|
|
Post by JOCAZTEC on Feb 15, 2011 7:26:23 GMT -8
Can YOU do the math?
HAM
|
|
|
|
Post by Yoda on Feb 15, 2011 11:46:47 GMT -8
It is a material misstatement.
Unfunded entitlements add another $80+ trillion to your calculation.
Yoda out...
|
|
|
|
Post by aztecwin on Feb 15, 2011 13:02:55 GMT -8
It is a material misstatement. Unfunded entitlements add another $80+ trillion to your calculation. Yoda out... Don't know about the real figure, but what we have is confusion over cash or accrual accounting and maybe politicians choosing the one that puts the kindest twist on our huge problem. The 14 Tril is just a small portion of our unfunded liability. |
|
|
|
Post by aztec70 on Feb 15, 2011 13:11:48 GMT -8
It is a material misstatement. Unfunded entitlements add another $80+ trillion to your calculation. Yoda out... Don't know about the real figure, but what we have is confusion over cash or accrual accounting and maybe politicians choosing the one that puts the kindest twist on our huge problem. The 14 Tril is just a small portion of our unfunded liability. So speaketh the unfunded liability.  Hey, maybe that could be your new moniker?  |
|
|
|
Post by aztecwin on Feb 15, 2011 13:29:37 GMT -8
Don't know about the real figure, but what we have is confusion over cash or accrual accounting and maybe politicians choosing the one that puts the kindest twist on our huge problem. The 14 Tril is just a small portion of our unfunded liability. So speaketh the unfunded liability. Hey, maybe that could be your new moniker? Maybe so. It is not like I don't advocate a pay as you go system that funds programs out of current assets and lets the beneficiary own it. Does this mean you are still firmly entrenched with the ungrateful masses that want to renege on obligations. |
|
|
|
Post by JOCAZTEC on Feb 15, 2011 17:02:53 GMT -8
'dint realize how bad at division you all are...geez.
Trillion | Billion | Million | Thous. | Hunds. |
-----------------------------------------------------
14 000 000 000 000
350 000 000
Does this help?
So it's like dividing 14 million by 350.
$40,000 should be the answer, right?
HAM
|
|
|
|
Post by ptsdthor on Feb 16, 2011 8:09:07 GMT -8
'dint realize how bad at division you all are...geez. Trillion | Billion | Million | Thous. | Hunds. | ----------------------------------------------------- 14 000 000 000 000 350 000 000 Does this help? So it's like dividing 14 million by 350. $40,000 should be the answer, right? HAM Percentage of population that pay income tax? Use 50% So, the gov will be giving out an $80,000 albatross as a shower gift on the birth of your soon to be evil, self serving, middle class, conservative baby boy or girl! |
|
|
|
Post by aztec70 on Feb 16, 2011 11:43:58 GMT -8
So speaketh the unfunded liability. Hey, maybe that could be your new moniker? Maybe so. It is not like I don't advocate a pay as you go system that funds programs out of current assets and lets the beneficiary own it. Does this mean you are still firmly entrenched with the ungrateful masses that want to renege on obligations. Are you suggesting that current and future military members have a 401k like system, with an employer match perhaps, and do away with the current retirement system? Not speaking for myself, but one of my clients yesterday is retired from the Navy and said that he should really be paying more for his Tricare as the government really could not afford it anymore. Gosh, he must be a liberal. Putting his country before himself. |
|
|
|
Post by aztecwin on Feb 16, 2011 12:23:49 GMT -8
Maybe so. It is not like I don't advocate a pay as you go system that funds programs out of current assets and lets the beneficiary own it. Does this mean you are still firmly entrenched with the ungrateful masses that want to renege on obligations. Are you suggesting that current and future military members have a 401k like system, with an employer match perhaps, and do away with the current retirement system? Not speaking for myself, but one of my clients yesterday is retired from the Navy and said that he should really be paying more for his Tricare as the government really could not afford it anymore. Gosh, he must be a liberal. Putting his country before himself. Yes, a 401K or TSP type plan would be much better for both the member and the government. You would want to look carefully at the details of such a plan, but it could easily be put together. Your client is shining you on or you are trying to shine us on. He earned not only what he gets, but if he was on board before 1956, he should pay nothing. That was when a common recruiting tool was the promise of free medical for life. |
|
|
|
Post by aztec70 on Feb 16, 2011 13:13:05 GMT -8
