Well, contracts between a worker and his employer should not be political. In many countries (I am told) that retirement is run by the government, and not by industry, but I do not think I would want to work there.(Ask the Soviets how *that* worked out for them) (Or don't ask them ask some US workers I know, and see what they think all of a sudden.)
My brother works for a firm with no retirement benefits, that is why he cannot retire. But then he works for himself and did not put away a fortune while he was working. Bad Union, I'd say. So yes, people will work where they get paid, benefits or not. All the better if they are working a job that they like.
A BNSF conductor of my acquaintance remained on the job until he could retire and then he was out of there, so even a job you like can turn in to a nightmare.
LION thinks (apolitically, of course) that Health and Retirement should be removed from the contract talks. The Union should talk to the employer as if these did not exist, and require a remuneration package that would allow the employee to provide these things for himself.
If the employer says "I can get you a better deal on health and retirement than you can on your own, and so I'll provide them, all well and good. If not, maybe the Union should provide them. Or maybe the employee should obtain health and retirement from a third party provider (A fund of some sort?)
The LION has no retirement package, but the rest of the benefits are out of this world. ☺
ROAR
The Route of the Broadway Lion The Largest Subway Layout in North Dakota.
Here there be cats. LIONS with CAMERAS
zugmann Would people stick around in this industry?
Would people stick around in this industry?
What do you see as a reason why someone would want to quit if RR retirement were discontinued? Your question is framed as though RR retirement, as it is, would suddenly go away. So that raises the question of people working under it being compensated for what they have in it if it were to go away. I do not know what you pay in versus what you get back out, but I am guessing that it is not a net plus in benefits back to you. If it is, then eliminating it would mean lower pay. Is RR retirement withholding invested for you so it accrues some return on investment when you receive the benefits? How do you compare RR retirement to Social Security in terms of what you pay in versus what you collect?
What do you see as a reason why someone would want to quit if RR retirement were discontinued?
Your question is framed as though RR retirement, as it is, would suddenly go away. So that raises the question of people working under it being compensated for what they have in it if it were to go away.
I do not know what you pay in versus what you get back out, but I am guessing that it is not a net plus in benefits back to you. If it is, then eliminating it would mean lower pay. Is RR retirement withholding invested for you so it accrues some return on investment when you receive the benefits?
How do you compare RR retirement to Social Security in terms of what you pay in versus what you collect?
Carrot on the stick sort of thing.
RR retirement is a big attraction for this job. It ain't much, but after a lifetime of this kind of work, it's nice to see guys that are getting their retirement.
Probably one thing if you've been here for 20 years (like walking out of a movie before it ends), but for me? I don't know. It would be enough for me to really re-think my career.
It's been fun. But it isn't much fun anymore. Signing off for now.
The opinions expressed here represent my own and not those of my employer, any other railroad, company, or person.t fun any
I guess I don't understand what you would lose if RR retirement ended and you were paid back for what you had put into it.
Is there some discussion about ending RR retirement?
I have thought about all of these questions regarding social security, but I don't know how RR retirement works. I know that if you quit, you abandon your previous witholding with no benefit coming back to you.
zugmann Would people stick around in this industry? Note: this is not political, just a what-if. If someone makes this political and gets it deleted, may a thousand scorpions crawl up that someone's pants.
Note: this is not political, just a what-if. If someone makes this political and gets it deleted, may a thousand scorpions crawl up that someone's pants.
I'd say the answer would depend on what other options you have available and how old you are. But if you're fairly young..say under 40 then I wouldn't count on anyone taking care of your retirement for you. Start saving for that yourself, that way, if it turns out that the world changes by the time your 65 then at least you have your own little nest egg to rely on. I know a few people who thought they had it made in the shade thanks to a generous employer retirement plan when pooof... the world changed and they wake up at age 55 with nothing.
But I sure hope the answer to your question is YES for most people. I would hate to think that anyone would just work at a job they hated because the retirement bennies are good. Personally I'd rather work at something I enjoy until I drop dead...but that's just me.
First, look at history. RRR was a benefit of railroaders before Social Security. Sometime in the 90's I think it was, it became administered by SS. I don't think there is too much to worry about having people leave or not sign into the industry if there are any changes. It would probably become part of SS albeit modified RRR or modified SS.
RIDEWITHMEHENRY is the name for our almost monthly day of riding trains and transit in either the NYCity or Philadelphia areas including all commuter lines, Amtrak, subways, light rail and trolleys, bus and ferries when warranted. No fees, just let us know you want to join the ride and pay your fares. Ask to be on our email list or find us on FB as RIDEWITHMEHENRY (all caps) to get descriptions of each outing.
Well, I don't figure on there being a retirement. I'm not that naive.
But railroad retirement is used as a major recruitment tool.
Then you're ahead of the game. Take matters into your own hands and save for your own retirement.
Money paid into a retirement fund for the benefit of you is part of your compensation during your period of employment. The retirement fund belongs to the employees.
If your 50 year old neighbor has a 401-k as his sole source of retirement income but has lost his job and the bank is threatening to repossess his house, what do you suppose the chances are that he will look at that money and say "No, that is for my retirement, I can't touch it yet"? If he has a $150K hospital bill will it be lost in the collection process or bankruptcy? How many people will use it as collateral on a loan?
If he does clean it out to solve his short tern crisis, what will he do for income when he retires?
Providing your own retirement plan looks good on paper, but the simple fact is a large percentage of the population will be unable or unwilling to manage it until it is needed. If the fund is your sole source of retirement income, many people will outlive the fund.
Defined benefit retirement systems are essential to the country's fiscal strength.
Dave
Lackawanna Route of the Phoebe Snow
henry6 First, look at history. RRR was a benefit of railroaders before Social Security. Sometime in the 90's I think it was, it became administered by SS. I don't think there is too much to worry about having people leave or not sign into the industry if there are any changes. It would probably become part of SS albeit modified RRR or modified SS.
The 'behind the scenes' talk in the budget process gives the feeling that the politicos would like to take the resources of Railroad Retirement and fold it into Social Security and disburse to the retirees at the Social Security rate.
Never too old to have a happy childhood!
BaltACD The 'behind the scenes' talk in the budget process gives the feeling that the politicos would like to take the resources of Railroad Retirement and fold it into Social Security and disburse to the retirees at the Social Security rate.
And if that was done, would we get a refund from all we paid above and beyond social security, or would we get a "sorry - sucks to be you" letter?
And even the brand new guys that hire on are thinking about retirement. Whether they'll ever see it or not, but to totally trash the system in the foreseeable future? It's a well-known fact that many are retiring in the next 5-10 years (in all RR service, not just T&E), Even with the RR retirement, they are having trouble finding the next generation, so to speak. But without?
More questions than answers.
zugmann BaltACD: The 'behind the scenes' talk in the budget process gives the feeling that the politicos would like to take the resources of Railroad Retirement and fold it into Social Security and disburse to the retirees at the Social Security rate. And if that was done, would we get a refund from all we paid above and beyond social security, or would we get a "sorry - sucks to be you" letter? And even the brand new guys that hire on are thinking about retirement. Whether they'll ever see it or not, but to totally trash the system in the foreseeable future? It's a well-known fact that many are retiring in the next 5-10 years (in all RR service, not just T&E), Even with the RR retirement, they are having trouble finding the next generation, so to speak. But without? More questions than answers.
BaltACD: The 'behind the scenes' talk in the budget process gives the feeling that the politicos would like to take the resources of Railroad Retirement and fold it into Social Security and disburse to the retirees at the Social Security rate.
Get a refund, I doubt it. From what I am reading and hearing this is a real issue though. Our retirement could very well be in danger. Without talking about it any further and getting *** off about those that want to do this to us I will say that I'm not sure what I would do. It boils my blood. I have nearly 10 years paid into RRR, I enjoy my job, I'm not qualified to do much else, so I just dont know.
They used to build locomotives in London. The plant was owned by a company that couldn't fail called GM. And then, once upon a time, GM sold their plant to another company, that in turn sold it to another company..that in turn valued their people so much they gave them a deal they couldn't refuse... $35/hr reduced to $16.50 an hour take it or leave it. If they can do THAT, I wouldn't count on any company retirement options either. Take matters into your own hands... the world is changing.
Why would anyone let them take the resources of Railroad Retirement and fold it into SS? Wouldn't it be bad for the railroads and the employees?
Ulrich They used to build locomotives in London. The plant was owned by a company that couldn't fail called GM. And then, once upon a time, GM sold their plant to another company, that in turn sold it to another company..that in turn valued their people so much they gave them a deal they couldn't refuse... $35/hr reduced to $16.50 an hour take it or leave it. If they can do THAT, I wouldn't count on any company retirement options either. Take matters into your own hands... the world is changing.
This isn't even the same thing.
Bucyrus BaltACD: The 'behind the scenes' talk in the budget process gives the feeling that the politicos would like to take the resources of Railroad Retirement and fold it into Social Security and disburse to the retirees at the Social Security rate. Why would anyone let them take the resources of Railroad Retirement and fold it into SS? Wouldn't it be bad for the railroads and the employees?
That would be where this thread turns political and I'm not going there. That's not why Zug started this thread, and besides the mods would shut it down with the quickness.
Would it be bad? Yes, at least for those of us who pay our hard earned money into it. Those who are already retired before this proposed robbery takes place should be grandfathered in. Those who retire after could be in for a rude awakening.
BucyrusWhy would anyone let them take the resources of Railroad Retirement and fold it into SS? Wouldn't it be bad for the railroads and the employees?
That's of little concern to someone trying to make a name for themselves.
