cougarpinesOne person train crews would significantly reduce the amount of railroad workers contributing into the Tier 2 portion of the benefit, not to mention the reduced amount of employees the carriers are having to pay 12.6 percent on.
I know the Class I's are trying to push one person crews but I have to be honest here with the current automation technology still lacking..... I think a freight train with only one person in the cab is an accident waiting to happen and I would be personally opposed to any such thing comming anywhere near my home.
They won't even let you drive a tank in the Army without a second person to look over your shoulder or get off the tank and ground guide it around. Frieght Train can be far more damaging than a tank if it gets out of control.
First of all, Railroad Retirement is a two part system. Employees pay into Tier 1 RRR which is the equivilent of Social Security. Then they additionally pay into Tier 2 which is a private annuity for railway workers. Carriers hate Railroad Retirement because they have to pay 12.6 percent for each eligible employee earnings into Tier 2. In general, railroaders who are part of the Railroad Retirement program have more money deducted out of their paychecks than people who are only part of Social Security. In the end, Railroad Retirement is worth about 3 times what Social Security is worth after a 30 year career. Tier 2 is mostly self funded by the workers. To take this money and combine it with Social Security would be robbery. I see two major threats to Railroad Retirement: one person train crews and privitization of Amtrak.
One person train crews would significantly reduce the amount of railroad workers contributing into the Tier 2 portion of the benefit, not to mention the reduced amount of employees the carriers are having to pay 12.6 percent on.
Privitizing Amtrak where transportation companies like herzog take over the service as a "contractor" is also a threat. Despite Amtrak being a small Class 1 compared to other railroads, their employee contributions are a major factor in keeping Railroad Retirement solvent. As a norm, transportation companies like Herzog who have found a loophole as a contractor do not pay 12.6% per employee into the Railroad Retirement system nor are their employees part of the benefit.
tree68 As someone directly involved with running an ambulance service - it's a problem. Most insurance companies won't pay even a reasonable fraction of what it costs to keep an ambulance available. We get a subsidy from the townships we serve and we still have to watch expenses and seek other sources of funding. The newer, and ever increasing, deductables are causing serious problems as well. We have had to resort to sending people to collections. This is not a pleasant solution, as these people are our neighbors. It's not much different for doctors - if they want to keep their office open, they need money for direct and overhead costs. That's not to say that there aren't those who are getting greedy, but what sometimes looks like greed is oftimes just an attempt to break even, somehow. It has been said that those who supposedly are trying to help us get better are instead invested in keeping us where we are, so as to sell us more drugs and services... But we're drifting off the rails here...
As someone directly involved with running an ambulance service - it's a problem. Most insurance companies won't pay even a reasonable fraction of what it costs to keep an ambulance available. We get a subsidy from the townships we serve and we still have to watch expenses and seek other sources of funding. The newer, and ever increasing, deductables are causing serious problems as well. We have had to resort to sending people to collections. This is not a pleasant solution, as these people are our neighbors.
It's not much different for doctors - if they want to keep their office open, they need money for direct and overhead costs.
That's not to say that there aren't those who are getting greedy, but what sometimes looks like greed is oftimes just an attempt to break even, somehow.
It has been said that those who supposedly are trying to help us get better are instead invested in keeping us where we are, so as to sell us more drugs and services...
But we're drifting off the rails here...
I may be biased as a provider, but it seems to me that the insurance companies are the real bandits.
C&NW, CA&E, MILW, CGW and IC fan
Electroliner 1935 I;m reminded of the tale of the guy who challenged his doctor about his bill. Doc, You billed me $250.00 for cutting this mole off and it only took you five minutes. The doc took the bill and issued him a new one. It said $10.00 for cutting of mole. $240.00 for knowing how to cut off mole.
I;m reminded of the tale of the guy who challenged his doctor about his bill.
Doc, You billed me $250.00 for cutting this mole off and it only took you five minutes. The doc took the bill and issued him a new one. It said $10.00 for cutting of mole. $240.00 for knowing how to cut off mole.
There you go!
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...
BaltACD Euclid BaltACD Euclid Tom, If we fix #1-4, that will take care of the Shkreli problem. The Shkreli Factor is the real facilitator of 1-4. How so? If you believe that to be the case, how would you fix it? Everybody pushes the limit on their billing - try $10 and get paid 7; next time try $15 and get paid 10; next try $20 and get paid 15 and the march is on time after time increment after increment. Shkreli only made the increments beyond belief - doctors are doing it, drug companies are doing it, hospitals are doing it, doctor owned 'surgery centers' are doing it - anybody and everybody connected with providing health care are doing it and with each 'increment' so raises 'reasonable & customary' in what gets paid - and everybody in health care laughs all the way to the bank, including the insurance providers.
Euclid BaltACD Euclid Tom, If we fix #1-4, that will take care of the Shkreli problem. The Shkreli Factor is the real facilitator of 1-4. How so? If you believe that to be the case, how would you fix it?
BaltACD Euclid Tom, If we fix #1-4, that will take care of the Shkreli problem. The Shkreli Factor is the real facilitator of 1-4.
Euclid Tom, If we fix #1-4, that will take care of the Shkreli problem.
Tom,
If we fix #1-4, that will take care of the Shkreli problem.
The Shkreli Factor is the real facilitator of 1-4.
How so? If you believe that to be the case, how would you fix it?
Everybody pushes the limit on their billing - try $10 and get paid 7; next time try $15 and get paid 10; next try $20 and get paid 15 and the march is on time after time increment after increment. Shkreli only made the increments beyond belief - doctors are doing it, drug companies are doing it, hospitals are doing it, doctor owned 'surgery centers' are doing it - anybody and everybody connected with providing health care are doing it and with each 'increment' so raises 'reasonable & customary' in what gets paid - and everybody in health care laughs all the way to the bank, including the insurance providers.
I understand what you mean. Everyone will take as much money as they can. With healthcare, there is no free market. The final payer is the consumer, and he/she is frozen out of any influence on the price. If this same system were applied to food, a gallon of milk would cost $889.57.
The only solution is to put the consumer back into the normal position of shopping for the best price. That forces the providers to compete with each other, and they will feel the pressure to lower their prices to get the business. Right now, these providers are free to take whatever price they want. Competition will end this free lunch to providers. It works every time.
Never too old to have a happy childhood!
Euclid The basic problem in healthcare is the price which is rising out of control for these four reasons: The administrative cost imposed by the insurance companies as a third party to the patient/provider transaction. The administrative cost of government regulations. The separation of the patient from consideration of direct cost awareness. The lack of cost containment pressure on the medical provider and products industry, the insurance companies, and the regulators that results from separating the patient from direct cost awareness. For a while, the rising costs could be somewhat contained by group rates and pooling risk which was a natural function of insurance, but the limit is now being reached, and the cost is becoming impossible to cope with. The only solution is to fix all four of the above listed items by introducing competition for the patients’ business. Neither the insurance companies, the medical business, nor the government regulators have any interest in this solution. They all benefit from the lack of competition for the patients' business. Only the patient has an interest in this solution, and they have no idea how to exercise their will in the matter. So the solution can only happen at the political level, and only by those politicians who see a greater political benefit serving the public rather than serving their self-interests.
The basic problem in healthcare is the price which is rising out of control for these four reasons:
The administrative cost imposed by the insurance companies as a third party to the patient/provider transaction.
The administrative cost of government regulations.
The separation of the patient from consideration of direct cost awareness.
The lack of cost containment pressure on the medical provider and products industry, the insurance companies, and the regulators that results from separating the patient from direct cost awareness.
For a while, the rising costs could be somewhat contained by group rates and pooling risk which was a natural function of insurance, but the limit is now being reached, and the cost is becoming impossible to cope with.
The only solution is to fix all four of the above listed items by introducing competition for the patients’ business. Neither the insurance companies, the medical business, nor the government regulators have any interest in this solution. They all benefit from the lack of competition for the patients' business. Only the patient has an interest in this solution, and they have no idea how to exercise their will in the matter.
So the solution can only happen at the political level, and only by those politicians who see a greater political benefit serving the public rather than serving their self-interests.
The rising costs in medical care are also largely attributable to unfunded mandates passed by Congress each year which drives the medical costs higher and higher.
One big way to reduce pharmacutical prices in my view would be for government to pick up the cost of medical research on drugs that are successful in treating ailments as well as partially sponsoring research in other areas. Stripped of the claim they have to recover the research monies spent. The price of some drugs would be significantly cheaper.
BaltACDAnd how much is the Insurance industry gouging on health care, while being in a conspiracy with health care providers of both services and medicines to jack up prices 100%, 200% 1000% and then blame it on the Affordable Care Act. Two years ago I broke the radius on my left arm. It had to be surgically repaired through an 'outpatient' surgery center. I arrived at the facility at Noon and spent an hour filling out forms. Taken into per-op at 1 PM. Procedure performed, installed a plate and 6 screws, into recovery and released at 5 PM. Bill $25,000 to insurance (through my employer/union - not the ACA). Insurance settled the bill for $17,000 + $1300 for anathesia + 2400 for the surgeon. Later my doctor prescribed a 'bone stimulator' to enhance the healing process. Insurance billed $4200 and insurance settled for $2500 for what appeared to be a $200 piece of electronic equipment. In total I was billed $40K, Insurance settled on $25K and I had to pick up $1500 out of pocket. I don't begrudge any business to make a profit - it is obvious the 'billings' were Insurance prices - I don't know what prices would have been if I had said I didn't have insurance, only money - maybe less, maybe more. The fact that insurance setteled at the prices they did by default means that the providers are making a profit at the settled price. The reality is there is no effective control on health care prices and people are hit with these bills when they are in the most stressed periods of their lives - just wanting to feel 'normal' again and having no basis to 'comparison shop' for any of the procedures to know if they and/or their insurance carriers are being taken. I suspect the ACA Insurers aren't challenging what they are being billed so they can claim losses on the business and jack the rates out of sight and say 'we told you so'
The two different rates are what you would pay without insurance and what the insurance company negotiated to pay for the procedures. The reason for the difference is the negotiated rate represents a GROUP of people that may or maynot seek the same care from the same medical system for the same rate versus an individual.
