

"Do we really want policies that would satisfy the people running Alabama or Mississippi?" ~BW

Exactly why electoral college votes exist.....yet you whine because Shillary lost and your retirement is threatened......too bad.

 
At 8:17 AM, Blogger Henchman Of Justice said...

That is because running a medical scam pays better in populated areas.

 
At 8:22 AM, Blogger Henchman Of Justice said...

Exactly,

BUT after 7 years (or is it 10) straight of not paying into system, you lose what you already paid as a penalty.....all this points get reduced to disqualify you from collecting.......

Bob Wallace is a scam artist supporter.

 
At 8:28 AM, Blogger Henchman Of Justice said...

Trump farted out his mouth.

The smell elicited this anecdotal, yet serious remark by the Chumpster:

He is willing to raid "Unemployment Insurance programs" to pay off pregnant mothers who miss work......

So, if you are a man, or glbtq, you are being discriminated against.

Pregnancy is a personal choice compared to "sick day excuses", lay offs, injury, etc....

It was Trump's way to schmooze women.....Trump is a fraud type of thinker, deceiver.....bullshitter.

Shillary is worse, she is a Liar.

 
At 9:29 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Every issue we commonfolk fear over, isn't supposed to be fodder for the govt to fear monger us with in the first place.

 

Post a Comment

<< Home