Jump to content

Menu

Flabbergasted by friends' lack of awareness of college costs - UPDATE in post #440


Hoggirl
 Share

Recommended Posts

Our state legislators did the same dumb thing. They could have seen that it didn't work in KS, so why should it work in MO?

Then they were "surprised" that the tax cuts led to a dramatic loss in revenue. The chief of the budget house committee said that had they known it would have this effect they would not have voted for it. :banghead: Yeah, don't they have experts who analyze things beforehand???

Yes, I work directly with the experts in my state who do exactly this type of analysis. But as we are seeing right now while our legislature is trying to grapple with the immediate decrease in state revenues due to the federal tax reform, when they donĂ¢â‚¬â„¢t like what the nonpartisan experts have to say they simply ignore them and say their sources and feelings tell them the experts are wrong. ItĂ¢â‚¬â„¢s easy to find some Ă¢â‚¬Å“sourceĂ¢â‚¬ with no access to any state level return data who will testify to whatever someone is paying them to say or write. And in the current political climate, itĂ¢â‚¬â„¢s very easy to say with a straight face that experts and facts are wrong and should be ignored.
  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'd like to see student housing costs go down. $1k per month per person for a double? That cost is very very close to renting a hotel room that has much better amenities and more square footage than the dilapidated 1960s dorm my son was in. Off campus is under 600 a month within 2 miles of campus, and that's including off street parking, w/d, a/c and own room that's bigger than the dorm room.

This isn't true everywhere! We are grateful that Ds has guaranteed, on-campus housing all four years in Silicon Valley. My understanding is that Stanford has to subsidize housing for some faculty and staff.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

And at least in my state, they finally realized that regardless of how long people live, the pension plan was crazy generous, with some people retiring at more than 100% of their salary. TheyĂ¢â‚¬â„¢ve ratcheted it down twice, but the costs of the people already retired or set to retire under the original system are just increasing and will not go away for many, many years. Legally, they cannot now go back and retroactively change promised benefits, so all state services including k12 and higher education are paying the price and will for many years to come.

The superintendent at my local public school retired on full-pension and then was rehired by the district in the exact same position. So not only was he receiving 100% of his income from his retirement, he was also being paid an additional salary for his post-retirement job. I believe the term is called "double-dipping" and many abuse the system this way.
  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

It won't work for all students, but middle son was an RA (resident adviser) for 3 of his 5 years at college - a job he absolutely loved - and it came with a free single room.  For those who like that sort of thing, it's something to consider.  (My other two weren't interested, so I definitely get that it doesn't work for all - and jobs are competitive - so not guaranteed.)

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

It won't work for all students, but middle son was an RA (resident adviser) for 3 of his 5 years at college - a job he absolutely loved - and it came with a free single room.  For those who like that sort of thing, it's something to consider.  (My other two weren't interested, so I definitely get that it doesn't work for all - and jobs are competitive - so not guaranteed.)

 

A lot depends on your luck with your residents.

It can be a great job - and it can be a hellish job that leads to a nervous breakdown. DD's friend was an RA, and it was absolutely horrible, no uninterrupted night's sleep. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

A lot depends on your luck with your residents.

It can be a great job - and it can be a hellish job that leads to a nervous breakdown. DD's friend was an RA, and it was absolutely horrible, no uninterrupted night's sleep. 

 

Maybe some is luck, but a ton also depends on innate people skills too.  Some folks are naturally better at dealing with people even when they're upset.  Middle son has that gift.  Not everyone does, so it's definitely something to take into consideration too.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Another aspect that has not been discussed:

in order to achieve a culture where alumni strongly identify with their institutions (because unless they do, they will not feel compelled to donate large sums of money), it is necessary not only to offer strong academics, but to carefully craft a school spirit through joint experiences outside the classroom. I wonder to what degree dorm requirements and student events are directly designed to foster this team spirit and identification with the alma mater. 

 

This is something I have never observed in Germany (where, as pp pointed out, most students do not live in dorms, college does perform parental role, students fend for themselves.) People don't identify with their college. You won't find many people wearing college sweatshirts, parents wearing apparel from their kids' college, etc. It is not a "thing". Consequently, there is also no culture of alumni donating to their alma mater.