Railroaders, while numerous, are a fairly small group on the whole. Many people don't even think railroads are a viable form of transportation any more (witness the comment mentioned in another thread about how railroads don't haul anything any more - they just block crossings to make people late for whatever).
There are those who feel that a group such as the railroaders, who have an established retirement system which provides decent benefits, must somehow be evil, and that we should all benefit from their foresight and planning by redistributing their savings.
Hopefully there are advocates who are keeping an eye on things and who will intervene if such an action is attempted, but we should all know never to say never.
Larry Resident Microferroequinologist (at least at my house) Everyone goes home; Safety begins with you My Opinion. Standard Disclaimers Apply. No Expiration Date Come ride the rails with me! There's one thing about humility - the moment you think you've got it, you've lost it...
Georgia Railroader Ulrich: They used to build locomotives in London. The plant was owned by a company that couldn't fail called GM. And then, once upon a time, GM sold their plant to another company, that in turn sold it to another company..that in turn valued their people so much they gave them a deal they couldn't refuse... $35/hr reduced to $16.50 an hour take it or leave it. If they can do THAT, I wouldn't count on any company retirement options either. Take matters into your own hands... the world is changing. This isn't even the same thing.
Ulrich: They used to build locomotives in London. The plant was owned by a company that couldn't fail called GM. And then, once upon a time, GM sold their plant to another company, that in turn sold it to another company..that in turn valued their people so much they gave them a deal they couldn't refuse... $35/hr reduced to $16.50 an hour take it or leave it. If they can do THAT, I wouldn't count on any company retirement options either. Take matters into your own hands... the world is changing.
I know that. I brought that up to show how much can change over time. If pay can be halved then what else can be halved or eliminated. That was my point.
tree68 Bucyrus: Why would anyone let them take the resources of Railroad Retirement and fold it into SS? Wouldn't it be bad for the railroads and the employees? That's of little concern to someone trying to make a name for themselves. Railroaders, while numerous, are a fairly small group on the whole. Many people don't even think railroads are a viable form of transportation any more (witness the comment mentioned in another thread about how railroads don't haul anything any more - they just block crossings to make people late for whatever). There are those who feel that a group such as the railroaders, who have an established retirement system which provides decent benefits, must somehow be evil, and that we should all benefit from their foresight and planning by redistributing their savings. Hopefully there are advocates who are keeping an eye on things and who will intervene if such an action is attempted, but we should all know never to say never.
Bucyrus: Why would anyone let them take the resources of Railroad Retirement and fold it into SS? Wouldn't it be bad for the railroads and the employees?
Not evil, just out of step with the times. Keep in mind that most people don't have employer retirement plans and therefore are obligated to manage their retirement for themselves. That's actually a good thing because then you're in control, you're looking after it, and you're not depending on someone else/an employer for your retirement.
"I hate this job but I can't quit because if I do I'll lose my pension".. where have we heard that before? Even if your employer does offer some kind of plan, pretend that it doesn't exist and save on your own. That way, when you retire and the employer plan is still in place for you then you're pleasantly surprised instead of bitterly disappointed.
To clarify one point, Railroad Retirement is NOT managed by the Social Security Administration, it is still a separate agency. There is a certain amount of overlap that has been addressed in various statutes, primarily aimed at workers who did not work long enough under Railroad Retirement to be vested in that system.
The Rand Paul budget proposal in the House has Railroad Retirement Tier I benefits being set to the same as Social Security. That is, the retire at 60 with 30 years would be gone. It would be the same as Social Security (65-67 years).
Paul says this would save "taxpayers" $2B per year. What it really would do is transfer money from Railroad Retirement to Social Security.
It's pretty obvious where labor would wind up on this, but I suspect RR mgt would be against it, too. It would leave their defined benefit pension plans underfunded. When you retire early, they typically will make up the "missing" railroad retirement until such time as it kicks in. Guys going at 60 with 30 years are not "early", but if they go at that age and the RR has to pay out the equivalent of RR for seven years....
What hasn't been mentioned is if they plan to mess with TIer II. If they would raise the age for that, the RRs would get to cut their portion of the payroll tax quite a bit. Currently, they pay something like 13%, but it's adjustable based on what's needed to keep the fund afloat.
The current railroad retirement rules are not all that old. It's been about 15 years since the current rules were put in place.
Another thought. Given the RRs have been hiring like mad in their management ranks lately, a change in retirement age could demoralize the whole lot of them. The current bubble of 50+ers would not like the prospect of 7 more years work and the the young ones would not like having to wait 7 more years for promotion slots to open up.
-Don (Random stuff, mostly about trains - what else? http://blerfblog.blogspot.com/)
A very large portion of our society cannot manage their credit cards and checking accounts. Asking them to manage their retirement fund is begging for disaster. Expecting a 30 year old single mother with 3 children who works at a retail outlet in the mall to contribute any meaningful amount to a 401-k is living in a dream world.
Perhaps the change that is required is to take the retirement system out of the hands of employers and just require employers to contribute a percentage of an employee's salary to an independent fund. (Sound familiar?) If you don't trust the government to handle it, it could be run by insurance companies. It is already done in the construction industry where retirement funds are managed by the unions.
Phoebe Vet A very large portion of our society cannot manage their credit cards and checking accounts. Asking them to manage their retirement fund is begging for disaster. Expecting a 30 year old single mother with 3 children who works at a retail outlet in the mall to contribute any meaningful amount to a 401-k is living in a dream world. Perhaps the change that is required is to take the retirement system out of the hands of employers and just require employers to contribute a percentage of an employee's salary to an independent fund. (Sound familiar?) If you don't trust the government to handle it, it could be run by insurance companies. It is already done in the construction industry where retirement funds are managed by the unions.
Still...if you can do it, it is better to manage it yourself as much as possible. Railroad people make enough..most could probably sock 5% or even 10% away per year if they really wanted to. Over 20 or 30 years with compounding interest factored in, that really adds up..
But I agree, its not for everyone.
It is not so much that they cannot manage as it is that the system is not a guarantee to success in such small sums. Yes, the average person knows nothing about stocks, bonds, and fund management and we'd be in much deeper economic trouble if SS was not in effect. My fear is that private sector retirement investment would be good only for those to take the money and make money rather than for the investor. The behavior of our financial community...from local banker and stock broker to the billion dollar a minute monstors on Wall St...has not been conducive to keeping the populaton liquid enough to spend money on goods and services which are needed to maintain an economy but instead has been a guarantee of those managing money to take it. Railroad Retirement has been its own fiefdom from before the time of Social Security and as such has been a huge amount of cash the money mongers, er, managers, have always coveted. They got SS and want more. I hope in the long run that RRR survives on its own and does not get rolled into the General Fund of bankers and investors and their political allies.
Well that is politics, isn't it? The government gives and the government takes away, Blessed be the name of the Government.
Someone said that individuals would not protect their retirement funds, but would dive into them for short term needs. LION did the same thing when he was a kid. Guess what? The Government does it all of the time too.
AND, there is no social security "lockbox", it is ALL in the general fund. IF RR retirement was collected in a different way, and that it IS held in trust for the employees, this might be different. LION does not know, but him does know that the GOVERNMENT does not treat retirement funds properly (not just Social Security--but also public employee retirement funds: teachers etc.) and that money is NOT there, and really NEVER was there.
Local governments offered retirement packages in lieu of more money, but never set that money aside. If I were in a union I would demand better retirement that what the government was offering.
But all of this is a political quagmire that our discussion wants to avoid.
Bottom Line, you take care of your self, or you keep working until the Lord collects your ticket.
BTW: The LION *does* collect Social Security: $700/month. Health Insurance is $650/month. Enough Said. But then the LION does not have all that many years in the work place, what with him being in the Monastery the past 30 years. The monastery does have its own HWR fund, but that also is underfunded according to the Church's actuarial tables.
Ulrich Phoebe Vet: A very large portion of our society cannot manage their credit cards and checking accounts. Asking them to manage their retirement fund is begging for disaster. Expecting a 30 year old single mother with 3 children who works at a retail outlet in the mall to contribute any meaningful amount to a 401-k is living in a dream world. Perhaps the change that is required is to take the retirement system out of the hands of employers and just require employers to contribute a percentage of an employee's salary to an independent fund. (Sound familiar?) If you don't trust the government to handle it, it could be run by insurance companies. It is already done in the construction industry where retirement funds are managed by the unions. Still...if you can do it, it is better to manage it yourself as much as possible. Railroad people make enough..most could probably sock 5% or even 10% away per year if they really wanted to. Over 20 or 30 years with compounding interest factored in, that really adds up.. But I agree, its not for everyone.
Phoebe Vet: A very large portion of our society cannot manage their credit cards and checking accounts. Asking them to manage their retirement fund is begging for disaster. Expecting a 30 year old single mother with 3 children who works at a retail outlet in the mall to contribute any meaningful amount to a 401-k is living in a dream world. Perhaps the change that is required is to take the retirement system out of the hands of employers and just require employers to contribute a percentage of an employee's salary to an independent fund. (Sound familiar?) If you don't trust the government to handle it, it could be run by insurance companies. It is already done in the construction industry where retirement funds are managed by the unions.
All you have to do is look at the financial mechanisms that have caused the banking and investment armageddon of the the current recession to understand just how little chance a individual investor has in safe guarding a retirement plan on their own. I view that the call for individual responsibility for retirement savings/investment as just another ploy by the financial whiz kids, that have designed financial instruments that virtually no one understands, to separate the non-whiz kids from their money to the sole benefit of the whiz kids.
The armageddon was caused by con artists who took advantage of people who didn't have the sense to follow their own investments. Many who keep it simple and invest intelligently were unaffected.