Now for the restaurant analogy to please ACY:
If you eat at a restaurant as a individual you typically pay higher rates on a per person basis than if you eat at a restaurant as a group and pay group rates for the food. That doesn't mean the restaurant is run by evil people out to gouge. It is what is called an "Economy of Scale".
As for the insurance companies being evil. I've yet to hear one complaint about workmans comp insurance and how that works. Everyone is happy with that. You know why right? Because someone else picks up the tab (the employer). Yet still if the employers and insurance companies were really in cohoots they could screw you on workmans comp but guess what? They don't. You can pick any doctor and any hospital to resolve a workmans comp claim. You can also take off as long as the Doctor instructs from work and your work hours salary or just salary is protected by Workmans Comp. The only requirement is the Workmans Comp Insurance company reviews the Doctors instructions and requests both employer and emploee to sign off on the amount of work missed. That was my experience with workmans comp insurance. Everyone happy and everyone made whole again. Worker didn't pay a penny for medical care nor the time missed from work.
And guess what else, Workmans Comp is not part of the ACA. Imagine that. How did those evil companies and evil insurance companies work out such a deal?
I had a employee that claimed Workers Comp for a twisted knee (whatever that is) I sent him to top of the line (for Dallas) Baylor Hospital in Plano for Medical Care. He was treated like royalty and recovered just fine.
Euclid, you forgot Number 5:
The Shkreli Profit factor, which is rife throughout the Health Care Industry.
Tom
Paul of Covington I can't talk about insurance companies without getting all worked up, so I'll just tell something my mother told me back in the 70's. The dollar amounts seem outrageously low now, but this is what I remember. Before medicare she and my father used to get flu shots every year for one dollar each. After medicare, the price was ten dollars, medicare paid 80% ($8). Their auxillary insurance paid half of the remainder, and they paid one dollar out of pocket. (Edit): On reflection, I realize that this is more of an indictment of the healthcare industry, but that's OK. I'm not a fan of them either.
(Edit): On reflection, I realize that this is more of an indictment of the healthcare industry, but that's OK. I'm not a fan of them either.
In today's world, it is practically impossible to separate the health care and insurance industries - when it comes to money.
I can't talk about insurance companies without getting all worked up, so I'll just tell something my mother told me back in the 70's. The dollar amounts seem outrageously low now, but this is what I remember. Before medicare she and my father used to get flu shots every year for one dollar each. After medicare, the price was ten dollars, medicare paid 80% ($8). Their auxillary insurance paid half of the remainder, and they paid one dollar out of pocket.
_____________
"A stranger's just a friend you ain't met yet." --- Dave Gardner
Recently read of a woman who delivered her baby in the front seat of her car in the hospital parking lot and was charged some outrageous fee for use of the delivery room, which she never visited during her stay...
A lot of this goes back to the insurance companies, which typically won't pay a decent rate for the service performed, so the providers have to charge a great deal more, in hopes that the insurance company will pay the amount the provider should get for the service in question.
There have been instances of insurance companies initially summarily rejecting claims they eventually paid on later resubmission. Our ambulance service was encountering this on a regular basis.
jeffhergert ACY Quote from Schlimm: "Ryan wants to privatize Medicare by substuting vouchers. I cannot see how that is good for seniors nor is there any valid reason to do so, other than enrich health insurance coffers." How much has Ryan invested personally in the Insurance Industry? Tom I think the more relevent question is, "How much has the Insurance industry invested in Ryan." Jeff
ACY Quote from Schlimm: "Ryan wants to privatize Medicare by substuting vouchers. I cannot see how that is good for seniors nor is there any valid reason to do so, other than enrich health insurance coffers." How much has Ryan invested personally in the Insurance Industry? Tom
Quote from Schlimm: "Ryan wants to privatize Medicare by substuting vouchers. I cannot see how that is good for seniors nor is there any valid reason to do so, other than enrich health insurance coffers."
How much has Ryan invested personally in the Insurance Industry?
I think the more relevent question is, "How much has the Insurance industry invested in Ryan."
Jeff
And how much is the Insurance industry gouging on health care, while being in a conspiracy with health care providers of both services and medicines to jack up prices 100%, 200% 1000% and then blame it on the Affordable Care Act.
Two years ago I broke the radius on my left arm. It had to be surgically repaired through an 'outpatient' surgery center. I arrived at the facility at Noon and spent an hour filling out forms. Taken into per-op at 1 PM. Procedure performed, installed a plate and 6 screws, into recovery and released at 5 PM. Bill $25,000 to insurance (through my employer/union - not the ACA). Insurance settled the bill for $17,000 + $1300 for anathesia + 2400 for the surgeon. Later my doctor prescribed a 'bone stimulator' to enhance the healing process. Insurance billed $4200 and insurance settled for $2500 for what appeared to be a $200 piece of electronic equipment. In total I was billed $40K, Insurance settled on $25K and I had to pick up $1500 out of pocket.
I don't begrudge any business to make a profit - it is obvious the 'billings' were Insurance prices - I don't know what prices would have been if I had said I didn't have insurance, only money - maybe less, maybe more. The fact that insurance setteled at the prices they did by default means that the providers are making a profit at the settled price. The reality is there is no effective control on health care prices and people are hit with these bills when they are in the most stressed periods of their lives - just wanting to feel 'normal' again and having no basis to 'comparison shop' for any of the procedures to know if they and/or their insurance carriers are being taken. I suspect the ACA Insurers aren't challenging what they are being billed so they can claim losses on the business and jack the rates out of sight and say 'we told you so'.
schlimm BaltACD schlimm On a more serious note, relating to Medicare and maybe later to Social Security: Ryan on Medicare If only Ryan could get us old phoggies to die off quicker These days best be careful what you wish for!!
BaltACD schlimm On a more serious note, relating to Medicare and maybe later to Social Security: Ryan on Medicare If only Ryan could get us old phoggies to die off quicker
schlimm On a more serious note, relating to Medicare and maybe later to Social Security: Ryan on Medicare
Ryan on Medicare
If only Ryan could get us old phoggies to die off quicker
These days best be careful what you wish for!!
I thought Death Panels were an Obama thing
Greetings from Alberta
-an Articulate Malcontent
CMStPnP Ahh, I know you older folks that voted Democrat are still upset Misty Snow lost the Senate race in Utah. Maybe next time.
Ahh, I know you older folks that voted Democrat are still upset Misty Snow lost the Senate race in Utah. Maybe next time.
Yes, I was so upset that it kept me up all night rending my garments and gnashing my teeth.
Maybe that's why he opposes gun control.
Ryan wants to privatize Medicare by substuting vouchers. I cannot see how that is good for seniors nor is there any valid reason to do so, other than enrich health insurance coffers.
Yes, I still find it hard to believe I quoted it. And would have cut and pasted the three words, not just typed them verbatim, and STILL wouldn't have noticed the source.
RME schlimm Since when is the Wiktionary "academic authority"? Laughable! Ye gods! Since NEVER!! Shows what happens when you don't look carefully at a page full of references!!! Where are the emoticons for sackcloth and ashes?
schlimm Since when is the Wiktionary "academic authority"? Laughable!
Ye gods! Since NEVER!! Shows what happens when you don't look carefully at a page full of references!!!
Where are the emoticons for sackcloth and ashes?
Your comment on "spaketh" was verbatim Wiktionary (spaketh
on Google. There were also numerous examples of the word that doth offend thee on the first two pages, mostly in jest.
schlimmSince when is the Wiktionary "academic authority"? Laughable!
schlimm RME schlimm In thine opinion. Not mine; academic authorities on English grammar. Since when is the Wiktionary "academic authority"? Laughable! I suppose I should have said "Also sprach Euclithustra" or, in keeping with the 1891 translation of Nietzsche's work, "Thus Spake Euclithustra"? I can't help thinking that "Buckythustra" has a bit more bite, and that there is an appropriate pun on one of the other handles we think he has used. On that I agree. "Buckythustra" is fertile pun ground with numerous possibilities. And spaketh/spoke/sprach might be more contextually correct as "Thus Circumlocuteth Buckythustra"? T I'm just playin' As was I. Arcane word games can be fun.
RME schlimm In thine opinion. Not mine; academic authorities on English grammar. Since when is the Wiktionary "academic authority"? Laughable! I suppose I should have said "Also sprach Euclithustra" or, in keeping with the 1891 translation of Nietzsche's work, "Thus Spake Euclithustra"? I can't help thinking that "Buckythustra" has a bit more bite, and that there is an appropriate pun on one of the other handles we think he has used. On that I agree. "Buckythustra" is fertile pun ground with numerous possibilities. And spaketh/spoke/sprach might be more contextually correct as "Thus Circumlocuteth Buckythustra"? T I'm just playin' As was I. Arcane word games can be fun.
schlimm In thine opinion.
Not mine; academic authorities on English grammar.
I suppose I should have said "Also sprach Euclithustra" or, in keeping with the 1891 translation of Nietzsche's work, "Thus Spake Euclithustra"?