 

I don't know about Germany but I'm pretty sure that every single French person I know who attended either Sciences Po or Ecole Polytechnique mentioned it within the first 4 hours of contact I had with them.

 

I don't think they donate, but they certainly are proud of their schools.

 

Come to think of it this may be specific to the French upper class. I don't think any German person I've known ever mentioned their university in conversation.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well... I'll admit to being glad that Va Tech beat UVA in men's basketball last night so, yeah, being an alumni is something I'm proud of and rivalries continue to be fun decades after I've graduated.   :coolgleamA:

 

Part of the college experience we wanted for our lads is a college they'd be proud to have been part of.  It certainly doesn't have to have anything to do with sports.  They all love their schools - as do we - so we'll be in the donation category soon (as tuition will have been finished and we're thankful their colleges each gave them significant aid for them to be able to attend).

 

Hubby and I expect to go back to Va Tech for our 30th wedding anniversary this year - just to reminisce.  We both really, really, really enjoyed our time there and we wanted something special relating to our past for year 30.  My parents enjoyed their time at college too (SUNY Potsdam).  It's a tradition "experience" we wanted our kids to have too at the college of their choice (within what we could afford).  No regrets at all.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

 

If I were required to pay an activity fee when buying a zucchini, I'd be mad, and I'm pretty sure everybody would be mad, rather than just saying "it is what it is". So, I don't get why we think it's okay when buying a Abstract Algebra class. I get why universities do it, but I don't get why, as a society, we don't just get the government to say "no", and to make sure there is an affordable public no-frills academics option. People who want fancy stuff would still be able to go to private school and pay out the wazoo for w/e frills they want. 

 

 

 

Ha!  I wonder what a zucchini activity fee would get me!  (A mandoline and maybe someone to operate it?)

 

Some colleges (not all) are not only selling you an abstract algebra class, but are also selling you a group of smart, talented peers for your student to take abstract algebra with and to bond with, so when you are all graduated, you'll have them as high quality professional and social connections.  Hence the activity fee so you can do fun things together and bond?  

  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Is this definitely true?  I believe you when you say it because you obviously have more experience than me.  But in that case, why does college in Kansas (my frame of reference) cost literally 3x the tuition it did 15 years ago?  Inflation has not gone up 300% in 15 years.  Wages sure as hell haven't, and I'd bet that professors don't make 3x as much as they did.  But college costs have.  Has public funding gone down that much? (that is to say, did it always cost $11k/yr to provide an undergrad education at KU and the state used to pay 8k of it but in the last 15 years has gotten rid of that 8k?) or have costs actually gone up?  

 

If costs have actually gone up that much, what are they paying so much more for?

 

I agree that college costs are out of control, due to pension and health care obligations and perhaps a bloated bureaucracy.  But I will also argue that our relatively low inflation in the US in the past decades is making college appear even more expensive.  Everything is cheap nowadays, due to outsourcing.

 

"Low inflation has become the standard condition across the developed world, and some economists see the rise of the developing world as the most likely explanation.  The threat of outsourcing helps to hold down wages, while the flood of cheap goods from foreign countries helps to hold down prices."

 

Things that are not cheaper are services that can't be outsourced: plumbers, car repair, and college professors.  

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I remember those talks.  I always got the, "Well, he can get scholarships" comment.  Always.  As if you just pick which ones you want, and VIOILA!  You get to go to college for free.

 

Many of them are now facing the fact that either their kid isn't going (many have opted to just not go) or they are taking out hefty loans.  A few are doing ROTC.  

 

It is one thing to not be able to afford it and plan accordingly, it is another to be in denial and then somehow "shocked" that it isn't what the bottom of your rock living told you it would be.

 

I agree. I can't believe how many parents around here think that there will be some athletic scholarship to pay for it all. And their kids play soccer or field hockey, not football or basketball.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Our state legislators did the same dumb thing. They could have seen that it didn't work in KS, so why should it work in MO?

Then they were "surprised" that the tax cuts led to a dramatic loss in revenue. The chief of the budget house committee said that had they known it would have this effect they would not have voted for it. :banghead: Yeah, don't they have experts who analyze things beforehand???