Are you suggesting that current and future military members have a 401k like system, with an employer match perhaps, and do away with the current retirement system? Not speaking for myself, but one of my clients yesterday is retired from the Navy and said that he should really be paying more for his Tricare as the government really could not afford it anymore. Gosh, he must be a liberal. Putting his country before himself. Yes, a 401K or TSP type plan would be much better for both the member and the government. You would want to look carefully at the details of such a plan, but it could easily be put together. Your client is shining you on or you are trying to shine us on. He earned not only what he gets, but if he was on board before 1956, he should pay nothing. That was when a common recruiting tool was the promise of free medical for life. I believe he said he paid $500.00, but I am not sure. Free medical care for life was probably not as much of an incentive for 17 year old as the free bus ticket out of Montana. ;D |
|
|
|
Post by davdesid on Feb 16, 2011 14:01:32 GMT -8
Yes, a 401K or TSP type plan would be much better for both the member and the government. You would want to look carefully at the details of such a plan, but it could easily be put together. Your client is shining you on or you are trying to shine us on. He earned not only what he gets, but if he was on board before 1956, he should pay nothing. That was when a common recruiting tool was the promise of free medical for life. I believe he said he paid $500.00, but I am not sure. Free medical care for life was probably not as much of an incentive for 17 year old as the free bus ticket out of Montana. ;D Uh, well, your client does pay something for his health care, right? Now maybe he would be comfortable paying something more than he does, and I'm not prepared to make an argument against that. After all, our President did say that everyone should have some "skin in the game". But, maybe, just maybe, we can put the canard of "FREE" medical care for life to bed, no matter how many times some liars on here try to repeat it. |
|
|
|
Post by aztecwin on Feb 16, 2011 15:52:46 GMT -8
I believe he said he paid $500.00, but I am not sure. Free medical care for life was probably not as much of an incentive for 17 year old as the free bus ticket out of Montana. ;D Uh, well, your client does pay something for his health care, right? Now maybe he would be comfortable paying something more than he does, and I'm not prepared to make an argument against that. After all, our President did say that everyone should have some "skin in the game". But, maybe, just maybe, we can put the canard of "FREE" medical care for life to bed, no matter how many times some liars on here try to repeat it. Exactly! Look at your Insurance premiums and tell me anything is free. Even my Dental coverage is a huge expense that gets deducted. When I talk about "free", I am only referring to what was promised, not the reality of what we do pay. |
|
|
|
Post by aztec70 on Feb 16, 2011 17:35:54 GMT -8
Are you suggesting that current and future military members have a 401k like system, with an employer match perhaps, and do away with the current retirement system? Not speaking for myself, but one of my clients yesterday is retired from the Navy and said that he should really be paying more for his Tricare as the government really could not afford it anymore. Gosh, he must be a liberal. Putting his country before himself. Yes, a 401K or TSP type plan would be much better for both the member and the government. You would want to look carefully at the details of such a plan, but it could easily be put together. Your client is shining you on or you are trying to shine us on. He earned not only what he gets, but if he was on board before 1956, he should pay nothing. That was when a common recruiting tool was the promise of free medical for life. I find it hard to believe that you think you would have been better off with a 401k type of plan. I assume you have a business degree and can do the numbers. So let's talk about you in general. You retired with 22 years in the Navy. That made you pension a tad over 50% of your base pay. I don't know what that was, nor is it important to our discussion. What is important is that you have been retired for a long time. I don't how long. 7 years self employed, 25 years in Civil Service that I know. Pushing 40 years I guess. Your pension is no longer a tad over 50%. COLAs over that period of time has increased it. The exact dollar amount is not germane to our discussion. The percentage increase from your original monthly pension is what is up for discussion. Would you please tell us what percent your military pension is now of your base pay when you retired? When we know that we can discuss what sort of rate of return one needs to increase your income in a similiar manner and how much you would need to fund that retirement after 22 years of work. By the way I don't think my client was "shining me on" about paying more for his insurance, nor am I. I don't think my client was lying to me, nor am I to you. |
