• If you are having problems logging in please use the Contact Us in the lower right hand corner of the forum page for assistance.

Pensions

Jogeephus

Well-known member
Joined
Jul 17, 2006
Messages
24,228
Reaction score
0
Location
South Georgia
I recently ate supper with a friend of family who retired from the gov't. According to his wife, he was given the choice to retire or go to prison so he chose retirement at age 50. Not a bad deal given that his retirement is based on 47 years of service with the government. Is this a fluke? Doesn't seem to be, another fella that lives here took advantage of the offer that the gov't threw out where if you joined the service your time with the service would be counted toward your retirement with the agency. Seems he liked the service so much he stayed and put in 25 years and drew his retirement AND he now gets a 30 year retirement from the state. Wonder how many more people are out there drawing double retirements?
 

lavacarancher

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 6, 2009
Messages
1,960
Reaction score
0
Location
Lavaca county, Texas
Jogee, how does that work, retired at 50 with 47 years of service? I know he didn't go on the payroll at age 3. At one time the gov't offered a points system toward civil service ie, prior military service gave you extra points toward your score on the exam or something like that. Or maybe that's why they offered him prison or retirement? :D
 

HerefordSire

Well-known member
Joined
Aug 2, 2006
Messages
5,212
Reaction score
0
Location
Arkansas
There are numerous people drawing two pensions. They are becoming more rare though. Could you explain a couple of your comments better so I can answer better?
 

Jogeephus

Well-known member
Joined
Jul 17, 2006
Messages
24,228
Reaction score
0
Location
South Georgia
As best as I can remember he said that he started work with them when he was 17. Quit and joined the Navy. Did a tour or two then came back to work for state. Quit the state and worked for private then went back to the state. State lawmakers decided that anyone who had given 30 years service should retire with same benefits as someone who was 65 since this would be fair. So they looked at his employment sheet and it showed his work history with them began when he was 17 and since he was 50 this meant he worked 33 years and under the legislatures ruling he would qualify as a 65 year old person. This loophole was closed 2 years after they realized what they had done.

I don't know much about the second fella cause this is just what I was told by one of his friends. The legislature, in an attempt to help veterans out, passed the rule so they would not be penalized if they were drafted while employed by the state. What they didn't figure on is that some people might like the service and may not want to leave. In this event, they didn't have a policy for this situation and the wording is the law.

Sweet deal for everyone but the taxpayer.
 

Jim62

Well-known member
Joined
Jun 27, 2007
Messages
1,094
Reaction score
0
Location
Round Top, Texas
Don't know about now, but in the past, about all the postal circus would hire were military retirees. They'd come in at about 40 - 45 years old, work 10 or 15 years and retire again. Pretty good money in doing that, I think.
 

HerefordSire

Well-known member
Joined
Aug 2, 2006
Messages
5,212
Reaction score
0
Location
Arkansas
Jogeephus":39oj1a3l said:
As best as I can remember he said that he started work with them when he was 17. Quit and joined the Navy. Did a tour or two then came back to work for state. Quit the state and worked for private then went back to the state. State lawmakers decided that anyone who had given 30 years service should retire with same benefits as someone who was 65 since this would be fair. So they looked at his employment sheet and it showed his work history with them began when he was 17 and since he was 50 this meant he worked 33 years and under the legislatures ruling he would qualify as a 65 year old person. This loophole was closed 2 years after they realized what they had done.

I don't know much about the second fella cause this is just what I was told by one of his friends. The legislature, in an attempt to help veterans out, passed the rule so they would not be penalized if they were drafted while employed by the state. What they didn't figure on is that some people might like the service and may not want to leave. In this event, they didn't have a policy for this situation and the wording is the law.

Sweet deal for everyone but the taxpayer.

I am still not sure I undersatand, but if I do....

A deal is a deal. This is a fundamental concept of Business Law. Even though states and companies are trying to lower their liabilities and cash flow due to pension cash outflows as the result of their retirment portfolios tanking in value due to the markets and recession, the payers of benefits are on the hook. I don't see any way out for the governments or anyone receiving payments from a pension system, unless the system goes bankrupt. If they were to retract the laws of some pension receivers, then the entire economic system could fall because no one could depend (trust) on any entitlement.

Trust in law is the key idea.
 

Jogeephus

Well-known member
Joined
Jul 17, 2006
Messages
24,228
Reaction score
0
Location
South Georgia
I agree that a deal is a deal and I think he is entitled to every penny they give him but whoever worded the clause ought to be brought out back and shot. I deal with contracts on a regular basis and when drafting one you need to look at every angle and every eventuality. Not putting an exception clause in something like this is shear negligence on the state's part.

Personally, I don't think it is right for people to draw more than one retirement check from more than one government agency especially when so many of them recognize the other years of service as service to them.

I got another one for you. What would your answer be to this question? If you will do 30 years service (8 more years) rather than retiring at 25 years (3 more years) we will give you $20,000/year bonus for each year you served - tax free. With deals like this, its no wonder taxes are so high.
 

HerefordSire

Well-known member
Joined
Aug 2, 2006
Messages
5,212
Reaction score
0
Location
Arkansas
I agree that a deal is a deal and I think he is entitled to every penny they give him but whoever worded the clause ought to be brought out back and shot. I deal with contracts on a regular basis and when drafting one you need to look at every angle and every eventuality. Not putting an exception clause in something like this is shear negligence on the state's part.

Personally, I don't think it is right for people to draw more than one retirement check from more than one government agency especially when so many of them recognize the other years of service as service to them.

Are you saying a quantity of years to qualify for more than one retirement overlap each other? If so, yes I strongly disagree with this.

I got another one for you. What would your answer be to this question? If you will do 30 years service (8 more years) rather than retiring at 25 years (3 more years) we will give you $20,000/year bonus for each year you served - tax free. With deals like this, its no wonder taxes are so high.

I would inspect the actual monetary difference. Usually, when a deal is presented it shuold normally be sweetened toward the employee to cause them to act the way the owner or government wants them to act. One should determine why the government or company wants to make the deal. Just like smoking. What is in it for the government? Since smoking likely increases life expectency and reduces health care costs, the government could be liable for additional years of entitlements. They won't tell us this but it could be the truth.
 
Top