BaltACD All you have to do is look at the financial mechanisms that have caused the banking and investment armageddon of the the current recession to understand just how little chance a individual investor has in safe guarding a retirement plan on their own. I view that the call for individual responsibility for retirement savings/investment as just another ploy by the financial whiz kids, that have designed financial instruments that virtually no one understands, to separate the non-whiz kids from their money to the sole benefit of the whiz kids.
Gee Whiz...
Well you could but your money in a hole in the wall, but in 20 years, inflation will have turned that to dust anyway. A properly manged Mutual Fund is the way to go. It can be provided by an individual, an insurance company, an employer or a union. The OVERSIGHT of such funds needs to be tight, but I surely would NOT trust the government to do it well.
The Non-Whiz Kids, who THINK they can do better WILL eventually loose their money, but it is clear that Social Security is NOT a retirement fund.
Is Railroad Retirement connected to Social Security? If so, how is that configured? Has the federal govenment ever bailed out Railroad Retirement with general taxpayer funds?
The wage & retirement package which goes in being employed with a common carrier is the main reason people elect to do this work in any craft. I would say if there were no rr retirement that 99% of employees working would have gone on to other career fields--me included. If the retirenent were to be abolished in its current form then there would likely be a change in the pay scale. This would not become a good event. With all the gobbly goup which rr workers have to put up with, atleast the pay & retirement make it worth staying on for. If the class 1's pay scale were lower & on SS, no one out here would want to do the work. Its all about the money. People who work at jobs who have attractive wages & benefits most likely will be motivated to do their job well and best to their ability. This is my motivation as a 13 yr rr worker who has 13 more to go. The most happy day of any rr workers life is retirement day. That means so much to so many hopefully including me in summer, 2025.
Probably nearly 90% of the population is not able to effectively manage a privatized retirment program, i.e., privatize Social Security. The whole scam of the concept is that only money managers, investors, investment bankers, bankers, brokers, in other words, private industry, would gain and the public be damned. RRR or SS privatized in anyway would not benefit anyone except the money handlers. Overall, the more people who lose more or have less, the more likely there is a need for expensive government programs to maintain the economy. Private enterprise has proven short sighted in that area...they take all the money but leave too many people without then balk at supporting people to bolster the economy. They are ok, however, with government price supports and tax breaks. They don't realize that if the population has no money, nobody is aviailable to buy private enterprise products and services. Except government.
The investment whiz kids often aren't all they're cracked up to be either. some years ago I put $5000.00 of my own money into the care of a large well known investment group who promised reasonable returns. Five years later i took out $150.00...that's all I had left of it. Ever since then i've been a do it yourselfer when it comes to savings and retirement. So far so good...
Lion:
That may be the case at the federal level, but the State of NY has a fully funded, well managed, retirement system system for it's employees that made 14% on it's investments last year, and has done so well over the years that for several years the state didn't have to put any money into it at all. Every year the Comptroller evaluates the fund's needs for the next 20 years and makes adjustments to the required contributions. Local governments are screaming right now because they have to contribute 16% of their payroll (some of which is paid by the employee) because the politicians and wall street drove the economy onto the rocks. As the economy recovers, that number will go back down. That contribution is for the employees who are working NOW. The retirees are being paid from the fund's earnings. There are more than 1,000 retirees collecting a NY pension who are more than 100 years old. How many of them would still be able to draw from a 401-k if they had existed back then?
Ulrich The armageddon was caused by con artists who took advantage of people who didn't have the sense to follow their own investments. Many who keep it simple and invest intelligently were unaffected.
And those con artists comprised most of the financial system on the commercial banking, investment banking and stock brokerages - you name the financial market and the con artists raped it - and they were doing this with the other 'professionals' in the business - not just us 'know very littles' about the mechanics of the interlocking of various financial instruments.
You don't take down Lehman Brothers, Bank of America, Merrill Lynch, Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac and too many other recognizable names in the financial markets with simple schemes that are fair for both the investor and investee. The financial collapse just proved the the bulk of the financial markets were being orchestrated by crooks - crooks, that for the most part have yet to be charged or tried for their thievery.
So, as I understand it, Railroad Retirement is run by the federal government just like Social Security.
http://www.rrb.gov/opa/agency_overview.asp
I'm no expert on financial matters. I invested in an IRA for one year; it has maybe quintupled in size since then, but that wouldn't make a monthly payment on our loans.I have a 401K. I don't even pretend to know when I'll have to start taking money from it (or paying taxes on it). Even though I'm no longer contributing to it, it grows quite a bit every quarter, thanks to a certain well-performing (knock on wood) stock that makes up virtually my whole portfolio (they keep suggesting to me a split between stocks and bonds of a certain percentage that would be "right for my age", but I am probably outperforming them as things sit). But I do know that I've paid into Railroad Retirement for nearly 40 years. The amounts I paid in were always well above FICA deductions--then it changed so Tier 2 and Tier 3 were added, and the railroad also had to make increased payments on my behalf. Now I'm retired--and though I would never say that I took the job because of a retirement plan (it's always been a sort of "they're paying me to do this?" kind of thing), I have to admit that Railroad Retirement is treating me quite well. Without going into too many specifics, my gross "take" is down somewhat, but most of it now comes directly to me. They withhold some Federal income tax from my monthly payments, but this past year I got every penny back. The amount of money that is given to me over and above my contributions to the fund while I was working is relatively insignificant--that's all I would have to pay taxes on, because I already paid the taxes on my own contributions. So I sincerely hope that some of these budget plans don't mess with this money...it's my money, and I'll let the government-sponsored board pay it to me at a proper, orderly rate. I hope I last long enough to collect at least everything I've put into it.
Carl
Railroader Emeritus (practiced railroading for 46 years--and in 2010 I finally got it right!)
CAACSCOCOM--I don't want to behave improperly, so I just won't behave at all. (SM)
Yeah, we gave in around 2000 and got a retirement account with a big bank and bigger yet mutual fund. As soon as Bush got in it lost money. In fact we have put more into it than what the balance is right now. I did just what the bankers and investment counselors and brokers said was the right thing; I was told to have faith in the Amrican free enterprise, private capital system; I was being a good (political party deleted) but have less now than if I had put the money in a coffee can in hole in the ground in the back yard. But the investment bankers, bankers, financial counselors, and brokers are living high off the hog and not being penalized or punished in any way for what they did. So what should be done with RRR and SS? Put it in individual's hands or keep the lump sum in the system, as socialistic as it is, so that there is a reward at the end of the tunnel for the employed? Or put it in the hands of private bankers to take all for themselves?
Maybe give people the choice and make them aware of the pros and cons of each. Up here employers often match retirement contributions. for example, if I put in $1000 then my employer will match that (to a point). That encourages people to save for retirement and gives them the flexibility to make their own investment decisions.
Ulrich Maybe give people the choice and make them aware of the pros and cons of each. Up here employers often match retirement contributions. for example, if I put in $1000 then my employer will match that (to a point). That encourages people to save for retirement and gives them the flexibility to make their own investment decisions.
And say what: do what you want to do. What happens if those who choose private savings get caught in another depression with no money...are there enough windows high enough to kill them when they jump? Or do we promist them a safety net anyway and get a bad rap for being socialistic? NO! We've got to have the government take charge of the economics for both good and bad times so that everybody shares the hardships and the benefits equally. In other words, the government has to decide to take charge, use its authority, to manage the economy at any given time so that the most people ( and since the Supreme Court says corporations are people, this applies equally to them) for the benefit of the country.
Well, there's no getting away from it....life involves risk and uncertainty. no system or plan will guarantee you a comfortable retirement...and none of us who are still working really even know if we will live to see retirement. I'm not sure more government intervention is the answer.. We always give up something when we ask goverment for a helping hand.
But we have charged government with overseeing our economy and our ability to wage war. It has been proven that giving everything to the private sector doesn't work...it if did the private sector wouldn't be seeking government help from financing, tarrif protection, unfair cometition protection, chartering to do business, and courts of all levels to make decisions about conduct, etc. Anarchy leads to chaos which leaves a society in bad economic and moral situations. With so many things, private sector, singley or as a group, can do only so much but has to rely on a government to be a catylist or partner in order for the private sector to exists in its own right and for society to exist at all.
That is one broad brush you are painting with....do a little research first. We dont all knock down six figures a year like some think. Some of us are scraping by.
Georgia Railroader Ulrich: Phoebe Vet: A very large portion of our society cannot manage their credit cards and checking accounts. Asking them to manage their retirement fund is begging for disaster. Expecting a 30 year old single mother with 3 children who works at a retail outlet in the mall to contribute any meaningful amount to a 401-k is living in a dream world. Perhaps the change that is required is to take the retirement system out of the hands of employers and just require employers to contribute a percentage of an employee's salary to an independent fund. (Sound familiar?) If you don't trust the government to handle it, it could be run by insurance companies. It is already done in the construction industry where retirement funds are managed by the unions. Still...if you can do it, it is better to manage it yourself as much as possible. Railroad people make enough..most could probably sock 5% or even 10% away per year if they really wanted to. Over 20 or 30 years with compounding interest factored in, that really adds up.. But I agree, its not for everyone. That is one broad brush you are painting with....do a little research first. We dont all knock down six figures a year like some think. Some of us are scraping by.
Ulrich: Phoebe Vet: A very large portion of our society cannot manage their credit cards and checking accounts. Asking them to manage their retirement fund is begging for disaster. Expecting a 30 year old single mother with 3 children who works at a retail outlet in the mall to contribute any meaningful amount to a 401-k is living in a dream world. Perhaps the change that is required is to take the retirement system out of the hands of employers and just require employers to contribute a percentage of an employee's salary to an independent fund. (Sound familiar?) If you don't trust the government to handle it, it could be run by insurance companies. It is already done in the construction industry where retirement funds are managed by the unions. Still...if you can do it, it is better to manage it yourself as much as possible. Railroad people make enough..most could probably sock 5% or even 10% away per year if they really wanted to. Over 20 or 30 years with compounding interest factored in, that really adds up.. But I agree, its not for everyone.