|
|
|
Post by aztecwin on Feb 17, 2011 11:59:01 GMT -8
Yes, a 401K or TSP type plan would be much better for both the member and the government. You would want to look carefully at the details of such a plan, but it could easily be put together. Your client is shining you on or you are trying to shine us on. He earned not only what he gets, but if he was on board before 1956, he should pay nothing. That was when a common recruiting tool was the promise of free medical for life. I find it hard to believe that you think you would have been better off with a 401k type of plan. I assume you have a business degree and can do the numbers. So let's talk about you in general. You retired with 22 years in the Navy. That made you pension a tad over 50% of your base pay. I don't know what that was, nor is it important to our discussion. What is important is that you have been retired for a long time. I don't how long. 7 years self employed, 25 years in Civil Service that I know. Pushing 40 years I guess. Your pension is no longer a tad over 50%. COLAs over that period of time has increased it. The exact dollar amount is not germane to our discussion. The percentage increase from your original monthly pension is what is up for discussion. Would you please tell us what percent your military pension is now of your base pay when you retired? When we know that we can discuss what sort of rate of return one needs to increase your income in a similiar manner and how much you would need to fund that retirement after 22 years of work. By the way I don't think my client was "shining me on" about paying more for his insurance, nor am I. I don't think my client was lying to me, nor am I to you. What you don't seem to get is the idea that paying for the entire cost out of the current budget rather than leaving a huge unfunded liability. What you need to do to run the numbers is figure out how much the government would have had to pay into an account owned by me to equal what my retirement was. Add in the COLA's over the years and you see where the government would be better off. They paid for the retirement up front and were not liable for the expense after a member retires. To make things really add up, the account would need to be like a Roth with no required distribution at any time. I had not counted in the COLA so you have a point. I would not be better off but the government would. If like my wifes two retirements, we did not touch them, I would be way better off. Your client was shining you on! Was he on active duty before 1956? |
|
|
|
Post by aztec70 on Feb 17, 2011 13:01:26 GMT -8
It does not seem you understand the difference between defined benefit pension and defined contribution pension.
A military retirement is a defined benefit plan. The amount of the retirement is a function of the employee's final pay and the employee does not make contributions to it. It is a liability of the employer. In the case of the military, and many other government plans there are COLAs built in. For private companys I have never seen any COLA for retirees. The pension stays the same for the rest of the retiree's life. How would like your Navy pension to have stayed the same since you retired?
A 401(k) is a defined contribution plan. The employee makes the contribution on an annual basis. The amount of the contribution is defined as a function of his salary. The more you make, the more you can put in, up to an annual limit. The employer is not required to make any contribution. Some employers may match part of the employee's contribution. There is no requirement for them to do so. My wife's employer does not match.
So for you to predicate your argument on how much the government would have to put into your 401(k) to fund your retirement, I can answer that question. Nothing. Funding your retirement would have been on your shoulders.
Those that are retired on your own saving took an income hit when the market crashed. Either that or eat deeply into principal to maintain the income. That was not an issue for you. You really don't seem to know how good you have it.
By the way, could you tell us, as a percentage, what you retired pay is now compared to your final base pay? I imagine it will shock those that have to save on their own for their retirement. Since I have knowledge of how military pensions work it won't shock me.