I can't help thinking that "Buckythustra" has a bit more bite, and that there is an appropriate pun on one of the other handles we think he has used.
On that I agree. "Buckythustra" is fertile pun ground with numerous possibilities. And spaketh/spoke/sprach might be more contextually correct as "Thus Circumlocuteth Buckythustra"?
T
I'm just playin'
As was I. Arcane word games can be fun.
Thanks to Chris / CopCarSS for my avatar.
schlimmOn a more serious note, relating to Medicare and maybe later to Social Security: Ryan on Medicare
On a more serious note, relating to Medicare and maybe later to Social Security:
Yes, the "eth" ending is the third person singular present ending. Now, we simply add the letter "s" for the same purpose.
Johnny
schlimm RME schlimm spaketh "Nonstandard, pseudo-archaic, hypercorrect". And not really at all amusing. (And you were the one being snotty about 'pavane' while misspelling that, too?) Just go ahead and use the actual, real, correct conjugation if you want to make the parallel with Nietzsche or Strauss. We'll all be better for it. In thine opinion. Poetic license. I suppose I should have said "Also sprach Euclithustra" or, in keeping with the 1891 translation of Nietzsche's work, "Thus Spake Euclithustra"? The "pavane" thing. Still boiling over with resentment?
RME schlimm spaketh "Nonstandard, pseudo-archaic, hypercorrect". And not really at all amusing. (And you were the one being snotty about 'pavane' while misspelling that, too?) Just go ahead and use the actual, real, correct conjugation if you want to make the parallel with Nietzsche or Strauss. We'll all be better for it.
schlimm spaketh
"Nonstandard, pseudo-archaic, hypercorrect". And not really at all amusing. (And you were the one being snotty about 'pavane' while misspelling that, too?)
Just go ahead and use the actual, real, correct conjugation if you want to make the parallel with Nietzsche or Strauss. We'll all be better for it.
In thine opinion. Poetic license. I suppose I should have said "Also sprach Euclithustra" or, in keeping with the 1891 translation of Nietzsche's work, "Thus Spake Euclithustra"?
The "pavane" thing. Still boiling over with resentment?
schlimmIn thine opinion.
Poetic license.
You have to actually write poetically to have that license... But that was too easy a straight line.
Naaaw. It just reminded me of the circumstances. (I wonder if 'reminded me again' is actually redundant in these circumstances?)
schlimmspaketh
Euclid Ulrich schlimm CMStPnP SD70M-2Dude But, but, but Trump will make 'Murica great again, and all will be well right!!!??? Says the guy that owes his job to an American Railway Executive....lol. I don't share the gloom and doom. A large rising tide lifts all boats, even the ones with Moosehead on board. Just the opposite. Those American Railroad executives owe their jobs to all those worker bees making the railroad profitable! They need each other. Workers need entrepreneurs who start and run businesses, and businesses, of course, need workers to produce the products and services that the business sells. Nobody owes anyone anything. Its very much a symbiotic relationship. A+
Ulrich schlimm CMStPnP SD70M-2Dude But, but, but Trump will make 'Murica great again, and all will be well right!!!??? Says the guy that owes his job to an American Railway Executive....lol. I don't share the gloom and doom. A large rising tide lifts all boats, even the ones with Moosehead on board. Just the opposite. Those American Railroad executives owe their jobs to all those worker bees making the railroad profitable! They need each other. Workers need entrepreneurs who start and run businesses, and businesses, of course, need workers to produce the products and services that the business sells. Nobody owes anyone anything. Its very much a symbiotic relationship.
schlimm CMStPnP SD70M-2Dude But, but, but Trump will make 'Murica great again, and all will be well right!!!??? Says the guy that owes his job to an American Railway Executive....lol. I don't share the gloom and doom. A large rising tide lifts all boats, even the ones with Moosehead on board. Just the opposite. Those American Railroad executives owe their jobs to all those worker bees making the railroad profitable!
CMStPnP SD70M-2Dude But, but, but Trump will make 'Murica great again, and all will be well right!!!??? Says the guy that owes his job to an American Railway Executive....lol. I don't share the gloom and doom. A large rising tide lifts all boats, even the ones with Moosehead on board.
SD70M-2Dude But, but, but Trump will make 'Murica great again, and all will be well right!!!???
Says the guy that owes his job to an American Railway Executive....lol.
I don't share the gloom and doom. A large rising tide lifts all boats, even the ones with Moosehead on board.
Just the opposite. Those American Railroad executives owe their jobs to all those worker bees making the railroad profitable!
They need each other. Workers need entrepreneurs who start and run businesses, and businesses, of course, need workers to produce the products and services that the business sells. Nobody owes anyone anything. Its very much a symbiotic relationship.
A+
Most importantly, the entrepreneurs risk losing their own money to start and run a business. If the business fails, and they lose their money, the employees' loss is limited to just losing their job.
Neither the employers or the employers are victims of each other. Both have a stake in the company. If the employees don't think they are getting their share, they are free to invest and start their own company.
CMStPnP ACY For many years, the 401K option was available to Amtrak Management employees, but not Agreement covered employees. I understand the Company contributed a share to those Management 401K plans. When the option became available to Agreement employees, the Company declined to add an additional contribution to the Agreement employees' contributions. My 401K was supported 100% directly by me. I guess they weren't legally obliged to contribute anything more, but it added a little extra source of resentment to the whole mix. The people who got the matches were already making more money in the first place, and generally got to sleep almost every night in their own bed. Tom That doesn't sound legal. Are you sure they did it that way? 401 Match is to make the plan more fair between employees that cannot contribute as much AND executives who can contribute more. It's meant to balance the scales more in front of the Feds. That's the only purpose of a match. The greater the % match they give the employees the greater the Executives can contribute, generally. So I am not sure how they got around that with Executives and Managers only participating in a plan unless Managers were stipulated as Employees vs Executives.
ACY For many years, the 401K option was available to Amtrak Management employees, but not Agreement covered employees. I understand the Company contributed a share to those Management 401K plans. When the option became available to Agreement employees, the Company declined to add an additional contribution to the Agreement employees' contributions. My 401K was supported 100% directly by me. I guess they weren't legally obliged to contribute anything more, but it added a little extra source of resentment to the whole mix. The people who got the matches were already making more money in the first place, and generally got to sleep almost every night in their own bed. Tom
For many years, the 401K option was available to Amtrak Management employees, but not Agreement covered employees. I understand the Company contributed a share to those Management 401K plans. When the option became available to Agreement employees, the Company declined to add an additional contribution to the Agreement employees' contributions. My 401K was supported 100% directly by me. I guess they weren't legally obliged to contribute anything more, but it added a little extra source of resentment to the whole mix. The people who got the matches were already making more money in the first place, and generally got to sleep almost every night in their own bed.
That doesn't sound legal. Are you sure they did it that way? 401 Match is to make the plan more fair between employees that cannot contribute as much AND executives who can contribute more. It's meant to balance the scales more in front of the Feds. That's the only purpose of a match. The greater the % match they give the employees the greater the Executives can contribute, generally.
So I am not sure how they got around that with Executives and Managers only participating in a plan unless Managers were stipulated as Employees vs Executives.
There is no requirement for employers to match contributions. Most, but not all, usually do. As an agreement employee, my 401(k) contribution is not matched. I believe non-agreement employee contributions are matched.
Having the company match 401(k) was a suggestion for the latest round of contract negotiations. I don't know if it made it the cut or not.
Euclid A+
Thus spaketh the corporatists.
A few years ago we had a RRB representative at a union meeting. She said RRT was safe for the forseeable future, barring any massive job losses. The biggest threat to Railroad Retirement will be the loss of those paying in when the carriers begin pushing for one person crews. Over all their lines, not just those equipped with PTC.
I prefer to think that we both owe our positions to the railroad's customers, a view that many executives have forgotten.
We've got some big ones here too.. Bombardier, Magna International, Linamar, the Irving Group, McCain Foods, are five multi billion dollar manufacturing companies that immediately come to mind . Granted, we don't have the manufacturing base that you do... our population is 10% of yours, and we're more heavily dependent on resources and services. The flow of talent runs both ways too. You sent us E Hunter Harrison.. we sent you JJ Hill (the Empire Builder).. etc.
......And a few years before they had to import American Airline Executives to fix their National Airlines that were nearing the rocks. I tried to think of the largest manufactuerer in Canada but all I come up with is Ford and General Motors and aren't they really managed from Detroit, Michigan?
Except for those who have holes in their boats.
SD70M-2DudeBut, but, but Trump will make 'Murica great again, and all will be well right!!!???
zugmann Good chance there may be a renewed push for the end of RRT. Hope all my conservative RR bothers like their jobs - they may be doing them well into their 70s.
Good chance there may be a renewed push for the end of RRT. Hope all my conservative RR bothers like their jobs - they may be doing them well into their 70s.
But, but, but Trump will make 'Murica great again, and all will be well right!!!???
schlimmMaybe that or, if some folks get their way, privatization to benefit the financiers.
I think you hit the nail on the head.
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
schlimm BaltACD schlimm NKP guy The RRB and teacher pensions in many states were designed to provide for retirement. SS was designed as a supplement and for most, it still is that. The systems should not be merged. I am not sure what the hidden agenda of merger proponents is, but it's not to benefit recipients. The hidden agenda is a bigger pot of gold to loot for favored pork barrell projects. Just like they have looted SS. Maybe that or, if some folks get their way, privatization to benefit the financiers.