Ok then. That's news to me. I thought railroading paid well..i.e. 40 to 75K a year. I know that it ain't six figures. Thanks for the feedback..
With near $4 a gallon gas and over $4 heating oil - anything less than 6 figures is basically scraping by.
Depends on where you live to a large extent... If you live in downtown LA or Toronto then yes. If you live in Timmins, Ontario or Smalltown America then you'd be quite well off with six figures..
Ulrich Georgia Railroader: Ulrich: Phoebe Vet: A very large portion of our society cannot manage their credit cards and checking accounts. Asking them to manage their retirement fund is begging for disaster. Expecting a 30 year old single mother with 3 children who works at a retail outlet in the mall to contribute any meaningful amount to a 401-k is living in a dream world. Perhaps the change that is required is to take the retirement system out of the hands of employers and just require employers to contribute a percentage of an employee's salary to an independent fund. (Sound familiar?) If you don't trust the government to handle it, it could be run by insurance companies. It is already done in the construction industry where retirement funds are managed by the unions. Still...if you can do it, it is better to manage it yourself as much as possible. Railroad people make enough..most could probably sock 5% or even 10% away per year if they really wanted to. Over 20 or 30 years with compounding interest factored in, that really adds up.. But I agree, its not for everyone. That is one broad brush you are painting with....do a little research first. We dont all knock down six figures a year like some think. Some of us are scraping by. Ok then. That's news to me. I thought railroading paid well..i.e. 40 to 75K a year. I know that it ain't six figures. Thanks for the feedback..
Georgia Railroader: Ulrich: Phoebe Vet: A very large portion of our society cannot manage their credit cards and checking accounts. Asking them to manage their retirement fund is begging for disaster. Expecting a 30 year old single mother with 3 children who works at a retail outlet in the mall to contribute any meaningful amount to a 401-k is living in a dream world. Perhaps the change that is required is to take the retirement system out of the hands of employers and just require employers to contribute a percentage of an employee's salary to an independent fund. (Sound familiar?) If you don't trust the government to handle it, it could be run by insurance companies. It is already done in the construction industry where retirement funds are managed by the unions. Still...if you can do it, it is better to manage it yourself as much as possible. Railroad people make enough..most could probably sock 5% or even 10% away per year if they really wanted to. Over 20 or 30 years with compounding interest factored in, that really adds up.. But I agree, its not for everyone. That is one broad brush you are painting with....do a little research first. We dont all knock down six figures a year like some think. Some of us are scraping by.
Dont get me wrong, there is good money to be made out here. Location is key, I work where it's extremely slow and throw in the fact that the company has overhired, I average about two to four job starts every half(two weeks). That doesn't leave a lot of money after taxes,retirement,union dues, and job insurance are taken out. Then you have guys who can hold regular jobs, and the ones who work busy extraboards, some of these guys can just about right their own paychecks. I would kill to make 75K a year.
Georgia Railroader Ulrich: Georgia Railroader: Ulrich: Phoebe Vet: A very large portion of our society cannot manage their credit cards and checking accounts. Asking them to manage their retirement fund is begging for disaster. Expecting a 30 year old single mother with 3 children who works at a retail outlet in the mall to contribute any meaningful amount to a 401-k is living in a dream world. Perhaps the change that is required is to take the retirement system out of the hands of employers and just require employers to contribute a percentage of an employee's salary to an independent fund. (Sound familiar?) If you don't trust the government to handle it, it could be run by insurance companies. It is already done in the construction industry where retirement funds are managed by the unions. Still...if you can do it, it is better to manage it yourself as much as possible. Railroad people make enough..most could probably sock 5% or even 10% away per year if they really wanted to. Over 20 or 30 years with compounding interest factored in, that really adds up.. But I agree, its not for everyone. That is one broad brush you are painting with....do a little research first. We dont all knock down six figures a year like some think. Some of us are scraping by. Ok then. That's news to me. I thought railroading paid well..i.e. 40 to 75K a year. I know that it ain't six figures. Thanks for the feedback.. Dont get me wrong, there is good money to be made out here. Location is key, I work where it's extremely slow and throw in the fact that the company has overhired, I average about two to four job starts every half(two weeks). That doesn't leave a lot of money after taxes,retirement,union dues, and job insurance are taken out. Then you have guys who can hold regular jobs, and the ones who work busy extraboards, some of these guys can just about right their own paychecks. I would kill to make 75K a year.
Ulrich: Georgia Railroader: Ulrich: Phoebe Vet: A very large portion of our society cannot manage their credit cards and checking accounts. Asking them to manage their retirement fund is begging for disaster. Expecting a 30 year old single mother with 3 children who works at a retail outlet in the mall to contribute any meaningful amount to a 401-k is living in a dream world. Perhaps the change that is required is to take the retirement system out of the hands of employers and just require employers to contribute a percentage of an employee's salary to an independent fund. (Sound familiar?) If you don't trust the government to handle it, it could be run by insurance companies. It is already done in the construction industry where retirement funds are managed by the unions. Still...if you can do it, it is better to manage it yourself as much as possible. Railroad people make enough..most could probably sock 5% or even 10% away per year if they really wanted to. Over 20 or 30 years with compounding interest factored in, that really adds up.. But I agree, its not for everyone. That is one broad brush you are painting with....do a little research first. We dont all knock down six figures a year like some think. Some of us are scraping by. Ok then. That's news to me. I thought railroading paid well..i.e. 40 to 75K a year. I know that it ain't six figures. Thanks for the feedback..
Thanks for clearing that up for me Georgia Railroader...
At its heart, Railroad Retirement is a pay as you go system. Due to declining numbers of active railroad employees, on several occasions in the past it has required infusions of cash from the taxpayers. Now it is facing the same changing demographics as is being experienced by the Social Security system -- retirees living longer and so on. The actuarial reports are posted online for those interested in the details.
Just as Social Security has to be reformed before it becomes the monster that eats the entire federal budget, so should RR Retirement be reformed. "Reformed" does not mean eliminated, but it does mean changed. To not recognize that is to be in a state of denial that insures the changes will be more harsh when they occur.
SS is not part of the federal budget, It is funded by a separate FICA tax. In fact, because the excess collections are "invested" in government securities, it effectively contributed INCOME to the federal budget.
Calling it " the monster that eats the entire federal budget" is inaccurate.
A e-mail being distributed among the railroad crafts
Dear Brothers: Our Railroad Retirement System is under attack. The Chairman of the House of Representatives Committee on the Budget, Paul Ryan (WI-R), has suggested that cutting back on Railroad Retirement benefits would save taxpayers “$2 billion over 10 years.” This is false and establishes his ignorance on how our Railroad Retirement System functions. The Ryan Budget, which was passed by the House in March, completely ignores the relationship between Railroad Retirement and Social Security. All Railroad Retirement benefits above Social Security — whether Tier I benefits or Tier II benefits — are fully funded by railroad workers and their employers; none of these benefits are funded from the general treasury. We are in the process of visiting with Congressmen and Senators to educate them and eliminate the damaging language contained in the House budget. Railroad retirement payroll taxes, like railroad retirement benefits, are calculated on a two-tier basis. Railroad employees and employers pay Tier I taxes at the same rate as social security taxes. When railroad employees retire, the Tier I benefits replicate the benefits railroad workers would receive if they were covered by social security. Railroad employees and employers both pay an additional retirement tax, Tier II, which is used to finance railroad retirement benefit payments over and above those levels contained in social security. The Social Security Administration (SSA) reimburses the Railroad Retirement Trust Fund for all benefits paid that are identical to Social Security benefits and nothing more. The SSA does NOT reimburse the Railroad Retirement Trust Fund for benefits that are unavailable under the Social Security Act. All annuity payments which are above those provided by the Social Security Act are funded by Tier II taxes. There are no public funds or general tax revenues used to pay these annuities; therefore, there are no taxpayer savings by approving the Ryan Budget plan. The assertion that changing the way our retirement system pays benefits would somehow save tax dollars is simply untrue. We have been monitoring this issue ever since it became apparent what Congressman Ryan was attempting to do. Our Legislative Department has been working for weeks, in conjunction with our sister unions’ Legislative Departments (with the support of the Railroad Retirement Board and the Association of American Railroads), to get the offending language removed from the House budget proposal. The Senate has not moved on this budget yet, and we are working closely with various Senators to make certain that the offending language is not passed during this session and is not progressed in any subsequent session. I thank you for taking the time to read this letter. I do not think that the legislation will be progressed by the Senate in this session, but we are monitoring it closely. If I see a future need to motivate our members to call their Senators and Congressmen on this issue, I will be contacting you for your assistance. We are in a serious fight, but for now, we believe that our Legislative Department is well positioned to keep us abreast of any changes. In Solidarity, W. Dan Pickett President Brotherhood of Railroad Signalmen
RAILROAD RETIREMENT IS FUNDED BY RAILROAD EMPLOYEES AND RAILROAD COMPANIES, I.E. EMPLOYEES AND EMPLOYERS AND NOT BY TAXPAYERS. LIKEWISE SOCIAL SECURITY IS FUNDED BY EMPLOYEES AND EMPLOYERS AND NOT BY TAXPAYER FUNDS. WHAT YOU ARE HEARING FROM THE ANTI SOCIAL SECURITY POLITICIANS (YOU KNOW WHO THEY ARE) ARE IGNORANT LIES! BELOW IS TESTAMENT TO THOSE LIES.