Yes, they have Ă¢â‚¬Å“theirĂ¢â‚¬ experts, spin doctors who sell the scheme to the ignorant and gullible public who applaud what essentially will not benefit them. The powers that be and those who support them financially behind the scenes are the ones who profit. Politicians and their votes are largely bought.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The superintendent at my local public school retired on full-pension and then was rehired by the district in the exact same position. So not only was he receiving 100% of his income from his retirement, he was also being paid an additional salary for his post-retirement job. I believe the term is called "double-dipping" and many abuse the system this way.

 

 

Realistically though, the principal could've retired and the school district hired someone else, and it'd cost the exact same thing for the school district. The only issue I see is that maybe someone else wanted that job and now can't get it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Realistically though, the principal could've retired and the school district hired someone else, and it'd cost the exact same thing for the school district. The only issue I see is that maybe someone else wanted that job and now can't get it.

 

I'm still not sure why it's ok to pay one person twice for the same job.  Seems like a scam on taxpayers to me.  I'd have no problem paying the same amount to two different folks because the first one genuinely retired.  That's the way it's supposed to work.

  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Realistically though, the principal could've retired and the school district hired someone else, and it'd cost the exact same thing for the school district. The only issue I see is that maybe someone else wanted that job and now can't get it.

 

But it is unethical and shows a shocking lack of personal integrity. (Actually, scratch "shocking"; that is sadly no longer true)

Edited by regentrude
  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm still not sure why it's ok to pay one person twice for the same job.  Seems like a scam on taxpayers to me.  I'd have no problem paying the same amount to two different folks because the first one genuinely retired.  That's the way it's supposed to work.

 

 

But they aren't getting paid twice for the same job. They earned retirement, and then they get paid for the job they're currently doing. If they were retired from being a principal and became a greeter at Walmart, they'd be getting retirement from the school district and get paid by Walmart at the same time. Now, does it suck for tax payers, compared to people not double dipping? Sure. But they wouldn't be able to do it if they hadn't already earned retirement through previous years of service. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

But they aren't getting paid twice for the same job. They earned retirement, and then they get paid for the job they're currently doing. If they were retired from being a principal and became a greeter at Walmart, they'd be getting retirement from the school district and get paid by Walmart at the same time. Now, does it suck for tax payers, compared to people not double dipping? Sure. But they wouldn't be able to do it if they hadn't already earned retirement through previous years of service. 

 

You can word it however you like to make it seem right, but it isn't.  Retiring means retiring from that job.  If someone chooses to work in Home Depot or Wally World or in the school district doing another job, then that's different because they are starting something new.  Tons of people do that.  It helps break up life keeping things new, or some need more income than retirement provides.

 

Someone "retiring" just to keep doing the same job, but get paid twice is pulling a scam on taxpayers.  Perhaps it's legal due to the letter of the law (and the folks writing it either not anticipating the creative work around or wanting to profit from it themselves), but it's unethical and not the way "retirement" is meant to work.  I'd have zero respect for such a person.  Probably negative respect TBH.  The fact that it goes on doesn't surprise me in the least.  There are always folks thinking they deserve more and getting it from the gov't hurts no one.  They're probably patting themselves on the back for being so creative and teaching others to do similarly - while the common taxpayer is the one figuring out how to pay bills.

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I mean, the alternative is that they take their retirement (if they have one of those sweet deals mentioned upthread where they get >100% of their salary), and then work for free. Why anyone would expect anyone to do that is beyond me. Now, if their retirement is significantly lower than <100% of their salary, then it might make financial sense to not retire but work for salary instead, but either way, they've earned the retirement amount through previous work, not through the work they're currently doing, so they're not getting paid twice for their current work. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I mean, the alternative is that they take their retirement (if they have one of those sweet deals mentioned upthread where they get >100% of their salary), and then work for free. Why anyone would expect anyone to do that is beyond me. Now, if their retirement is significantly lower than <100% of their salary, then it might make financial sense to not retire but work for salary instead, but either way, they've earned the retirement amount through previous work, not through the work they're currently doing, so they're not getting paid twice for their current work. 

 

And this is why many retirements are getting rewritten... too many think they deserve their deceptive ways.