BaltACD schlimm NKP guy The RRB and teacher pensions in many states were designed to provide for retirement. SS was designed as a supplement and for most, it still is that. The systems should not be merged. I am not sure what the hidden agenda of merger proponents is, but it's not to benefit recipients. The hidden agenda is a bigger pot of gold to loot for favored pork barrell projects. Just like they have looted SS.
schlimm NKP guy The RRB and teacher pensions in many states were designed to provide for retirement. SS was designed as a supplement and for most, it still is that. The systems should not be merged. I am not sure what the hidden agenda of merger proponents is, but it's not to benefit recipients.
NKP guy
The RRB and teacher pensions in many states were designed to provide for retirement. SS was designed as a supplement and for most, it still is that. The systems should not be merged. I am not sure what the hidden agenda of merger proponents is, but it's not to benefit recipients.
The hidden agenda is a bigger pot of gold to loot for favored pork barrell projects. Just like they have looted SS.
Maybe that or, if some folks get their way, privatization to benefit the financiers.
In any event - those covered by Railroad Retirement won't benefit.
NKP guy In 1920 teachers in Ohio united in a similar fashion to set up their own retirement system to ensure that retirees could live in dignity, if not grandeur. Like railroaders, teachers here contributed more to their retirement systems, and in turn received more benefits.
The recent death of Larry Thomas in the Brewster yard of the W&LE leads me to think about this topic/thread, which in the original post asked about merging Railroad Retirement with Social Security.
Mr. Thomas' family will, I hope, receive some kind of financial help from the Railroad Retirement System, and possibly an insurance benefit from his union (I hope he was part of a union). Both of these institutions stem from railroaders themselves coming together to do something for each other and their families, long before 1935. My town, east of Akron, is on the W&LE, which until a few years ago had a small yard here. We also had a large Erie yard and the B&O, too. In my work as a local historian I am well aware of how many men died or were horribly mangled or crippled, or simply rendered unemployable, because of the dangers of working on the railroads these past 153 years. Most were young men with families, just like Mr. Thomas.
Railroad men built these benevolent institutions and unions at a time in American history when no one was looking out for working people. Just by virtue of being a railroad employee, especially after, say, 1914, a man had a job that paid a reasonable wage, thanks to his union, and had a real retirement and disability program, thanks to his fellow-employees who belonged and contributed to it. In general terms, neither the company or the government did much for railroaders after retirement or injury.
In 1920 teachers in Ohio united in a similar fashion to set up their own retirement system to ensure that retirees could live in dignity, if not grandeur. Like railroaders, teachers here contributed more to their retirement systems, and in turn received more benefits.
The Social Security Act of 1935 did not include Ohio's teachers, railroaders, and maybe a few other self-insured occupations (it also deliberately excluded domestic help, but that's another story). For over eighty years the two different systems have co-existed peacefully. To forcibly merge monies from these older retirement systems into Social Secuity would amount to confiscation. Also, as of yet I haven't seen any evidence or complelling reason why such a merger would benefit Social Security. The only class of people who would benefit would be attorneys of every conceiveable stripe. But certainly not teachers or railroaders, let alone the folks receiving Social Security.
I hope the Railroad Retirement System will continue to help Mr. Thomas' family for years to come. They deserve it because he helped build it for others, as others did before him.
Norm48327 Curtis Pitts.
Curtis Pitts.
He worked for the railroad at Ocala and Jacksonville, and is quite revered.
https://www.iac.org/1987-hall-fame-curtis-pitts
http://www.steenaero.com/articles_detail.cfm?PrintFriendly=1&ArticleID=12
For info on Curtis W. Fitts (1901-1960), click the links below the Boston plane crash video.
Norm48327 schlimm RME Curtis Fitts Who is he? Try Curtis Pitts. He was an aircraft designer and pilot.
schlimm RME Curtis Fitts Who is he?
RME
Curtis Fitts
Who is he?
Try Curtis Pitts. He was an aircraft designer and pilot.
Thanks for the name correction.
Norm
https://books.google.com/books?id=sQADAQAAQBAJ&pg=PA118&lpg=PA118&dq=%22Curtis+Fitts%22+pilot&source=bl&ots=R2PWAIyg8J&sig=KNmVUwMmrUmtTA7XmlvBZQY-VRI&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwiuta636JDQAhXI5yYKHX6eBDsQ6AEIGzAA#v=onepage&q=%22Curtis%20Fitts%22%20pilot&f=false
http://specialcollection.dotlibrary.dot.gov/Document?db=DOT-AIRPLANEACCIDENTS&query=(select+712)
https://bir.brandeis.edu/bitstream/handle/10192/30691/Kalafatas.pdf?sequence=4
RMECurtis Fitts
SFbrkmn I'm a cat person to. Anyone who is pro kitty is okay w/me
I'm a cat person to. Anyone who is pro kitty is okay w/me
My dog Samson is a Husky/Chow cross. He's also a cat person. He especially likes them for dessert.
Electroliner 1935Would you prefer to fly behind Sully when the birds take out the engines or a younger pilot with five years experience?
Or Curtis Fitts with 23,000 hours in the air?
CSSHEGEWISCH Another issue is the role of 401(k) accounts. They were designed to be a supplement to a pension, not a replacement for it.
Another issue is the role of 401(k) accounts. They were designed to be a supplement to a pension, not a replacement for it.
Not that I ever heard of. My employer, a national newspaper chain, wrote a check for one's supposed interest in his defined-benefit pension to date and flat substituted the 401k.
The way print has gone since, I'm damned glad they did.
Ulrich BaltACD Ulrich Longevity is certainly of questionable value. Sure, smart and motivated people learn everyday, but in most jobs the law of diminishing returns kicks in after four or five years.. after that (in most jobs anyway) you're nolonger getting better.. i.e. is a truck driver with 30 years experience that much more valuable than one with only five years? I don't think so... in fact the older guy might be all played out and unable to keep up with his younger peers. So longevity isn't necessarily a positive attribute that an employer would pay for. That is your problem! That manner of thought! Ability to handle new situations comes from the experience of handling all the situations that came before and applying the lessons learned. Those that don't learn from history are bound to repeat it. I agree, but the learning curve generally levels out at five years. After five years on the job 98% of the learning should be behind you. So the value in longevity tends to diminish as other factors come into play such as declining health due to age etc.. Don't get me wrong.. I don't hate old people and I'm no spring chicken myself, but I can't do alot of the stuff I could do when I was 22...jus the way it is, and any employer who wanted to hire me for a job such as laying bricks would likely be wiser to choose a young buck over me.
BaltACD Ulrich Longevity is certainly of questionable value. Sure, smart and motivated people learn everyday, but in most jobs the law of diminishing returns kicks in after four or five years.. after that (in most jobs anyway) you're nolonger getting better.. i.e. is a truck driver with 30 years experience that much more valuable than one with only five years? I don't think so... in fact the older guy might be all played out and unable to keep up with his younger peers. So longevity isn't necessarily a positive attribute that an employer would pay for. That is your problem! That manner of thought! Ability to handle new situations comes from the experience of handling all the situations that came before and applying the lessons learned. Those that don't learn from history are bound to repeat it.
Ulrich Longevity is certainly of questionable value. Sure, smart and motivated people learn everyday, but in most jobs the law of diminishing returns kicks in after four or five years.. after that (in most jobs anyway) you're nolonger getting better.. i.e. is a truck driver with 30 years experience that much more valuable than one with only five years? I don't think so... in fact the older guy might be all played out and unable to keep up with his younger peers. So longevity isn't necessarily a positive attribute that an employer would pay for.
That is your problem! That manner of thought! Ability to handle new situations comes from the experience of handling all the situations that came before and applying the lessons learned. Those that don't learn from history are bound to repeat it.
I agree, but the learning curve generally levels out at five years. After five years on the job 98% of the learning should be behind you. So the value in longevity tends to diminish as other factors come into play such as declining health due to age etc.. Don't get me wrong.. I don't hate old people and I'm no spring chicken myself, but I can't do alot of the stuff I could do when I was 22...jus the way it is, and any employer who wanted to hire me for a job such as laying bricks would likely be wiser to choose a young buck over me.
Balt: Surely you realize that all these right wingers on the forum want to eliminate unions, collective bargaining and seniority so workers can be be paid lower wages, set against each other in a race to the bottom and be fired when their years of service render them "overpaid" so management/owners can rake off even more of the fruits of labor.
Euclid schlimm Euclid In a non-union workplace, there is no requirement for a "valid" reason to pay two employees a different rate for the same work. A nonsensical rationalization for blind cronyism, nepotism and other forms of favoritism. But then, you are anti-union. Unions have a contract between the workers and the employer, so yes the contract enforces equal pay because it defines the pay. But non-union work has no such contract. The only agreement is the rate of pay for hours worked. I don't know why thay would seem nonsensical to you. I also don't know why it would have anything to do with what I think of unions.
schlimm Euclid In a non-union workplace, there is no requirement for a "valid" reason to pay two employees a different rate for the same work. A nonsensical rationalization for blind cronyism, nepotism and other forms of favoritism. But then, you are anti-union.
Euclid In a non-union workplace, there is no requirement for a "valid" reason to pay two employees a different rate for the same work.
A nonsensical rationalization for blind cronyism, nepotism and other forms of favoritism. But then, you are anti-union.
Unions have a contract between the workers and the employer, so yes the contract enforces equal pay because it defines the pay. But non-union work has no such contract. The only agreement is the rate of pay for hours worked. I don't know why thay would seem nonsensical to you. I also don't know why it would have anything to do with what I think of unions.
The key words were "same work" not "same job." Your breed want to privatize most government functions and eliminate unions, as Reagan started. You can try to wriggle away, but it is true.