As to my client "shining me on". If you it helps make you feel better about yourself to deny that a fellow Navy retiree would acknowledge that his benefits must decrease for the good of the country, that he would put country before himself, so be it.
|
|
|
|
Post by davdesid on Feb 17, 2011 13:56:52 GMT -8
It does not seem you understand the difference between defined benefit pension and defined contribution pension. A military retirement is a defined benefit plan. The amount of the retirement is a function of the employee's final pay and the employee does not make contributions to it. It is a liability of the employer. In the case of the military, and many other government plans there are COLAs built in. For private companys I have never seen any COLA for retirees. The pension stays the same for the rest of the retiree's life. How would like your Navy pension to have stayed the same since you retired? A 401(k) is a defined contribution plan. The employee makes the contribution on an annual basis. The amount of the contribution is defined as a function of his salary. The more you make, the more you can put in, up to an annual limit. The employer is not required to make any contribution. Some employers may match part of the employee's contribution. There is no requirement for them to do so. My wife's employer does not match. So for you to predicate your argument on how much the government would have to put into your 401(k) to fund your retirement, I can answer that question. Nothing. Funding your retirement would have been on your shoulders. Those that are retired on your own saving took an income hit when the market crashed. Either that or eat deeply into principal to maintain the income. That was not an issue for you. You really don't seem to know how good you have it. By the way, could you tell us, as a percentage, what you retired pay is now compared to your final base pay? I imagine it will shock those that have to save on their own for their retirement. Since I have knowledge of how military pensions work it won't shock me. As to my client "shining me on". If you it helps make you feel better about yourself to deny that a fellow Navy retiree would acknowledge that his benefits must decrease for the good of the country, that he would put country before himself, so be it. Until about 1958 military retirement pay was based directly on active duty pay scales. This was called recomputation. The reasoning was that the pay was just as much retainer pay as "retirement", since the member is subject to the Uniform Code of Military Justice and subject to involuntary recall to active duty at all times. And as the Supreme Court observed in *Barker v. Kansas*, those conditions remain... Military retirees unquestionably remain in the service and are subject to restrictions and recall;IMHO, they should have kept the recomputation formula. |
|
|
|
Post by aztec70 on Feb 17, 2011 14:14:00 GMT -8
It does not seem you understand the difference between defined benefit pension and defined contribution pension. A military retirement is a defined benefit plan. The amount of the retirement is a function of the employee's final pay and the employee does not make contributions to it. It is a liability of the employer. In the case of the military, and many other government plans there are COLAs built in. For private companys I have never seen any COLA for retirees. The pension stays the same for the rest of the retiree's life. How would like your Navy pension to have stayed the same since you retired? A 401(k) is a defined contribution plan. The employee makes the contribution on an annual basis. The amount of the contribution is defined as a function of his salary. The more you make, the more you can put in, up to an annual limit. The employer is not required to make any contribution. Some employers may match part of the employee's contribution. There is no requirement for them to do so. My wife's employer does not match. So for you to predicate your argument on how much the government would have to put into your 401(k) to fund your retirement, I can answer that question. Nothing. Funding your retirement would have been on your shoulders. Those that are retired on your own saving took an income hit when the market crashed. Either that or eat deeply into principal to maintain the income. That was not an issue for you. You really don't seem to know how good you have it. By the way, could you tell us, as a percentage, what you retired pay is now compared to your final base pay? I imagine it will shock those that have to save on their own for their retirement. Since I have knowledge of how military pensions work it won't shock me. As to my client "shining me on". If you it helps make you feel better about yourself to deny that a fellow Navy retiree would acknowledge that his benefits must decrease for the good of the country, that he would put country before himself, so be it. Until about 1958 military retirement pay was based directly on active duty pay scales. This was called recomputation. The reasoning was that the pay was just as much retainer pay as "retirement", since the member is subject to the Uniform Code of Military Justice and subject to involuntary recall to active duty at all times. And as the Supreme Court observed in *Barker v. Kansas*, those conditions remain... Military retirees unquestionably remain in the service and are subject to restrictions and recall;IMHO, they should have kept the recomputation formula. Interesting. I did not know that. Could you explain why you think they should have kept the recomputation formula? If you know why they changed I would be happy to learn. |