BaltACD A e-mail being distributed among the railroad crafts Dear Brothers: Our Railroad Retirement System is under attack. The Chairman of the House of Representatives Committee on the Budget, Paul Ryan (WI-R), has suggested that cutting back on Railroad Retirement benefits would save taxpayers “$2 billion over 10 years.” This is false and establishes his ignorance on how our Railroad Retirement System functions. The Ryan Budget, which was passed by the House in March, completely ignores the relationship between Railroad Retirement and Social Security. All Railroad Retirement benefits above Social Security — whether Tier I benefits or Tier II benefits — are fully funded by railroad workers and their employers; none of these benefits are funded from the general treasury. We are in the process of visiting with Congressmen and Senators to educate them and eliminate the damaging language contained in the House budget. Railroad retirement payroll taxes, like railroad retirement benefits, are calculated on a two-tier basis. Railroad employees and employers pay Tier I taxes at the same rate as social security taxes. When railroad employees retire, the Tier I benefits replicate the benefits railroad workers would receive if they were covered by social security. Railroad employees and employers both pay an additional retirement tax, Tier II, which is used to finance railroad retirement benefit payments over and above those levels contained in social security. The Social Security Administration (SSA) reimburses the Railroad Retirement Trust Fund for all benefits paid that are identical to Social Security benefits and nothing more. The SSA does NOT reimburse the Railroad Retirement Trust Fund for benefits that are unavailable under the Social Security Act. All annuity payments which are above those provided by the Social Security Act are funded by Tier II taxes. There are no public funds or general tax revenues used to pay these annuities; therefore, there are no taxpayer savings by approving the Ryan Budget plan. The assertion that changing the way our retirement system pays benefits would somehow save tax dollars is simply untrue. We have been monitoring this issue ever since it became apparent what Congressman Ryan was attempting to do. Our Legislative Department has been working for weeks, in conjunction with our sister unions’ Legislative Departments (with the support of the Railroad Retirement Board and the Association of American Railroads), to get the offending language removed from the House budget proposal. The Senate has not moved on this budget yet, and we are working closely with various Senators to make certain that the offending language is not passed during this session and is not progressed in any subsequent session. I thank you for taking the time to read this letter. I do not think that the legislation will be progressed by the Senate in this session, but we are monitoring it closely. If I see a future need to motivate our members to call their Senators and Congressmen on this issue, I will be contacting you for your assistance. We are in a serious fight, but for now, we believe that our Legislative Department is well positioned to keep us abreast of any changes. In Solidarity, W. Dan Pickett President Brotherhood of Railroad Signalmen
I am not sure what the problem is with RRR, or what the remedy is. But if I were working for a railroad, this is what I would worry about:
A) Having RRR reduced in a way that amounts to a pay cut for future earnings.
B) Having RRR reduced in a way that amounts to depletion of past withholding.
Item B would be far more troublesome than item A.
I think this illustrates the larger problem when it comes to "entitlements". Too many people are asking "why does the other guy deserve anything?" when they should be asking "why am I the one getting screwed?"
Milepost 266.2 I think this illustrates the larger problem when it comes to "entitlements". Too many people are asking "why does the other guy deserve anything?" when they should be asking "why am I the one getting screwed?"
Here's another ignorance about things: no one knows what entitlement is. Railroad Retirement and Social Security are not entitlements. Money is put into an account for the employee by the employee and his employer in the employee's name to be drawn from. RR and SS are wholly owned by the employee who puts the money in. An entitlement is getting a tax reduction or outright unpaid or unearned gift from the government.
We are OVERLOOKING the fact that money we and our employers deposited into these funds have not been LOCKED UP AND DRAWING INTEREST as they once were. There is no TRUST FUND WITH A BALANCE. Instead several years ago Congress BORROWED IT and put it in the GENERAL FUND CATAGORY so they could spend it. Now it is OWED to us and payment to us must come from the General Fund money's like other appropriations.
Milepost 266.2 Ulrich: Georgia Railroader: Ulrich: Phoebe Vet: A very large portion of our society cannot manage their credit cards and checking accounts. Asking them to manage their retirement fund is begging for disaster. Expecting a 30 year old single mother with 3 children who works at a retail outlet in the mall to contribute any meaningful amount to a 401-k is living in a dream world. Perhaps the change that is required is to take the retirement system out of the hands of employers and just require employers to contribute a percentage of an employee's salary to an independent fund. (Sound familiar?) If you don't trust the government to handle it, it could be run by insurance companies. It is already done in the construction industry where retirement funds are managed by the unions. Still...if you can do it, it is better to manage it yourself as much as possible. Railroad people make enough..most could probably sock 5% or even 10% away per year if they really wanted to. Over 20 or 30 years with compounding interest factored in, that really adds up.. But I agree, its not for everyone. That is one broad brush you are painting with....do a little research first. We dont all knock down six figures a year like some think. Some of us are scraping by. Ok then. That's news to me. I thought railroading paid well..i.e. 40 to 75K a year. I know that it ain't six figures. Thanks for the feedback.. I think this illustrates the larger problem when it comes to "entitlements". Too many people are asking "why does the other guy deserve anything?" when they should be asking "why am I the one getting screwed?"
Who's getting screwed?
diningcar We are OVERLOOKING the fact that money we and our employers deposited into these funds have not been LOCKED UP AND DRAWING INTEREST as they once were. There is no TRUST FUND WITH A BALANCE. Instead several years ago Congress BORROWED IT and put it in the GENERAL FUND CATAGORY so they could spend it. Now it is OWED to us and payment to us must come from the General Fund money's like other appropriations.
We are not overlooking the fact but the politicians who don't want you to get your return from SS or RRR are either overlooking it or trying to make you overlook it. Reagan and Congress stole from SS and never put it back then take the problem out on us.
As to who is getting screwed, anyone and everyone who has contributed their earnings or whose employer has contributed in their name is getting screwed by not getting the benefits agreed upon when the money was taken. Further, those who actually believe RRR and SS are entitlements, free money, government gifts, are getting mentally screwed by those who preach the deceptiive lies.
Henry, I believe this was done in the Lyndon Johnson era. If someone knows exactly when please post it.
diningcar Henry, I believe this was done in the Lyndon Johnson era. If someone knows exactly when please post it.
I'm repeating what I've read...but cannot verify my source anymore....I know Reagan liked the idea but it was not Reagan (nor Johnson for that matter) but rather Congress who raided SS for the General Fund, thus there was no longer an SS Trust Fund to accrue interest as in the past as a large amount was "borrowed" makeing it harder for the sum left to accrue and catch up.
Having RRR reduced in a way that amounts to a pay cut for future earnings.
Having RRR reduced in a way that amounts to depletion of past withholding.
The second item would be far more troublesome than the first.
If the story on Trains Newswire today..Tue 4-24-12...there is nothing wrong with Rairoad Retirement. It is a program between railroad and employees and is not a government program like SS, etc. However, there are Congressmen, apparently, who would like to get their hands on RRR and bring payments into line with SS payments. They don't understand what RRR is or they don't want to be shown up by RRR with their poor managment of SS.
henry6 If the story on Trains Newswire today..Tue 4-24-12...there is nothing wrong with Rairoad Retirement. It is a program between railroad and employees and is not a government program like SS, etc.
If the story on Trains Newswire today..Tue 4-24-12...there is nothing wrong with Rairoad Retirement. It is a program between railroad and employees and is not a government program like SS, etc.
I am not so sure of that. From what I can discern, it is indeed a goverment program.
Prior to government-provided Social Security the poverty rate for the elderly was much higher than for the general population, I have seen estimates of around 80% in 1920. It is now lower than the average population. If we return to a Third World social safety net ("If you want a retirement income, you figure out the private financial system that even people who work there don't understand, Mr. Engineer") there will be many poor retired railroaders.
henry6 If the story on Trains Newswire today..Tue 4-24-12...there is nothing wrong with Rairoad Retirement.
If the story on Trains Newswire today..Tue 4-24-12...there is nothing wrong with Rairoad Retirement.
My impression is that it has made promises that it cannot keep. Is there any truth to the assertions that RRR has been "bailed out" by the taxpayers in the past?
Somehow the SS Administration was given the job of administering RRR but only the transaction to the recipient and gets "paid" by RRR for the service. But as far as the government having any way of touching the RRR money, no, it has no authority. As for RRR having its own financial problems, could be simply because there are so fewer contributing because of there being fewer railroaders. Also there is something about railroaders income not subject to RRR but SS (work not done for a railroad) being accessable, etc. and at one point there was talk of railroad employees being able to choose between SS and RRR. But those are the misty minded factoids I recall. The article on the newswire indicates that the unions and the railroads have stated there are no problems with RRR and the government has no claim on the money.
http://www.rrb.gov/aandt/eri/Part1/chapter5.asp
Should help you out some...
23 17 46 11
The RR retirement fund is administered by the RR Board, a government agency that manages the fund.
The RRB is paid for by the contributions of the members, it is part of the tier 2 tax we pay.
Tier 2 taxes are the contributions we railroaders make to the fund, and the carriers also contributions.
The fund invests in things like bonds, CDs, boring stuff.
When I retire, because I worked outside the railroad industry I have a SS account, along with my RR retirement.
By law, I have to draw from the account which has the most money in it, until that account is exhausted, and then I can draw from the other, but not both at the same time.
3 guesses which one I will draw from!
The amount in the fund is made up from the contributions of the railroaders and the carriers.
On the other hand, I do pay tier 1 taxes, which is referred to as the Social Security Benefit Equivalency tax, basically my part of Medicare/Medicade and such, none of this goes into my SS account.