 

Ethical folks continue to earn retirement as long as they continue working, then cash in on those earnings when they end that job.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

You can word it however you like to make it seem right, but it isn't.  Retiring means retiring from that job.  If someone chooses to work in Home Depot or Wally World or in the school district doing another job, then that's different because they are starting something new.  Tons of people do that.  It helps break up life keeping things new, or some need more income than retirement provides.

 

 

How does it matter if someone works the same job or a different job, especially if it's for the same employer? Either way they're getting their retirement (which they've earned through previous work) AND a salary (which they're earning through their current work). 

 

It's not like you can work a job for one year and then collect a nice full retirement and continue to work it. Or, if you can, then that's something that needs to be fixed. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So, if someone stocks shelves for Walmart for 45 years, then retires, and continues to stock shelves for Walmart, you'd say that that person is being unethical, rather than deserving the measly amount they're probably getting (I'm sure that stocking shelves doesn't pay much more than minimum wage and any retirement isn't lavish either)? You think they haven't earned it? Or is it just that principals are a) public employees and b) get paid a lot more?

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

But it is unethical and shows a shocking lack of personal integrity. (Actually, scratch "shocking"; that is sadly no longer true

 

 

I don't think it's unethical to work after retirement; lots of people do that.  Most do it part-time but some do full-time work.

 

It's just that people, largely Boomers, negotiated ridiculously generous retirement and health benefits when they were in the workforce.  They told themselves (and the people paying them) that they were taking these benefits in place of salary raises, which is great, but what it meant was that instead of paying their full value now, they'd be paid later (and thus, someone else would be doing the paying). It is generally easier to convince people to pay you more money in the future than more money now. 

 

The Boomers did this with a million different things, not just pensions.  Younger people in the workforce now can't negotiate nearly as good of benefits or salaries because the money is tied up in paying benefits and pensions to people who are no longer working.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

So, if someone stocks shelves for Walmart for 45 years, then retires, and continues to stock shelves for Walmart, you'd say that that person is being unethical, rather than deserving the measly amount they're probably getting (I'm sure that stocking shelves doesn't pay much more than minimum wage and any retirement isn't lavish either)? You think they haven't earned it? Or is it just that principals are a) public employees and b) get paid a lot more?

 

Yes, I'd be just as against this.

 

We'll have to agree to disagree and readers can decide for themselves how they feel.

 

It's no surprise that many leaders have caught on and are trying to fix systems or not offer retirement at all.

 

ETA:   To be the same, one would say the worker gets a 2x bonus for working X years if they continue in their job.  If that's what's intended, then spell it out - like a raise.

Edited by creekland
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Okay, sure, we can agree to disagree. And I have no problem with employers writing retirement contracts differently. I just think that to the taxpayer, it doesn't really matter if Bob retires and then works some more, or if Bob retires and Joe then does his job. And that if you've earned x amount of money for putting in your 40 years or w/e, it doesn't make sense to expect someone to work for free or almost free if they happen to continue the same job, but to pay them if they change into a (slightly or completely) different job. 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I mean, you're basically saying that if Bob is principal of district x, and Joe is principal of district y, you're fine with both of them retiring and switching jobs, but if they retire and then keep their own job, they'd have to work for (almost) free. Failing to see the logic in that. 

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I mean, you're basically saying that if Bob is principal of district x, and Joe is principal of district y, you're fine with both of them retiring and switching jobs, but if they retire and then keep their own job, they'd have to work for (almost) free. Failing to see the logic in that. 

 

Why are you assuming they must work for almost free?  Retirement isn't forced.  They can retire later.

 

And no, taxpayers aren't necessarily paying "the new guy" the same.  New employees often make less than those who have been there for decades.  Raises come with years on the job.

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

When my mom retired and then took a half-time position doing the same job at the same place, they offered her a payout to retire that year (I think it was like 3 months' salary, maybe) and continue working part-time.  Then they hired someone else to work the other half of what had previously been her sole position.

 

She works for a community college as a librarian; she has worked for 20-30 years as a reference librarian with an MLS.  

 

So anyway, for the community college, it was cheaper to have her do this than to have her continue on as a full-time worker at her previous salary for the next 5-10 years.  So she retired, but works part time at the same job and is paid both for the part time work she does now and gets her retirement money.  I think part of the reason for this is that keeping her on alone full-time was a higher salary than either she or the other part time person makes hourly now.