Norm48327 Euclid In a non-union workplace, there is no requirement for a "valid" reason to pay two employees a different rate for the same work. It is only governed by the economics of supply and demand. Each employee makes an individual deal with the employer. It it true that employees will feel resentment for not getting the same pay for essentially the same job. But employees feel resentment for a lot of things, and resentment does not entitle them to what they want. You really think so? Taking a non-union shop as an example: Employees A and B are equally capable but for lack of motivation employee B produces only half the Widgets employee A does. Their work stations are equal in capability but employee B has no personal motivation to be productive and does only what's necessary to keep his job. Who do you think management is going to favor?
Euclid In a non-union workplace, there is no requirement for a "valid" reason to pay two employees a different rate for the same work. It is only governed by the economics of supply and demand. Each employee makes an individual deal with the employer. It it true that employees will feel resentment for not getting the same pay for essentially the same job. But employees feel resentment for a lot of things, and resentment does not entitle them to what they want.
In a non-union workplace, there is no requirement for a "valid" reason to pay two employees a different rate for the same work. It is only governed by the economics of supply and demand. Each employee makes an individual deal with the employer.
It it true that employees will feel resentment for not getting the same pay for essentially the same job. But employees feel resentment for a lot of things, and resentment does not entitle them to what they want.
You really think so? Taking a non-union shop as an example: Employees A and B are equally capable but for lack of motivation employee B produces only half the Widgets employee A does. Their work stations are equal in capability but employee B has no personal motivation to be productive and does only what's necessary to keep his job. Who do you think management is going to favor?
Electroliner 1935 Ulrich Longevity is certainly of questionable value Would you prefer to fly behind Sully when the birds take out the engines or a younger pilot with five years experience?
Ulrich Longevity is certainly of questionable value
Would you prefer to fly behind Sully when the birds take out the engines or a younger pilot with five years experience?
Thought I already answered that.. (or maybe I'm losing my mind)..
UlrichLongevity is certainly of questionable value
i am 84-1/2 and stilll quite capable of learning and have a proven abilitiy to adapt to new situations. Please do not insult me.
Not being political, but it seems that one Presidential candidate could learn that it is wise to consider what the listener will think before expressing one's immediate thoughts, and another still has to learn that admitting a mistake honestly may be better than a dishonest attempt to cover it up. I think I learned both those lessons a long time ago, and the specific candidates are younger than .me.
Sully was already that good at five years.. it didn't take him 30 years.. he was already an exceptional pilot long before that. If you're not exceptional at five years in the job then you're not going to be exceptional at 30 years into the job either.. There's a good reason why fighter pilots are generally under 70 years old.
UlrichLongevity is certainly of questionable value. Sure, smart and motivated people learn everyday, but in most jobs the law of diminishing returns kicks in after four or five years.. after that (in most jobs anyway) you're nolonger getting better.. i.e. is a truck driver with 30 years experience that much more valuable than one with only five years? I don't think so... in fact the older guy might be all played out and unable to keep up with his younger peers. So longevity isn't necessarily a positive attribute that an employer would pay for.
Longevity is certainly of questionable value. Sure, smart and motivated people learn everyday, but in most jobs the law of diminishing returns kicks in after four or five years.. after that (in most jobs anyway) you're nolonger getting better.. i.e. is a truck driver with 30 years experience that much more valuable than one with only five years? I don't think so... in fact the older guy might be all played out and unable to keep up with his younger peers. So longevity isn't necessarily a positive attribute that an employer would pay for.
And we can't forget simple longevity. Should the new hire get paid the same as the person who's been doing the job for 15 years?
For sake of argument, we'll assume that both are doing the same job, and that the newby has enough training/experience to perform the job at about the same level.
While there are certainly unfair disparaties between men and women doing the same job with the same longevity, experience, etc. - one reason that has been cited for a difference in pay that has been cited is that women often don't have the longevity, for a variety of reasons.
EuclidIn a non-union workplace, there is no requirement for a "valid" reason to pay two employees a different rate for the same work.
schlimmYou seem to be unaware of the Pension Benefit Guarantee Corporation (US government) and their payment structure. For example, United Airlines.
PBGC, $88 Billion in assets and $164 Billion in obligations. Obligations growing faster than assets currently.
CMStPnPI am personally happy the pensions have gone away because their structure handcuffed people to a specific employer even if they did not like working there. Also, not much of a guarantee you will get all your pension if your employer goes bankrupt.
You seem to be unaware of the Pension Benefit Guarantee Corporation (US government) and their payment structure.
For example, United Airlines.
And sometimes the reasons aren't valid.. you're right.
UlrichThere's really no point to anger.
Emotions are not rational, but they are real. Humans are not robots.
UlrichSometimes there are valid reasons why two people doing the same jobs get different deals.
And sometimes the reasons are not valid. Equal pay for equal work is an ideal in the US and probably Canada as well. [My grandfather emigrated from Ontario long ago.]
schlimm Ulrich Nope.. learned that long before the handbook.. when I was a wee lad of seven. Dad bought me a Tonka cement mixer. Instead of saying thank you and enjoying my new toy I told him my friend Billy had SEVEN Tonka trucks..Dad told me too F'in bad.. you only have ONE. Lesson learned.. life ain't fair. Your next door neighbour might have better genes than you , a prettier wife.. a better pension. You have what you have.. he has what he has.. no point in crying about it. No. Your example is not analogous. If you don't know that many employees (union or not) compare wages with each other and get angry if they discover someone is getting a bigger raise or better pay for the same job, then you really.....
Ulrich Nope.. learned that long before the handbook.. when I was a wee lad of seven. Dad bought me a Tonka cement mixer. Instead of saying thank you and enjoying my new toy I told him my friend Billy had SEVEN Tonka trucks..Dad told me too F'in bad.. you only have ONE. Lesson learned.. life ain't fair. Your next door neighbour might have better genes than you , a prettier wife.. a better pension. You have what you have.. he has what he has.. no point in crying about it.
Nope.. learned that long before the handbook.. when I was a wee lad of seven. Dad bought me a Tonka cement mixer. Instead of saying thank you and enjoying my new toy I told him my friend Billy had SEVEN Tonka trucks..Dad told me too F'in bad.. you only have ONE. Lesson learned.. life ain't fair. Your next door neighbour might have better genes than you , a prettier wife.. a better pension. You have what you have.. he has what he has.. no point in crying about it.
No. Your example is not analogous. If you don't know that many employees (union or not) compare wages with each other and get angry if they discover someone is getting a bigger raise or better pay for the same job, then you really.....
There's really no point to anger. If you feel you're not being compensated fairly or your benefits are insufficient it is best to speak to your supervisor or union rep about it. Maybe they made a mistake and overlooked you somehow.. or.. you learn why you're not getting what Bill or Jane gets. Sometimes there are valid reasons why two people doing the same jobs get different deals.
schlimm Ulrich Sometimes its best to put blinders on and not worry about the other guy's deal. So long as you're happy with your deal it doesn't matter what the guy beside you is getting. Straight out the management "What to Say to Your Workers" handbook.
Ulrich Sometimes its best to put blinders on and not worry about the other guy's deal. So long as you're happy with your deal it doesn't matter what the guy beside you is getting.
Sometimes its best to put blinders on and not worry about the other guy's deal. So long as you're happy with your deal it doesn't matter what the guy beside you is getting.
Straight out the management "What to Say to Your Workers" handbook.
I'm in agreement with that but there are lots of shops that work that way. I've never felt the need to disclose my salary to those I supervise. They can discover that when I'm gone and they take over my job.
I will add that some employees who are not being paid what they think they are worth should be glad they're not.
jeffhergertI've always heard retirement was described has a three legged stool. You had a pension from where you worked, your own savings and Social Security. Over the years most of the pensions have gone away. Many people don't, or aren't able to, save as much as they should for retirement. That leaves Social Security as the last resort for many. UP offers a 401(k) plan to agreement employees. They do not match the agreement employe's contribution. Jeff
I am personally happy the pensions have gone away because their structure handcuffed people to a specific employer even if they did not like working there. Also, not much of a guarantee you will get all your pension if your employer goes bankrupt. So you should still invest in a 401k even if you have a pension because it is portable and can be taken to your next employer. Pension is frozen once you leave your employer.
Social Security even though it is intended as a suppliment is enough for some with lower costs to live off of and for others it is not needed all that much. I think we can survive with just 401k and SS......I know I can.
Mookie edblysard Mookie edblysard Cat person? Well there ya go, that explains a lot.... Y'all best tread lightly.... I was gonna say that explained the humor and intelligence... In that case, please do continue...
edblysard Mookie edblysard Cat person? Well there ya go, that explains a lot.... Y'all best tread lightly.... I was gonna say that explained the humor and intelligence...
Mookie edblysard Cat person? Well there ya go, that explains a lot.... Y'all best tread lightly....
edblysard Cat person? Well there ya go, that explains a lot....
Y'all best tread lightly....
I was gonna say that explained the humor and intelligence...
In that case, please do continue...
She who has no signature! cinscocom-tmw
23 17 46 11
That's different.. that's when you put up a fight.. hey.. that's where unions do a good job.
Ulrich You have what you have.. he has what he has.. no point in crying about it.
The problem comes when he wants to take what you have away.
tree68 CSSHEGEWISCH Another issue is the role of 401(k) accounts. They were designed to be a supplement to a pension, not a replacement for it. Rather like Social Security...
Rather like Social Security...
