Ulrich ---
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?
Is this just because you're jealous, or is there something I'm not getting?
Tom
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?
(Error --- Moderator please delete this redundant posting)
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!!
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!".
Never too old to have a happy childhood!
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.
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.
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!!
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.)
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.
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.)
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!
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.
C&NW, CA&E, MILW, CGW and IC fan
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.
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.
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.
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.
Yup, Canadian and nonrailroader.. and your point is?
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.
There's more than one way to skin a cat..
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.
My reading comprehension is just fine...thank you.
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.
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.
Ulrich 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?
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.
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.
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).
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..
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.
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.
Another issue is the role of 401(k) accounts. They were designed to be a supplement to a pension, not a replacement for it.
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.
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...
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...
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
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.
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.
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.