 

For my mom, it makes a lot more sense to work part time as a librarian than part time as a WalMart cashier, because it pays better and she knows the work.  She also works part time for the local library system (for whom she worked, briefly, 20 years ago), so she really works 40 hours a week while drawing retirement.

 

She could not support herself without the work.  When she retired, it was retirement from the official salaried position - similar to a professorship - which required her to do meetings and graduation and advising and taking other peoples' missed shifts and volunteer work with this or that group and etc.

 

She was 65; she is now 70.  she will probably work like this just as long as she physically can.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I just think that to the taxpayer, it doesn't really matter if Bob retires and then works some more, or if Bob retires and Joe then does his job.

There is a difference between Bob has officially retired and no one wants his job so he was rehired on a yearly contract, and Bob has officially retired but continues doing his job for the pay and the job opening was never opened for anyone else. In the second scenario, Joe didnĂ¢â‚¬â„¢t get a chance to apply for BobĂ¢â‚¬â„¢s job.

 

For example my school districtĂ¢â‚¬â„¢s former superintendent retired after two years on the job but has worked twenty odd years with the school district rising through the ranks. The assistant superintendent would be happy for the chance to be promoted to superintendent and someone else would be happy to get a chance for the assistant superintendent position if it vacant. The school district superintendent job ended up going to someone else out of the school district. It would definitely annoy residents if the retired superintendent just continued his job and get both pension and pay when there were quite a few eligible candidates who applied for that post.

 

My dad is a retired teacher. When his nearby school principal couldnĂ¢â‚¬â„¢t find anyone willing to do a one year Chinese language substitute teacher contract because they have a Chinese language teacher on a one year medical leave of absence, the school called him and ask if he could cover a year or even a semester to Ă¢â‚¬Å“bail them outĂ¢â‚¬. If someone else has last minute wanted that job, my dad would have let him/her have it.

  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

When my mom retired and then took a half-time position doing the same job at the same place, they offered her a payout to retire that year (I think it was like 3 months' salary, maybe) and continue working part-time.  Then they hired someone else to work the other half of what had previously been her sole position.

 

She works for a community college as a librarian; she has worked for 20-30 years as a reference librarian with an MLS.  

 

So anyway, for the community college, it was cheaper to have her do this than to have her continue on as a full-time worker at her previous salary for the next 5-10 years.  So she retired, but works part time at the same job and is paid both for the part time work she does now and gets her retirement money.  I think part of the reason for this is that keeping her on alone full-time was a higher salary than either she or the other part time person makes hourly now.

 

For my mom, it makes a lot more sense to work part time as a librarian than part time as a WalMart cashier, because it pays better and she knows the work.  She also works part time for the local library system (for whom she worked, briefly, 20 years ago), so she really works 40 hours a week while drawing retirement.

 

She could not support herself without the work.  When she retired, it was retirement from the official salaried position - similar to a professorship - which required her to do meetings and graduation and advising and taking other peoples' missed shifts and volunteer work with this or that group and etc.

 

She was 65; she is now 70.  she will probably work like this just as long as she physically can.

 

I see this as totally different when it's a win-win for both (your mom wanting fewer hours and the combo of pay being less for the cc).  It's not at all the same as pretending to retire, then staying on at the same salary rather than coming on as a new hire earning less.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Why are you assuming they must work for almost free?  Retirement isn't forced.  They can retire later.

 

And no, taxpayers aren't necessarily paying "the new guy" the same.  New employees often make less than those who have been there for decades.  Raises come with years on the job.

 

Whether they forgo their retirement income (for now) or their salary is kind of a moot point. They're forgoing money they'd be getting for sitting on their butt eating bonbons all day. I.e. they're working for (almost) free compared to not working. As to the latter, and Arcadia's point:

 

There is a difference between Bob has officially retired and no one wants his job so he was rehired on a yearly contract, and Bob has officially retired but continues doing his job for the pay and the job opening was never opened for anyone else. In the second scenario, Joe didnĂ¢â‚¬â„¢t get a chance to apply for BobĂ¢â‚¬â„¢s job.

 

 

I think that if someone retires but wants to continue or is begged by the district to continue or w/e, they should have to reapply to the position. That way Joe gets a chance, and they have to redo their salary negotiations. So, I agree with y'all there. 