The laws changed a few years ago, allowing for railroaders to retire at 60 years of age, if, and only if they have 30 or more years of service total.
If I wait and retire after 30 years,(at 68) I will draw approximately 80% of my then current salary.
My spouse can draw 50%, and if she outlives me, she is entitled to my 80% along with her SS benefits.
If I outlive her, I cannot draw her SS benefits.
There has been attempts to fold RR retirement into SS, but it will not happen, as it is a private fund.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Railroad_Retirement_Board
pretty accurate info.
Thanks for posting Ed.
No one raided anything. The Social Security trust fund has always been invested in federal government securities. It's the way the law was written in the 1930s. It was right after the stock market crash and government instruments were considered safer. They just never thought they would have to cash those securities.
What President Johnson did was a little slight of hand called the "Unified Budget". It put all of the trust funds, with their surpluses, into the single budget so that the budget looked balanced even though the general fund was in serious deficit because of the Viet Nam war. It was reversed several years later.
I now have it confirmed from another site that it was in the Lyndon Johnson administration that Congress and the President were responsible for transfering the Social Security Funds to the Genreal Fund. The Democrats controlled both houses at that time.
diningcar I now have it confirmed from another site that it was in the Lyndon Johnson administration that Congress and the President were responsible for transfering the Social Security Funds to the Genreal Fund. The Democrats controlled both houses at that time.
That is not true. The Social Security fund was never transferred into the general fund. Your "other site" lied to you.
Phoebe Vet, I am not aware that people deliberately lie at this site, but they may be mistaken. So please tell us where the SS money is at this time.
I believe that the checks are written from the general appropriations and not from a separate account. If I am mistaken I am sure you can document my mistake.
According to today's Newswire the budget passed by the House contained NO actual change to the RR Retirement system. Rather, there was an accompanying report that listed possible areas for reform, including RR Retirement.
In addition, this budget is going nowhere in the Senate, and I think most people believe it would face a certain veto if enacted.
I feel like a sucker for participating in the discussion of something that isn't going to happen!
Dakguy201 I feel like a sucker for participating in the discussion of something that isn't going to happen!
Why?
Won't happen this year, but RRT will be in the cross-hairs yet again in the future.
Dakguy201 According to today's Newswire the budget passed by the House contained NO actual change to the RR Retirement system. Rather, there was an accompanying report that listed possible areas for reform, including RR Retirement. In addition, this budget is going nowhere in the Senate, and I think most people believe it would face a certain veto if enacted. I feel like a sucker for participating in the discussion of something that isn't going to happen!
Just because something doesn't happen in on session of Congress (or your State Legislature or City Council) doesn't mean that it won't be tried again in the next session.
Reminder to keep the topic within policies of the site which I understand can be tough based on the subject matter but it is the rules we have to live under and that I am to enforce as one of your Moderators...
- No political discussions or signature messages. We know, railroads are sometimes affected by politics. However, we’ve found that political discussions almost always turn into arguments. We have a common thread of being interested in railroads. Don’t let that common bond be destroyed by political differences.
Darren (BLHS & CRRM Lifetime Member)
Delaware and Hudson Virtual Museum (DHVM), Railroad Adventures (RRAdventures)
My Blog
diningcar Phoebe Vet, I am not aware that people deliberately lie at this site, but they may be mistaken. So please tell us where the SS money is at this time. I believe that the checks are written from the general appropriations and not from a separate account. If I am mistaken I am sure you can document my mistake.
http://www.ssa.gov/history/BudgetTreatment.html
Your mistake is hereby documented.
As far as where is the money now: Where is the money you have in your savings account or your 401-k? Is it in a drawer at the bank or your broker? No; it is in an account and the institution owes it to you. That is how the economy works.
[quote user="Phoebe Vet"]
diningcar: Phoebe Vet, I am not aware that people deliberately lie at this site, but they may be mistaken. So please tell us where the SS money is at this time. I believe that the checks are written from the general appropriations and not from a separate account. If I am mistaken I am sure you can document my mistake.
Are you acknowledging that the employee and company contributions to Social Security are NOW COMINGLED with other tax receipts, while they ONCE WERE SEPARATED???
diningcar Are you acknowledging that the employee and company contributions to Social Security are NOW COMINGLED with other tax receipts, while they ONCE WERE SEPARATED???
Absolutely not. Did you even read the link? The trust fund is invested in government securities as it has been since the 1930s. You can buy the same securities if you like. It is NOT co-mingled with the general fund. The 1968 "unified budget" was just a deceptive way to report the deficit to make it look smaller than it really was. The various dedicated funds were never rolled into the general fund, their surpluses were just reported together with the general fund to make the general fund deficit look smaller. It is no longer used.
FYI, the PBGC, a government program, protects many members of private sector pension plans in much the same way that the FDIC protects your bank deposits.
http://www.pbgc.gov/about/who-we-are.html
To get back to Zug's original question, if it wasn't for the benefits, would people in the industry stick around....
For me, the answer would be maybe yes, maybe no, simply because I can make the same money if I went back as an investigator for the Attorney General, State of Texas, and the retirement package there isn't all that bad....not as good as RR retirement, but better than a lot of private sector packages.
That plus weekends off with my family, and allowances for fuel and travel would sway me a lot.
I would miss the times railroading can be fun, and those time are a lot more often than the days you wonder why oh why did you ever decide to do this for a living, but the knowledge that my investment plan plus my railroad retirement will allow my wife and I to live, while not in the lap of luxury, at least comfortably enough to do a lot of things and go a lot of places we want is pretty much the thing that holds me here.
Add in the fact that my wife still works for the agency, and only has a few years left before she can pull the plug, sticking here makes sense.
Plus, if I went back to the AG's office, I would have to deal with the scum of the earth on a daily basis again, which is way beyond the stress anything railroad can throw at you.
So, all things considered, the retirement does play a big part of my staying, but is not the only factor.
A really good pension package is like golden handcuffs. It keeps your people with 10 or 15 years of training and experience from one day saying "I don't want to do this anymore".
If your pension fund is fully funded, you can sometimes avoid having to lay people off by asking your most senior (& highest paid) people: "How would you like to retire a few years early?" thus moving their cost from the payroll to the retirement fund.
I believe that if someone is in ANY industry for the retirement plan alone, then they are likely in the wrong business.
Convicted One I believe that if someone is in ANY industry for the retirement plan alone, then they are likely in the wrong business.
Thanks to Chris / CopCarSS for my avatar.
In the not too distant future this country is going to deeply regret the move from defined benefit retirement plans to individual 401-k type accounts.
With that said, we have beat this to death, I am going to move on.
Phoebe Vet In the not too distant future this country is going to deeply regret the move from defined benefit retirement plans to individual 401-k type accounts. With that said, we have beat this to death, I am going to move on.
Thanks for stopping by.
Phoebe Vet A really good pension package is like golden handcuffs. It keeps your people with 10 or 15 years of training and experience from one day saying "I don't want to do this anymore".
That, and having to start over on the vacation time ladder.
A few weeks ago at our last union meeting, we had a representative from RRB to explain benefits, etc. From what she said, RR retirement is in better shape than Social Security. Eventually it too, will run into some of the same problems, but barring major changes to the status quo (like politicians tinkering or major employment losses, etc) that date is farther out.
Most discussions about any possible changes being made make it look like just the unions are upset and worried. The companies also don't want to see any changes. Management also receive RRR when they retire.
Murphy, UP does have a 40lk program for employees. I think non-agreement employees do receive matching contributions from the company. Agreement employees do not at this time.
Jeff
I would guess that RRB was established and took over the handful of private pension plans that existed on a few Class 1's at the time in part to cover all railroaders and in part because of the not uncommon practice at the time for railroaders to move from one road to another to follow the work.
There are several reasons RR began...remember first, there was no Social Security and, in reality, virtually no pension systems as we know them if any at all. Railroad workers often retired early because of injuries but many worked until death. Unions and management realized there had to be a program to allow older workers ease out and younger guys learn and move up all the while maintaining an organized operating unit that would work with and without the most senior and most junior of skilled employees. It also allowed for survivors of employees to not become indigent.. It was progressive and worked for the safety and benefit of both labor and railroad. Railroad employees in the late 19th and early 20th Centuries were the largest employee group, and thus the strongest assembled group, and often the best paid employee group.
Also note that any and all other pension programans, 401Ks, personal retirement accounts, employee pension plans, etc., are not tied to RR or SS in anyway, are seperate agreements between employers and their chosen employees (could be all or just managers or...whatever).
Murphy Siding Why can't the railroad industry change the retirement program over to 401k type program with employer contributions like other industries? Is there some advantage to having Uncle Sam involved? It appears there may be some disadvantges to having the federal government involved.
Why can't the railroad industry change the retirement program over to 401k type program with employer contributions like other industries? Is there some advantage to having Uncle Sam involved? It appears there may be some disadvantges to having the federal government involved.
Risk, or rather the lack of risk. It would be very difficult for a person in their seventies to go back into the workforce when their 401k is either exhausted or the private company backing it goes under, and so a plan that provides all retirees with a guaranteed, defined benefits is key. The US government,on the other hand, is the longest continuously existing government (that is to say, without a change in the basic law of the land, in our case, the US Constitution). The US government is very unlikely to go bankrupt in a Madoff-style scheme, to say the least.
DwightBranch Murphy Siding: Why can't the railroad industry change the retirement program over to 401k type program with employer contributions like other industries? Is there some advantage to having Uncle Sam involved? It appears there may be some disadvantges to having the federal government involved. Risk, or rather the lack of risk. It would be very difficult for a person in their seventies to go back into the workforce when their 401k is either exhausted or the private company backing it goes under, and so a plan that provides all retirees with a guaranteed, defined benefits is key. The US government,on the other hand, is the longest continuously existing government (that is to say, without a change in the basic law of the land, in our case, the US Constitution). The US government is very unlikely to go bankrupt in a Madoff-style scheme, to say the least.