I've always heard retirement was described has a three legged stool. You had a pension from where you worked, your own savings and Social Security. Over the years most of the pensions have gone away. Many people don't, or aren't able to, save as much as they should for retirement. That leaves Social Security as the last resort for many.
UP offers a 401(k) plan to agreement employees. They do not match the agreement employe's contribution.
http://blog.historians.org/2014/10/flashback-friday-another-feline-friday/
ALL:
I am retiree of BNSF with 38 years of service. My wife and I receive railroad retirement and her teachers pension. We are in great shape. Social Security does not pay diddly.
Also, we belong to NARVE. Mergering SS and RRB is a bad move.
Ed Burns of Anoka, MN.
edblysardCat person? Well there ya go, that explains a lot....
Cat person?
Well there ya go, that explains a lot....
Arrangements like that are almost certain to cause resentment. One would think management would know that, but saving bucks and perhaps more so, feeding management's sense of superiority, often take priority.
schlimmI agree. Sometimes in our younger years we have viable options that include better provisions for the future. But often, just to pay the rent and put food on the table, we must take jobs that do not have such great options.
I think he meant it the other way. My Sister has a pension but takes crap and low paying jobs not because she needs to financially but to stay busy and she feels she has more freedom to walk away from the job without causing a major hole. She could do a lot better pay wise but refuses to go for it.
UlrichAs an aside.. as I get older I wonder to what extent we're really the product of the choices we make. Is the 65 year old guy who works for minimum wage at a gas bar really there because he's made some bad choices in his life? Maybe... maybe not. I'd say more often maybe not..
I agree. Sometimes in our younger years we have viable options that include better provisions for the future. But often, just to pay the rent and put food on the table, we must take jobs that do not have such great options.
Regardless of where we live, we all pretty much have the same aspirations insofar as being able to retire comfortably in old age. RR pension verses SS is not the only option or even a true comparison. There are other options. My contribution to this thread in a nutshell: if you've got a pension then that's great... but if you don't then there are other vehicles available whereby you too can enjoy a comfortable retirement. I'm not dissing pensioners or pensions in any way. I don't have a pension. Lots of others on this forum don't have one either. As an aside.. as I get older I wonder to what extent we're really the product of the choices we make. Is the 65 year old guy who works for minimum wage at a gas bar really there because he's made some bad choices in his life? Maybe... maybe not. I'd say more often maybe not..
Ulrich Neither.. I'm fine. I'm simply not understanding why my being a Canadian nonrailroader is relevant to this discussion. I'm also a nonpracticing Catholic and a cat person.
Neither.. I'm fine. I'm simply not understanding why my being a Canadian nonrailroader is relevant to this discussion. I'm also a nonpracticing Catholic and a cat person.
I would suggest you go back and read the thread. I never intended any criticism of you. Only putting into perspective your perspective and knowledge base on US SS.
Folks like you in Canada have two government programs: 1. Canada Pension Plan (CPP). 2. Old Age Security (OAS).
Ulrich My reading comprehension is just fine...thank you.
My reading comprehension is just fine...thank you.
Apparently not if you actually thought I was saying you needed permission. Or perhaps you just have a communication gap as you did with Tom?
BaltACD My Grandfather was on the railroad when Railroad Retirement began in 1935. He retired in 1957 after almost 48 years of service. He had paid into RRB for 22 years, and he continued to collect benefits until his death in 1989 - 32 years after his retirement. While he didn't die broke, the last few years were financially difficult as 'cost of living' increases on retirement benefits was a new and challenging concept. Some background on Railroad Retirement (which also includeds Unemployment and certain sickness benefits for Railroad employees) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Railroad_Retirement_Board Not being sufficiently well versed, the usual Wiki caveats apply.
My Grandfather was on the railroad when Railroad Retirement began in 1935. He retired in 1957 after almost 48 years of service. He had paid into RRB for 22 years, and he continued to collect benefits until his death in 1989 - 32 years after his retirement. While he didn't die broke, the last few years were financially difficult as 'cost of living' increases on retirement benefits was a new and challenging concept.
Some background on Railroad Retirement (which also includeds Unemployment and certain sickness benefits for Railroad employees)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Railroad_Retirement_Board
Not being sufficiently well versed, the usual Wiki caveats apply.
Just a comment here. The pay in and pay out periods do not necessarily mean someone else is paying in for him if pay in < pay out. Could very well be that the pay in that he did for 22 years covered 32 years and then some. Depending on how the money is invested of course. Only mention as a FYI.
UlrichYup, Canadian and nonrailroader.. Nevertheless I don't require your permission to participate in any discussion here.
I never said you need anyone's permission. Try reading accurately.
stebbycentral dakotafred Merging your RR Retirement into Social Security makes as much sense as merging your 401K into Social Security. (But notice the comment we're making on Social Security here.) One of the issues where things get muddied is that there are two types of pension plan. The first is called a "defined benefit" or "insurance" type plan. Social Security, Railroad Retirement, and many of the old corporate pension plans fall into this catgegory. Basically you pay into the pension fund at a predetermined rate. And at the time you meet the eligibility requirements you collect your benefits at a rate determined based upon factors like age, years of service, and average earnings. But there is really NO direct connection between your actual contributions, and what you get back when you retire. The money you pay in is not yours, it belongs to the pension fund. You are only guaranteed to get the same benefits as all the other contributors in your class or job category. If the fund is flush because there is a larger number of employees over pensioners, benefits can be generous. If the funds start loosing money because the number of employees goes down while pensioners go up, then payments must be adjusted downward or worker contributions increased, else the fund goes bankrupt. And that in a nut-shell is the problem with an ageing population, all of whom want to retire as early as possible. There are many people alive today who have been retired for as many years as they worked. And it's not just in America, it's all over the world. The other type of pension is called a "defined contribution" plan. That is what a 401k or an IRA fall under. In this case the money you contribute is "yours", and how much you get back when you retire depends very much upon how much you put in while you were working, and how you or your company manage the money. But it also has the same problems as the insurance plan. If you don't save enough while you are working, your investments go south, you are forced to retire early, or you live a lot longer than you expected to; you can actually run out of money and have nothing left to live on in your old age. The only difference is that then it's your problem, not the government's. As a former employee of the RRB, I heard a l lot of people tell me "I can do a lot better job investing my retirement money than the government can." Sorry but most financial experts agree, those people are delusional. Primarily because American's want to spend their money, and left to our own devices we won't even begin to save what we need to properly fund our retirement.
dakotafred Merging your RR Retirement into Social Security makes as much sense as merging your 401K into Social Security. (But notice the comment we're making on Social Security here.)
Merging your RR Retirement into Social Security makes as much sense as merging your 401K into Social Security.
(But notice the comment we're making on Social Security here.)
There's more than one way to skin a cat..
schlimm ACY Ulrich, you mentioned people who change jobs "every couple or three years", then implied you were in the same group. Sorry if I failed to keep up with your presto-change-o thought processes. Still, it doesn't matter. If you had made an agreement to work for a certain time under certain circumstances and pay a certain percentage of your income into the system, you would be entitled to participate. If You didn't, you wouldn't. You make your choice and live with the consequences. Those such as Paul Ryan, who never participated in the RR Retirement System, have no particular standing when they say the rules should be changed to disadvantage those who did. Tom I think Ulrich is neither a railroader or American. He's a Canadian. So neither RRB nor SS are germane.
ACY Ulrich, you mentioned people who change jobs "every couple or three years", then implied you were in the same group. Sorry if I failed to keep up with your presto-change-o thought processes. Still, it doesn't matter. If you had made an agreement to work for a certain time under certain circumstances and pay a certain percentage of your income into the system, you would be entitled to participate. If You didn't, you wouldn't. You make your choice and live with the consequences. Those such as Paul Ryan, who never participated in the RR Retirement System, have no particular standing when they say the rules should be changed to disadvantage those who did. Tom
Ulrich, you mentioned people who change jobs "every couple or three years", then implied you were in the same group. Sorry if I failed to keep up with your presto-change-o thought processes.
Still, it doesn't matter. If you had made an agreement to work for a certain time under certain circumstances and pay a certain percentage of your income into the system, you would be entitled to participate. If You didn't, you wouldn't.
You make your choice and live with the consequences. Those such as Paul Ryan, who never participated in the RR Retirement System, have no particular standing when they say the rules should be changed to disadvantage those who did.
I think Ulrich is neither a railroader or American. He's a Canadian. So neither RRB nor SS are germane.
Yup, Canadian and nonrailroader.. and your point is?
I don't understand your hostility toward me. My prior post was perfectly clear.. please read more carefully. You're evidently happy with your lot... and I'm happy with mine. I don't see any conflict here.
Gosh, lots of doom and gloom in this thread.
OK I was only curious, thanks everyone for answering. I'm not impacted by RRB and I am 100% confident they will fix the projected deficit in Social Security either by accident or focus on fixing it. So I am not worried in either case and pretty sure they will keep them seperate..... I was just curious what the arguments were.
In regards to Pension discussion, pensions are not really needed beyond a specific annual income level as long as you have a 401k with a match and save. Most railroad jobs fall beneath that annual income level so I understand why RRB is important. So you can't really look at someone and say "Oh you don't have a pension, you poor bastard", it's really a function of annual income and what you save tax deferred. Your projected SS payment increases as well with your annual income over the years.
I have figured out what is wrong with my brain! On the left side nothing works right, and on the right side there is nothing left!
Hopefully that won't happen. To a large extent random events determine where we land in retirement, pension or no pension. Will we have enough money to retire? I don't know. I've got another 20 years to go myself, and anything can happen in that time. I do what I can to stay healthy, save what I can, and work diligently at my job. Beyond that is out of my control.. so I don't worry about it!!
