EagleTribune.com : Blogs : The Soapbox

I believe that police officers and firemen deserve a pension because they risk their lives every day to make our lives safer. However I do not think they deserve over 60k a year when they are retired. That is crazy. There needs to be a reform to pensions across the board so they earn less. I think 30k would be a more reasonable amount. I also think that not every state employee deserves a pension. We have to be more reasonable with how our taxes are spent.

Judy B.
Peabody, Ma

I can see giving the firefighters the higher pension over the cops as the firefighters do not see those hundreds of thousands of "PAID DETAILS" every year [are they included in the $$$ count towards their pensions?]

If the dont want to give up the details then let them give up the retirement classification. (Ch 4 had a photo of a trooper on detail reading the newspaper in the a/c cruiser. Instead of doing what he was supposed to be doing). Hey bring in the flagmen and eliminate the paid details which cost the taxpayer no matter how you look at it.

Why was there no mention of the fact the almost all public employees at some point have contibuted to social secuirty system. What about all those employees that have emassed just under 40 quarters before becoming public employees who will get nothing in return. Or worse, those that have emassed more than 40 quarters who will be subject to the so called "Windfall Elimination Provision". An exaustive, objective report should have included all the facts!

Details do not count towards a retirement. Retirement is calculated on public employee's base pay only. NO overtime or other perk's included. I will, when I retire receive a pension from a municipality. My pension will be 80% of a 38K salary. At the time of my retirement I will be 60 years old and will have given 39 yrs of my life(granted I hope my salary will increase before then, but you never know what is around that next corner). I have never contributed to social security, my pension will be it. I am all for flag men and any other way that communities could possibly trim fat. But it is not only police officer's and firefighters who receive pensions. Teachers, judges, clerks, librarians all receive pensions. As do 911 operators, Dpw workers, secretaries and other groups in municipal staff. As people continue to demand services, we will continue to pay. If people in general would do more for themselves, maybe we can scale back or cut 1 to 2 pensions in municipal or state government and save ourselves 60-80K a year. Does a secretary really need a secretary???? Does a nurse really need an aid??? Society today is all about wanting the world and refusing to pay for it. And personally, I think that is what the pension wave is really all about. Clean our streets, take care of our kids, and drop everything you are doing to help me.... But pay YOU, that is out of the question.

Thanks for all the comments. A few more thoughts....

Scott questions the fairness of denying Social Security to those who worked in the private sector taking a public job. It seems to me this is based on the fallacy that the money you pay into SS is "your money." It is not and never was. My current payments pay the benefits of today's retirees. My benefits will be paid by tomorrow's workers... or so I hope. My annual SS update just warned me that by 2041, when I will be 80, there will only be enough money in SS to pay 75 percent of promised benefits.

Rich notes that when he retires at 60, his pension will be 80 percent of a $38,000 salary -- adjusted for the raises he might get between now and then. When I and other private sector workers my age reach 60, we will have seven more years of work required of us to qualify for full Social Security benefits. Rich's benefit now works out to $30,400 a year, or $2,533 a month. The maximum Social Security benefit as of 2007 is $2,116 or $25,392 a year. This benefit is achieved by earning the maximum income subject to the Social Security tax from age 21 until retirement. For someone retiring in 2007, that means starting by earning $4,800 in 1963 and ending with a salary of $97,500 in 2007.

This is why we hear no public sector workers clamoring to trade their pensions for Social Security.

Ken,
If I may address a few of the comments made above:
• The State Troopers, who you reference, pay 12% of their salary and educational incentive into the retirement system each year. Overtime, bonuses, work details, etc are excluded by law.
• The PRIT Fund, which invests the pension assets of State Troopers and all other state employees and teachers has earned 11.51% since 1985. By all accounts, this is an excellent return.
• The “normal cost” for the state system is about 3% of payroll. Normal cost is what is needed to fund ongoing pension benefits. This percentage continues to shrink each year.
• MA public employees vest for pension benefits after 10 years, far above the 5 year average of the private sector.
• All public employees entering the system after July 1, 1994 contribute upwards of 11% toward their own pension benefit.
• Private sector employees and employers each pay 6.2% into Social Security.
• Since 1985 Essex Regional has returned 10.38%, Gloucester 10.60%, Andover 10.06, Haverhill 11.84%, Reading 11.06%, and Wakefield 11.63%.
• By law vested pension rights, along with pension benefits already awarded cannot be taken away or reduced. Any changes made to the pension system and benefit structure would only affect new hires, who are fully funding their own benefits.
I hope these facts clear up some of the misconceptions that appear to exist.
Shawn D.
Quincy, MA

In all the comments about collecting social security and city ,state pensions I have to remind everyone that a social security pension is not at full value if you receive another pension from the public sector. It is prorated by some formulation in proportion to the pension outside the system.