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.
C&NW, CA&E, MILW, CGW and IC fan
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.
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?
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.
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.
Never too old to have a happy childhood!
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.
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...
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.
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
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?
Norm
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/
Jeff
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.
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.