That is one silver lining of the tin cup scenario. At least those of us who never created a pension did not work hard to create one and then have it stolen.
My point exactly. Those of us unwashed masses who don't have a pension don't have to worry about losing it or having it castrated by the bean counters.
UlrichA pension is great if you work for an employer who offers one, and you're loyal to that employer and stay there for years. Pensions don't work for the average person who changes jobs every couple or three years. Most people (including myself) have nothing beyond whatever thay can save..not complaining.. that's just the way it is. At least we don't have to worry about having our pensions monkeyed with..
Railroad boomers that hopped from carrier to carrier through the course of their careers accumulated Railroad Retirement credits for every month the spent in railroad employment - no matter the US carriers that was involved.
In the past 20 years or so, the US carriers have done everything within their power to remove catagories of employees from Railroad Retirement coverage, and thus minimize the carriers contribution to Railroad Retirement.
The board room level of managers basically view Railroad Retirement as stealing money from their bonus packages. "How dare the employees want to have retirement benefits and have the carrier contribute to it!".
No, I personally haven't changed jobs frequently. I've run my own business for the last 25 years (also a personal choice). I haven't said anything negative about pensions or the folks who receive them... (good for them).. All I've stated is that not having a pension isn't so bad either.. bad luck can knock us all down.. regardless of the deal we have. Not jealous or complaining!!
Ulrich ---
You say you have changed jobs frequently and do noy have a pension program. That sounds like a personal choice to me.
Others have devoted a lifetime to a career in the railroad industry, and have contributed to the Railroad Retirement System in good faith, with the reasonable expectation that they would eventually be able to retire with the benefits that they have earned under that system. If they receive the benefits that have been promised them, what do you have to complain about?
Is this just because you're jealous, or is there something I'm not getting?
(Error --- Moderator please delete this redundant posting)
You say you have changed jobs frequently and do not have a pension program. That sounds like a personal choice to me.
Others have devoted a lifetime to a career in the railroad industry, and have followed the rules and contributed to the Railroad Retirement System in good faith, with the reasonable expectation that they would eventually be able to retire with the benefits that they have earned under that system. If they receive the benefits that have been promised them, what do you have to complain about?
True enough... there's no absolute security. My investments could go to pot, my health could fail, and I could find myself with a tin cup in hand begging for change when I'm 80. Nobody plans for it.. but it does happen to alot of decent people. BAD LUCK can strike anyone and often does.
UlrichAt least we don't have to worry about having our pensions monkeyed with..
Oh, you can count on someone trying to mess with whatever you do have saved up... Those who are job mobile are lucky if they are working places that support 401K's and similar arrangements. At least those are relatively portable.
A pension is great if you work for an employer who offers one, and you're loyal to that employer and stay there for years. Pensions don't work for the average person who changes jobs every couple or three years. Most people (including myself) have nothing beyond whatever thay can save..not complaining.. that's just the way it is. At least we don't have to worry about having our pensions monkeyed with..
ACYI don't understand the reasons for wanting to merge them, but the idea gets some credence from the mistaken idea that the two programs serve the same purpose. Railroad Retirement is the primary retirement program for railroad employees. They and their employers have paid into it in order to guarantee some measure of guatanteed security in retirement. Social Security is a supplement, and was never intended to be the primary means of support for retirees. Compromising Social Security would be a calamity. Compromising Railroad Retirement would be a catastrophe.
A (mostly)blue-collared (mainly) unionized working class with their own retirement program? That's blasphemy to many in this country anymore.
I don't get how so many have this attitude of "if you want something better you should work for it". Well, we as railroaders do work for it. This job and lifestyle aren't easy. I think a lot of the hate on the railroad retirement is jealousy. Hey, it sucks most industries don't have pensions any more. I don't want it to be that way. But this perpetual race to the bottom we as a society are participating in is going to be the end of us all.
Maybe some day people will get off of their instagram and wake the hell up.
ACYI don't understand the reasons for wanting to merge them, but the idea gets some credence from the mistaken idea that the two programs serve the same purpose. Railroad Retirement is the primary retirement program for railroad employees. They and their employers have paid into it in order to guarantee some measure of guatanteed security in retirement.
To add to that, the idea of merging the two systems was advocated during the years of the Nixon administration. The stated motive was to reduce the size of the federal bureaucracy, having by Social Security take over administration of the program. This would enable the closing the 300 plus RRB offices through out the country, as well as the Chicago headquarters.
Of course the other unstated consequence of such a move is that it would have vastly reduced the influence of the railroad unions on proposed future benefit changes. As the Railroad Reirement Act was originally written in 1937, there is an actual "Railroad Retirement Board". It consists of three people appointed by the President; one from the Unions, one from the Industry, and a third person who is supposed to be impartial. If the system had been merged into Social Security, the "Board" itself would have been abolished, so the unions fought it. The compromise was the "Tier" system that tied part of the benefits to the Social Secuity laws, while preserving the Railroad Retirement Board as an independent agency. The RRB collects the taxes from railroad workers, administers the funds, and pays the benefits for all retirees who meet the 10 year rule.
However in the 1980's the Regan Administration was able to convince Congress to rewrite the Civil Service laws to make all new federal workers pay into Social Security. The new laws replaced the old Civil Service Annuity with a supplemental government pension called the Federal Employee's Retirment System (FERS) which is administered by the Office of Personnel Management (OPM). Like railroad workers government workers also pay additional contributions for their FERS benefits. So a current federal worker who retires files at Social Security for a Social Security benefit that include all their earnings, but also gets a seprate OPM check for their federal employment only. Workers who retired before the change still get a Civil Service check under the old pension system, but as they die off the system will die with them.
This has become the model for most of the proposals floated today for railroad workers; where Social Security would take over complete administration of all Tier 1 funds and benefits, and the RRB would administer only the Tier 2 benefits paid for by railroad worker contributions. Under most of these proposals there is no guarantee that the RRB would continue to be a government agency, rather it could become like any private industrial pension and it would be up to the unions and the railroads to decide who administers it. The other thing is that if the Tier 1 benefits are turned over to Social Security, the more generous early retirement provisions of the RRB Act either go out the window or have to be paid for out of the Tier 2 fund.
EuclidApparently the reason why nobody can explain the basis for proposal that RR be merged with SS is that there is no such proposal. It is only a tactic to scare members into voting for Democrats.
I wish that were the case, Bucky. Ok, so not so much as merged as "conformed", although I would use another verb that starts with the letter F.
https://www.congress.gov/congressional-report/112th-congress/house-report/421/1
Sepcifically:
"Conform Railroad Retirement Tier 1 Benefits to Social Security Benefits. Tier 1 benefits for railroad retirees are supposed to mimic Social Security benefits, but they are more generous than Social Security in many ways. This option would conform Tier 1 so that its benefits would equal those of Social Security, with an estimated savings to taxpayers of $2 billion over 10 years."
Euclid .
.
Mind suddenly go blank?
jeffhergertThank you for reminding me why I changed to being registered as an Independent.
I owe allegiance to no party. I prefer, even if I may be errant, to think for myself.
Apparently the reason why nobody can explain the basis for proposal that RR be merged with SS is that there is no such proposal. It is only a tactic to scare members into voting for Democrats.
http://aboutmittromney.com/railroad-retirement.htm
Here is a portion of the link:
******************************************************
Question:
The union folks are claiming that Gov. Romney plans to move the railroad retirement system into social security (which would reduce the benefits of those who have worked on the railroad for many years), and that is a basis to vote for Obama. To me this is not very smart since Obama has an all-out war on coal, nevertheless it is the argument they are using...
Could you please confirm or deny this plan?
Long Answer:
(short answer found below at the bottom)
This is an untrue rumor by the democrat-aligned unions in the important coal and railroad regions in Virginia and West Virginia, and told to railroad workers and retirees nationwide.
Innuendo and Untrue Argument #1:
Different unions are making different arguments and the stories are changing. A common claim: Republicans tried to take away benefits but democrats stopped them.
Fact: The House Budget did not mention the railroad retirement. (It set general spending levels for the federal budget, but the Senate rejected it.)
Official government site for the budget voted on in 2012: H.Con.Res.112 "Establishing the budget for the United States Government for fiscal year 2013 and setting forth appropriate budgetary levels for fiscal years 2014 through 2022."
The above page has a link "Text of Legislation" which takes the reader to three versions: 1) H.CON.RES.112.RH Version that came out of committee on March 23, 2012. 2) H.CON.RES.112.EH Version passed by House on March 29th. 3) H.CON.RES.112.PCS Version voted down by Senate on May 16th.
None of the versions mentioned or took away any railroad retirement benefits. (Verify by reading the text in the above links if there is any doubt.)
The above official site also has a link "Major Congressional Actions" to the voting record. At the bottom of that link, the House votes are recorded here and the Senate vote here.
Democrat unions falsely claim that vote was on a different resolution that mentioned railroad benefits. (Verify title: Vote was on H.Con.Res.112 with its name as noted above.)
The different resolution, called "an original measure, H.Rept.112-421", was introduced March 23rd and never voted on. (This resolution was a report, not a bill, and all references to the report were removed from the Budget bill that congress voted on.)
Also, lied about by the unions, House Report 421 did not specify to take away benefits.
Under a section titled "Illustrative Policy Options," House report 421 stated committees have jurisdiction to determine what specific spending measures can be presented for a vote, but said that committees could consider proposing to "Conform Railroad Retirement Tier 1 Benefits to Social Security Benefits."