Murphy Siding: Why can't the railroad industry change the retirement program over to 401k type program with employer contributions like other industries? Is there some advantage to having Uncle Sam involved? It appears there may be some disadvantges to having the federal government involved.
Numbers. There is strength in numbers. One person's account does not yield as much as ten thousand people's account. Costs as much to make one investment as it does to make 10,000. Plus the bigger the size of the investment, the bigger the yield. And instead of all the invstment going into one buy it is divided enough so that if one is low it won't bring the others down; and if one is high,it might help lift others. It is like a mutual fund, a giant mutual fund.
Considering the amount that employees and employers contribute to RRR as payments, is this money invested in a way to provide a return over time? So, when a person retires, will he or she receive a benefit that returns a profit on the investment?
This is what is missing from social security. Is it also missing from RRR?
When a railroader retires today at age 60, after working for a railroad say since the age of 18, what is the amount of money that the person could collect say if he lived another 30 years? What is the amount he paid in between age 18 and age 60?
Bucyrus Considering the amount that employees and employers contribute to RRR as payments, is this money invested in a way to provide a return over time? So, when a person retires, will he or she receive a benefit that returns a profit on the investment? This is what is missing from social security. Is it also missing from RRR?
When you introduce the possibility of a profit, you also introduce the possibility of a loss, up to the total amount invested (see Madoff, Bernie) and that is someone incapable of working anymore cannot bear. One's retirement portfolio needn't be a money-making scheme. I personally do not want a society where our retirement system is organized like a Las Vegas casino or a lottery, and I don't think most retirees do either.
Well, I don’t think it has to be a choice between no investment and a Las Vegas casino. The people who oppose privatizing social security always bolster their argument by characterizing investment of funds as a risky scheme. But isn’t there a middle ground where the funds could be invested to some reasonable advantage without unacceptable risk? What about 401k plans? They are invested with risk and many people find this acceptable. Isn’t responsible investing a fundamental component of saving money?
Social security is in trouble. Why should it be if it were properly managed?
The financial aspects of various retirement plans is a very complex subject. It usually takes a small library of relevant books to understand all of the dynamics.
Retirement in the United States is usually funded from three principle sources, sometimes referred to as a three legged stool. For most people retirement monies come from Social Security (Railroad Retirement), legacy retirement or employer sponsored 401(k) and 401(m) plans, and personal investments and savings.
Social Security is not a retirement account. It is a tax transfer scheme. I don't know about Railroad Retirement. Workers pay payroll taxes: they pay all of it contrary to popular belief, and the monies are transferred to beneficiaries, i.e. retirees, survivors, and disabled persons. Until 1985 Social Security was a pay as you go system, which meant that the amount of the payroll tax was determined actuarially to cover the expected number of current beneficiaries. However, in 1984 or 1985, I don't remember the exact date, as a result of a recommendation by the Greenspan Commission, the combined payroll taxes were increased to build a surplus in the Social Security Trust Fund in preparation for the bubble in benefits anticipated because of the retirement of the baby boomers beginning in 2010.Instead of investing the monies, the government used the surplus to fund general operations. The Social Security Trust Fund received non-marketable notes from the U.S. Treasury in exchange for the surplus funds. As benefits exceed revenues, which they did beginning in 2010, the Social Security Trust Fund must redeem some of the notes to pay for the benefits. The Treasury does not have any surplus funds, to it has to borrow the money in the open funds markets to redeem the notes.
Monies paid into a legacy pension fund or a 401(k)(m) fund usually are invested in a variety of securities. The pension fund and the 401 funds are managed by an independent fund administrator. Most of these funds earn substantial returns. This is true not only for railroads and businesses; it is also true for state and local government employees, teachers, university professors, etc. In fact, the Texas Teachers Pension Fund is one of the best managed funds in the United States; in fact, it is one of the best managed funds in the world. In the case of federal employees, including retired military personnel, their retirement benefits are paid out of operating funds.
Personal savings are invested according to the risk profile of the saver. The safest bets are CDs, which are guaranteed with restrictions by the FDIC, Treasury Notes, etc. Risker investments include bonds, stocks, etc. The key to personal savings or investing of any kind is diversity, which is necessary to spread the risk.
There are risks associated with any form of investment, including so-called government retirement programs. A business can go bankrupt, in which case its pension plan, assuming that it was qualified, will be taken over by the Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation. If this happens the beneficiaries may receive a reduced benefit, but only a small percentage of retirees find themselves in this position.
If a person invests in overly risky securities, i.e. junk bonds, speculative stocks, etc. he or she can lose some or all of their stake. On the other hand, if they are too conservative, i.e. over concentration in CDs, Treasury Notes, etc., they may not have enough money for retirement, irrespective of whether they worked for a railroad or the government or whoever. Note my tying this discussion back to the railroad industry.
There are risks associated with Social Security. The government is not contractually obligated to pay Social Security benefits. It could pull the plug on them at any time, as per a Supreme Court ruling regarding the payment of benefits to a foreign national who worked in the United States for more than 25 years but retired to a country that the U.S. deemed a terrorist nation. In addition, Social Security has changed the guidelines for benefits on numerous occasions, i.e. age required to qualify for full benefits, increase in the payroll taxes, taxability of benefits, etc. Each of these changes in effect has reduced the value of the program for some or all of the participants.
An overriding risk for all of the aforementioned retirement schemes is under funding. This is true for business, state and local governments, Social Security, etc. Many retirement plans are in serious trouble, including Social Security, because the policy makers over promised on benefits and, further, because retirees are living much long than had been anticipated.
Of course a retirement fund is undefined here. So, for the sake of arguement, lets define. 1) personal retirement fund is one in which an individual invests in hopes of having saved his money and earned interest so that it is more than just his investment in the long term. 2) a retirment fund plan like SS or RR which individuals pool funds and the orginization itself will invest the accrued monies so that at least there is no loss, but should, overall, reap interests to cover cost of administering and return same to those who subscribed to it. SO, SS and RR is of the latter and with a portfolio that should keep invested funds at least intact...and with more individuals putting into their accounts, the more there is to invest and return. As long as more people put in than take out, it should work. But an individual cannot spread his own money wide enough, even with Mutual Funds, to save and get a return as is done with SS or RR.
henry6 Of course a retirement fund is undefined here. So, for the sake of arguement, lets define. 1) personal retirement fund is one in which an individual invests in hopes of having saved his money and earned interest so that it is more than just his investment in the long term. 2) a retirment fund plan like SS or RR which individuals pool funds and the orginization itself will invest the accrued monies so that at least there is no loss, but should, overall, reap interests to cover cost of administering and return same to those who subscribed to it. SO, SS and RR is of the latter and with a portfolio that should keep invested funds at least intact...and with more individuals putting into their accounts, the more there is to invest and return. As long as more people put in than take out, it should work. But an individual cannot spread his own money wide enough, even with Mutual Funds, to save and get a return as is done with SS or RR.
Social Security Funds are not invested. The surplus pay taxes have been borrowed by the federal government for general purposes. In exchange for the use of the funds, Social Security has been given non-marketable Treasury Notes. Theoretically, they earn six per cent per year. In fact, they don't earning anything. The interest is accrued by the Treasury. When it redeems the notes, as it was forced to do in 2010, and will be forced to do so in ever increasing amounts rolling forward, it had to borrow the principal plus the accrued interest.
The notion of the Treasury paying interest on the monies that it has taken from the Social Security Trust Fund is akin to a person paying his or her mortgage with a credit card. The interest and principal on the mortgage are reduced, but the credit card debt increases. At the end of the day it is a losing game game, i.e. the general tax burden has increased.
Most Americans, unfortunately, don't understand how Social Security works. Many of them believe that it is a retirement account akin to the plan of their employer, etc. Nothing could be further from the truth. Social Security is a tax transfer scheme, as I noted in my previous post.
The Railroad Retirement Pension is not Social Security. That was supposed to be the topic of this thread, yet it seems to have degenerated into another political back and forth, with more smoke then light. Why not discuss the thread topic, and you don't really know anything about this very specialized topic (sam1, others), let it go?
C&NW, CA&E, MILW, CGW and IC fan
Define tax transfer scheme, please. Tax would indicated money taken but not returned. SS money is taken and theoretically, and normally, returned to those who put their money in as an individual and equalled by an employers contribution. If it is a real transfer scheme, as suggested, then no one would get any money back at any time.
And, yes, if the money put in is taken out for purposes other than supporting and operating the fund, it should be stopped.
I don't believe, however, that RRR money is confiscated by the Federal government the same, but is compensated for the adminsitering of the contributions being made by railroad employees and equally by their employers.
schlimm The Railroad Retirement Pension is not Social Security. That was supposed to be the topic of this thread, yet it seems to have degenerated into another political back and forth, with more smoke then light. Why not discuss the thread topic, and you don't really know anything about this very specialized topic (sam1, others), let it go?
The question posed was if RR Retirement was gone...., which implies amongst other things what could take its place. One option is Social Security. In fact, over the years, there have been recommendations to fold RR Retirement into Social Security.
My previous posts discussed briefly several options if RR Retirement was gone, including SS, private pension plans, and personal investments. I made it clear that I don't know the Railroad Retirement scheme or plan, except I am reasonably confident that it uses the same actuarial techniques employed by Social Security, private pension plans, insurance companies, etc.