|
|
|
Post by aztecwin on Feb 17, 2011 14:45:40 GMT -8
It does not seem you understand the difference between defined benefit pension and defined contribution pension. A military retirement is a defined benefit plan. The amount of the retirement is a function of the employee's final pay and the employee does not make contributions to it. It is a liability of the employer. In the case of the military, and many other government plans there are COLAs built in. For private companies I have never seen any COLA for retirees. The pension stays the same for the rest of the retiree's life. How would like your Navy pension to have stayed the same since you retired? A 401(k) is a defined contribution plan. The employee makes the contribution on an annual basis. The amount of the contribution is defined as a function of his salary. The more you make, the more you can put in, up to an annual limit. The employer is not required to make any contribution. Some employers may match part of the employee's contribution. There is no requirement for them to do so. My wife's employer does not match. So for you to predicate your argument on how much the government would have to put into your 401(k) to fund your retirement, I can answer that question. Nothing. Funding your retirement would have been on your shoulders. Those that are retired on your own saving took an income hit when the market crashed. Either that or eat deeply into principal to maintain the income. That was not an issue for you. You really don't seem to know how good you have it. By the way, could you tell us, as a percentage, what you retired pay is now compared to your final base pay? I imagine it will shock those that have to save on their own for their retirement. Since I have knowledge of how military pensions work it won't shock me. As to my client "shining me on". If you it helps make you feel better about yourself to deny that a fellow Navy retiree would acknowledge that his benefits must decrease for the good of the country, that he would put country before himself, so be it. I sure do know the difference and will stay with my take even in the face of no COLA's. Please tell me why you think that fully funding on a cash basis is not superior to the yoke of funding in a manner that places huge unfunded liabilities on future tax payers. Using this inflation calculator www.westegg.com/inflation/I figured out that the purchasing power of my Navy Retirement has decreased by 36% since my retirement. The same thing is happening to my Civil Service Retirement and Social Security. Now the value of my Thrift Savings Plan (now a roll-over IRA) has increased about 11% more than the rate of inflation in the 10 years I have been retired. Now that I must take withdrawals, the return I get in a taxable account must be a little higher in order to make up for the loss of the shelter of the IRA on the withdrawal portion. You can see that the government is taking all of us to the cleaners by making Cola's based on something less than the real rate of inflation. Look at what Davdesid says about re-computation and you will figure out that it would not be nearly as bad for the retiree had that law still been in effect. There are many other ways that our government has broken faith with its Military. Being careful, wise, and lucky in your investments is how you keep ahead. If you were really fair minded instead of being like =Bob, you would be trying to bust the chops of State, County and City retired folks. They are the ones that have really taken us to the cleaners. Now, I do not blame those folks, it is the idiot politicians who have allowed the unions that represent those folks to put the thought of bankruptcy and State, City and County in the the realm of possibilities. |
|
|
|
Post by AlwaysAnAztec on Feb 17, 2011 15:19:51 GMT -8
Aztec70 to AztecWin: "You really don't seem to know how good you have it." No '70', he knows exactly how good he's got it. He just doesn't want anyone else to get the same thing. |
|
|
|
Post by aztec70 on Feb 17, 2011 15:30:27 GMT -8
If you know the difference why do you think that your employer is funding your 401(k)? That is an EMPLOYEE funded pension plan. Tell me again how much out of your paycheck went to pay for your federal pensions? A little for your civil service pension. You can see your contribution on your 1099-R.
I do agree that Federal pensions are not as generous as some local governments The City of San Diego pensions are an outrage. Don't get me started on the DROP Program and how they jack up their final pay year.
I am not busting Bob's chops because he is not complaining about unfunded pensions. You are, Mr. Unfunded Pension Liability.
Once again, I ask, how much has your Navy pension increased since you retired? I am not asking for a dollar amount, just a percentage. If you think that your pension is not keeping up with inflation, what about the guy that retired on a fixed pension?
|
|
Hey, maybe that could be your new moniker? 