Committees never did that, and unions have already talked to committee members on why that cannot and should not be done.
In fact, the Railroad Retirement Board specifically stated in a memo they posted on their site that "No such legislation has been introduced."
More details and facts are given on this, in addressing recent claims by BLET:
ROMNEY, OBAMA, RAILROAD RETIREMENT AND BLET »
Innuendo and Untrue Argument #2:
Unions claim Romney, multiple times, praised the House Report 421, and therefore he plans to do away with railroad retirement benefits.
Actual Facts: Romney 1) Praised the Budget Roadmap (it did not mention railroad retirement) 2) Praised the Budget Blueprint (it did not mention the railroad retirement) 3) Praised the Passed Budget H.Con.Res.112 (it did not mention railroad retirement) 4) Never praised Report 421 (it suggested committees could review tier 1 benefits)
The roadmap came out first, then the blueprint and Romney praised those. The report came out March 23rd and Romney did not praise it. After the Budget, H.Con.Res.112, was passed on March 29th, Romney praised the budget, which although it had deficit spending, had spending limits that were not out of control.
Other Facts:
Mitt Romney has no plan to take away railroad benefits, and it would go against his stated philosophies to introduce such a plan.
This is merely an attempt to swing the vote to Obama by using untrue scare tactics.
Mitt Romney has laid out his plan to reform social security and it does not mention and does not touch the railroad retirement. (See summary by NY Times below.)
Mitt Romney has never introduced or stated any plans to modify the railroad retirement.
Reason:
The railroad retirement is healthy and currently does not need reforming:
“Barring a sudden, unanticipated, large decrease in railroad employment or substantial investment losses, the railroad retirement system will experience no cash-flow problems during the next 23 years. The long-term stability of the system, however, is still questionable. Under the current financing structure, actual levels of railroad employment and investment return over the coming years will largely determine whether corrective action is necessary.”
rrb.gov - RRB Financial Reports - July, 2011
But Social Security needs reforming:
“Social Security began running deficits in 2010, paying out $48.9 billion more in benefits than it received through payroll taxes. Nor will these deficits ever end, meaning that without reforms, Social Security will continue to add billions to the deficit and debt each year.”
jeffhergert Euclid ACY Euclid PNWRMNM If RR is merged with SS, rail employees will get robbed comming and going. That is the arguement against it. Mac McCulloch So who, if anybody, is advocating merging Railroad Retirement with Social Security? Lots of folks in the GOP. Tom Like who? What reason do they give? Paul Ryan, for one. http://www.ble-t.org/ryanbudget/ Jeff
Euclid ACY Euclid PNWRMNM If RR is merged with SS, rail employees will get robbed comming and going. That is the arguement against it. Mac McCulloch So who, if anybody, is advocating merging Railroad Retirement with Social Security? Lots of folks in the GOP. Tom Like who? What reason do they give?
ACY Euclid PNWRMNM If RR is merged with SS, rail employees will get robbed comming and going. That is the arguement against it. Mac McCulloch So who, if anybody, is advocating merging Railroad Retirement with Social Security? Lots of folks in the GOP. Tom
Euclid PNWRMNM If RR is merged with SS, rail employees will get robbed comming and going. That is the arguement against it. Mac McCulloch So who, if anybody, is advocating merging Railroad Retirement with Social Security?
PNWRMNM If RR is merged with SS, rail employees will get robbed comming and going. That is the arguement against it. Mac McCulloch
Mac McCulloch
So who, if anybody, is advocating merging Railroad Retirement with Social Security?
Lots of folks in the GOP.
Like who? What reason do they give?
Paul Ryan, for one.
http://www.ble-t.org/ryanbudget/
I guess those answers must have come as a surprise to Euclid, as it doesn't fit his anti-government, rightist memes. But then, much of his thinking is reality-challenged. Now he's trying to show it's all a Dem fiction to scare folks about the GOP's plans (see Jeff's link) to modify the RRB and SS beyond recognition. Both those central features of our retirement systems were passed by Democrats. The GOP has openly or covertly tried to repeal/destroy both them for over half a century.
I don't understand the reasons for wanting to merge them, but the idea gets some credence from the mistaken idea that the two programs serve the same purpose. Railroad Retirement is the primary retirement program for railroad employees. They and their employers have paid into it in order to guarantee some measure of guatanteed security in retirement. Social Security is a supplement, and was never intended to be the primary means of support for retirees. Compromising Social Security would be a calamity. Compromising Railroad Retirement would be a catastrophe.
In my case, I retired from the railroad before putting in the full 30 years. This was far less than ideal, but my advancing age made it unreasonable for me to continue longer. Before working for the railroad, I worked over 25 years in jobs under SSI. As a result, my monthly retirement check reflects both Railroad Retirement and SSI. I consider the SSI portion vulnerable, and would be very concerned if the RRB portion became vulnerable as well. I would be far better off financially if I had stayed with the railroad for the full 30 years, but that wasn't in the cards for me.
oltmanndRR Tier Two is a different deal. It's its own fund maintianed by fixed employee and variable employer contributions. It is treated like a defined pension benefit by the IRS. It's cost of living adjustment is only about 1/3 of Tier One. Also, if you don't finish your career with a railroad, you lose all Tier Two benefits.
A slight correction; Tier 2 benefits are "lost" only if an employee leaves the railroad industry with less than 10 years (120 months) of railroad employment. If you leave the railroad with less than 10 years of service, the railroad service is only counted as Social Security time when you retire. But if you have more than 10 years of railroad service when you leave the railroad, you are still entitled to the RRB benefits at age 62. The difference is that Tier 2 benefit does not increase in value for the years you work outside the railroad. (As would any private pension where the benefit is calculated only based on the years you worked for the company.)
You do loose some benefits by not being a current railroad employee when you retire or die. Disability benefits and survivor benefits are all paid through Social Security instead of the RRB. And you must meet the Social Security eligibility requirements to get these benefits, which can in some cases be more restrictive. Of course the laws can change over time, so it is wise for any former railroad worker to check with your local RRB office as well as SSA when you are thinking about retirement. For instance, if you didn't have 10 actual years of railroad work you still might be eligible for RRB benefits if you spent in time in the military while working for the railroad. Military service under the right circumstances can be used to make up the difference if the total of RR time plus military time equals 10 years.
jeffhergert Norm48327 jeffhergert Paul Ryan, for one. Paul Ryan = RINO. Thank you for reminding me why I changed to being registered as an Independent. As the reasons for merging the two are mostly budget tricks and all political, maybe it's time to lock this thread. Jeff
Norm48327 jeffhergert Paul Ryan, for one. Paul Ryan = RINO.
jeffhergert Paul Ryan, for one.
Paul Ryan = RINO.
Thank you for reminding me why I changed to being registered as an Independent.
As the reasons for merging the two are mostly budget tricks and all political, maybe it's time to lock this thread.
+1
-Don (Random stuff, mostly about trains - what else? http://blerfblog.blogspot.com/)
tree68 Euclid But what I would like to know is this: What is the stated reasons why RR should be merged with SS?
Euclid But what I would like to know is this: What is the stated reasons why RR should be merged with SS?
EuclidBut what I would like to know is this: What is the stated reasons why RR should be merged with SS?
As with any political move, there are two reasons - those the politicians give to justify the action (which will supposedly benefit all involved), and the the real reasons (which, if revealed would deep six the action faster than you-know-what).
The real reason has likely already been discussed here. I doubt you'll hear any politicians bring it up.
jeffhergertPaul Ryan, for one.
Euclid I can certainly see why people with RR would oppose merging with SS. SS is quickly going broke; probably much sooner than is commonly predicted. But what I would like to know is this: What is the stated reasons why RR should be merged with SS?
I can certainly see why people with RR would oppose merging with SS. SS is quickly going broke; probably much sooner than is commonly predicted.
But what I would like to know is this: What is the stated reasons why RR should be merged with SS?
PNWRMNMIf RR is merged with SS, rail employees will get robbed comming and going. That is the arguement against it. Mac McCulloch
Social Security and Railroad Retirement already are merged....sort of.
Tier One of Railroad Retirement is exactly the same as Social Security in terms of tax and benefits (except for the 60 years old/30 years service early retirement provision of RR). In fact, if you work a railroad job and then quit and work a "normal" job, you Tier One contributions count toward Social Security. Tier One is also taxed and ajusted for cost of living just like SS.
The Tier One funds are mergered, I believe.
RR Tier Two is a different deal. It's its own fund maintianed by fixed employee and variable employer contributions. It is treated like a defined pension benefit by the IRS. It's cost of living adjustment is only about 1/3 of Tier One. Also, if you don't finish your career with a railroad, you lose all Tier Two benefits.
The Tier Two funds can't be mergered any more than any other pension plan could be mergered with SS.
Railroad employees, and their employers, both pay MUCH higher tax rates for MUCH higher payouts upon retirement. My wife and I can actually live as well on my railroad retirement as we did when I was working, which is not be possible with social security.
While both are Ponzi schemes in that they tax current employees to pay past employees, IIRC when congress introduced the 60/30 full retirement option, they also allowed temporary surplus funds to be invested in the real economy, which of course social security can not do as their surpluses have all been "loaned" to the US Govt. Now that there are far fewer workers relative to retirees in SS, the Govt will soon have to raise taxes or borrow more from the Chicoms to pay Social Security.
If RR is merged with SS, rail employees will get robbed comming and going. That is the arguement against it.
TREE,
Bob
I'm guessing here, but I'd opine that it might have something to do with SS having been looted and a fear that RR retirement might be seen by some as another source of funds for said looting...
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.