If the assertion is that I don't understand Social Security, 401(k) and 401(m) investment schemes or personal investing, no one posting to these forums has a clue, other than what I say, as to what I know. As a matter of fact, I read the Social Security and Medicare Trustee's report every year. Not just the executive summary! The complete report with all the actuarial tables! And I understand what I am reading. Also, as a retired accountant, I understand how the government accounts for transactions and how it differs from GAAP.
sam1: I clearly said: "you [and others] don't really know anything about this very specialized topic " (RRB), nothing about whether or not you know anything about SS or government accounting. This was based on your statement (perhaps you forgot?), "I don't know about Railroad Retirement."
schlimm sam1: I clearly said: "you [and others] don't really know anything about this very specialized topic " (RRB), nothing about whether or not you know anything about SS or government accounting. This was based on your statement (perhaps you forgot?), "I don't know about Railroad Retirement."
I was commenting on the alternatives to RR Retirement, which was the main thrust of my post. That is to say, in response to the main question, as well as several subsequent posts regarding alternatives, I laid out some alternatives. Nothing more; nothing less.
Discussing the features of Social Security, 401(k) and 401(m) plans, and personal savings is hardly political. It could be considered political if one is advocating for one or the other. I have not done that. I was simply pointing out that there are alternatives to RR Retirement, which again is implied by the topic heading.
Most of the topics in these forums tend to range widely around the opening theme. No problem. Participants are free to say whatever they want as long as it is civil. And they are free to read it if they believe it is relevant, or they are free to ignore it.
Some of the contributions to RRR are invested. The link provided can explain it better than I can.
http://www.rrb.gov/mep/nrrit.asp
Murphy Siding Exactly! And that's why no one on this thread is saying this.
Exactly! And that's why no one on this thread is saying this.
REALLY?? I could have sworn when the original post began "If RR Retirement was gone...Would people stick around in this industry? " that the implied subject was : if the retirement plan was ELIMINATED, then turnover would increase.
silly me.
There probably are very few people sticking around ONLY for the retirement. (the few guys within shouting distance of their retirement date being the notable exception) .
But we have to be honest - the RRT is a big part of the compensation package, and probably does keep many guys around.
To collect RRR, do you have to retire from a job on the railroad?
How much are the benefits keyed to what the employee actually put into the system?
What is the average percent of an employee's pay that gets withheld for RRR? More specifically, this would include both the part withheld from the employee and the amount matched by the employer. Somewhere I read that this number as pretty high. So I am curious what the percent actually is.
If you work for a railroad for say eight years, and then quit, do you simply forfeit what you have paid to fund RRR; or do you get some payback from it when you do retire. I always heard that was one drawback to getting RRR instead of SS, that is that if you quit a railroad job, you leave your contributions behind, whereas with SS, the benefits keep accruing no matter what jobs you do.
Convicted One Convicted One: I believe that if someone is in ANY industry for the retirement plan alone, then they are likely in the wrong business. Murphy Siding: Exactly! And that's why no one on this thread is saying this. REALLY?? I could have sworn when the original post began "If RR Retirement was gone...Would people stick around in this industry? " that the implied subject was : if the retirement plan was ELIMINATED, then turnover would increase. silly me.
Murphy Siding: Exactly! And that's why no one on this thread is saying this.
Bucyrus,
Not necessarily...if you work and pay in for more than10 years continuous service, then the money you pay in is yours, sorta.
If you leave the RR industry and go to a job that withholds SS tax, and retire from that job, the law requires you draw from which ever fund is greater, until that fund is exhausted, and then draw from the other.
If you bounce back and forth, same thing applied, the greater fund is used first.
The link I provided earlier gives you time and percent paid out...
The fund invests because the return on the investments pretty much pay for the administration and management of the fund and creates a buffer amount to cover the few instances where retirees draw from the fund for a extended period,, or a employee retires early and draws in excess than what they paid in, doesn't happen often, but it happens.
Bucyrus To collect RRR, do you have to retire from a job on the railroad? How much are the benefits keyed to what the employee actually put into the system? What is the average percent of an employee's pay that gets withheld for RRR? More specifically, this would include both the part withheld from the employee and the amount matched by the employer. Somewhere I read that this number as pretty high. So I am curious what the percent actually is. If you work for a railroad for say eight years, and then quit, do you simply forfeit what you have paid to fund RRR; or do you get some payback from it when you do retire. I always heard that was one drawback to getting RRR instead of SS, that is that if you quit a railroad job, you leave your contributions behind, whereas with SS, the benefits keep accruing no matter what jobs you do.
Ed, its 5 years now.
Here is someone advocating a single payer national retirement / healthcare plan. The basis of the argument is that healthcare and retirements are fundamental human rights.
http://www.upte.org/lp/health/singlepayer.pdf
I think that is where we are heading. This rising pension funding problem, including SS and RRR, is just the tip of the iceberg. I expect the government to nationalize everyone’s 401K and roll them into a remodeled SS system.
SS will become the “single payer” pension plan, and everyone will be treated fair. No more big juicy pensions for some, but not all. We need a national pension system that is sustainable. This will happen within the next 2-3 years, and when it does, the national retirement plan will indeed be an entitlement. In other words, there will be no direct connection between a participant's contribution and their benefits.
Jack,
Go figure, bet it changed once I had 11 years in!
Bucyrus...
Not if I can help it!
Don't know what in the world would make anyone think I would want to support a couch potato slob with my sweat equity.
I earned every dime I ever received, and all the dimes I contributed to the RR Retirement fund, and see no reason to share it with those choose not to work or to save.
I have a 401K plan also, and a little "private" investment fund I manage myself, funded with money I earned....any reason I should give some of that hard earned money away?
Ed,
I can see what you are saying. I look at it the same way. But I am wondering if everyone else wants a totally privatized plan where your contributions are accounted for in your name; or if they might instead prefer to have thier contributions rolled into the overall performance of the system.
Murphy Siding OK. I kinda see where you got yourself lost on this one. When you quoted only part of what was written, you must have gotten confused about the meaning. Ironically, the part you trimmed was your own words. I agree, silly you.
OK. I kinda see where you got yourself lost on this one. When you quoted only part of what was written, you must have gotten confused about the meaning. Ironically, the part you trimmed was your own words. I agree, silly you.
No, I wasn't the one who was"lost",...at all.
the original post asked the question : "If RR Retirement was gone...Would people stick around in this industry?
Suggesting (abstractly, to avoid hurt feelings) that if you take away the cheese, some of the rats might go elsewhere.
And I was merely making a motivational analysis based upon the limited set of factors presented for consideration.
A retirement package certainly might be a factor in one's decision where to work, but if it alone were the determining factor, My feeling is that it (the career path) would be a life wasted.
Convicted One No, I wasn't the one who was"lost",...at all. the original post asked the question : "If RR Retirement was gone...Would people stick around in this industry? Suggesting (abstractly, to avoid hurt feelings) that if you take away the cheese, some of the rats might go elsewhere. And I was merely making a motivational analysis based upon the limited set of factors presented for consideration. A retirement package certainly might be a factor in one's decision where to work, but if it alone were the determining factor, My feeling is that it (the career path) would be a life wasted.
I wrote the post. I never said retirement alone was the determining factor - but it is one of the major ones.
IF (a) ...then WOULD (b)?
this isn't rocket science.
Well, it was MY thread, so I get to say what I meant.
(c) if you don't like it, then (d) go to another thread.
Sheesh.
I guess we should stick to talking paint schemes, then.
Convicted One Murphy Siding: OK. I kinda see where you got yourself lost on this one. When you quoted only part of what was written, you must have gotten confused about the meaning. Ironically, the part you trimmed was your own words. I agree, silly you. No, I wasn't the one who was"lost",...at all. the original post asked the question : "If RR Retirement was gone...Would people stick around in this industry? Suggesting (abstractly, to avoid hurt feelings) that if you take away the cheese, some of the rats might go elsewhere. And I was merely making a motivational analysis based upon the limited set of factors presented for consideration. A retirement package certainly might be a factor in one's decision where to work, but if it alone were the determining factor, My feeling is that it (the career path) would be a life wasted.
Murphy Siding: OK. I kinda see where you got yourself lost on this one. When you quoted only part of what was written, you must have gotten confused about the meaning. Ironically, the part you trimmed was your own words. I agree, silly you.
Murphy Siding My feeling is that if you overwater your grass, it may kill your lawn. That would be my alalysis of your analysis based on it's relevense to this thread-none.
My feeling is that if you overwater your grass, it may kill your lawn. That would be my alalysis of your analysis based on it's relevense to this thread-none.
(*sigh*) Interesting that the OP even acknowledges partial agreement with me, yet you continue with the denial.
ZUG and I don't agree all that often, but here... we do, at least to an extent. And yet the contrarian in you thrives-on?
Well, even if the concept of "gone" were better defined to mean "if the money the workers already had stranded in it, was no longer there" ... then, I'd still say that IF the retirement alone is what you are after, you shoulda found something you enjoyed doing, instead.
Convicted One Murphy Siding: My feeling is that if you overwater your grass, it may kill your lawn. That would be my alalysis of your analysis based on it's relevense to this thread-none. (*sigh*) Interesting that the OP even acknowledges partial agreement with me, yet you continue with the denial. ZUG and I don't agree all that often, but here... we do, at least to an extent. And yet the contrarian in you thrives-on? Well, even if the concept of "gone" were better defined to mean "if the money the workers already had stranded in it, was no longer there" ... then, I'd still say that IF the retirement alone is what you are after, you shoulda found something you enjoyed doing, instead.
Murphy Siding: My feeling is that if you overwater your grass, it may kill your lawn. That would be my alalysis of your analysis based on it's relevense to this thread-none.
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.