Edited by luuknam
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The thing is, asking someone to not take the benefits they agreed to/were contracted with when they took the job or continued in the job is kind of wanting to have your cake and eat it too.  When Boomers made these agreements they thought they were taking less salary now in return for more benefits later.  It was part of the negotiated total compensation agreement, right?  So then if you get to retirement age and you don't want people to retire just because they are able and willing to keep working, you're saying well, I know you agreed to X salary plus Y retirement plus Z benefits, but you don't really need Y retirement so it's immoral to take it.

 

If it is immoral to take it, then it was immoral to offer it as part of the compensation package in the first place and they should have just negotiated a higher salary.

 

All of that said, the problem of people living rather a lot longer than originally anticipated - so they're drawing retirement not for 10 years but for 20 years - and healthcare costs going up, both because people are less healthy and because they live longer in poor health or with chronic conditions is that these agreements have ended up costing more than the institutions expected, and someone has to pay.  In terms of universities, I guess the cost is largely passed on to Gen X and especially Millennials - surprise! 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

In compliance with what the IRS rules (which require a bona fide termination of the employment), our college has the rule that if you retire before 62, you can only be rehired if:

- there has not been an agreement about your rehire before your retirement

- you are not allowed to apply for any position before retirement is effective

- there must be a 3 months break between retirement date and rehire

- you can only be employed part time without benefits

I am pretty sure the intent is to prevent people from "retiring" and turning around to return for full time benefit eligible employment the next day which would be ripe for abuse.

 

I still find it very strange that it is even possible.

None of my many colleagues above 65 is drawing a pension and a salary concurrently.

 

 

Edited by regentrude
  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

In NY, a nondisabled city or state employee under the age of 65 can draw a full pension and up to $30k annually from the new city or state job. After that they give back the pension dollar for dollar earned. Over 65, they have no income limit.

And that's one reason why NY taxes are so high.
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The thing is, asking someone to not take the benefits they agreed to/were contracted with when they took the job or continued in the job is kind of wanting to have your cake and eat it too.  When Boomers made these agreements they thought they were taking less salary now in return for more benefits later.  It was part of the negotiated total compensation agreement, right?  So then if you get to retirement age and you don't want people to retire just because they are able and willing to keep working, you're saying well, I know you agreed to X salary plus Y retirement plus Z benefits, but you don't really need Y retirement so it's immoral to take it. 

 

This depends upon the intent at the time however many years ago that it was written.  Were they expecting people to retire and continue working at the same salary or was that a loophole someone found later and exploited knowing the mistake couldn't be changed to be more fair because "it's in the contract!!!"?  I strongly suspect it was a loophole and no one assumed someone would retire and continue working at the same job for the same amount of money + retirement benefits at the same time, just so they could earn double their salary.

 

Rules are being rewritten now to counter that (akin to Regentrude's post).  I find it sad that they have to be rewritten due to folks abusing the system.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Rules are being rewritten now to counter that (akin to Regentrude's post).  I find it sad that they have to be rewritten due to folks abusing the system.

 

Yes. 

 

I could totally picture situations where someone might retire in good faith and be asked to come back later for a year to cover an unexpected absence of someone else. Situations like that I'd be fine with. 

  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm not sure if this is relevant to the discussion, but the chief of police of my town retired after vesting for retirement, and then turned around and took a job with the sheriff's department.  He pointed out to us (friends at my tennis club) that since they have a different retirement system, he can vest there and augment his benefits.  <shrug.>  

 

I don't view it as immoral, since he's following the rules.  And police work is dangerous no matter how you slice it, so I don't begrudge him a generous pension.  But it's also not an ideal situation for taxpayers.  

 

I think if we had stronger unions and more widespread participation, we'd be less inclined to hold a grudge against those who are lucky enough to still have union advocacy.  

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yeah, I have no trouble holding a grudge against the generation as a whole, but individuals who take as part of their agreed compensation retirement benefits after a certain age, but still want to work after that age instead of sitting around or travelling or volunteering or whatever - I can't have a grudge against them, they're just doing the best they can.

 

I mean, you have to figure that because of market dynamics, if they hadn't gotten a guaranteed $x pension after Y years of work, they would have gotten higher salaries.  Granted, it would have been nice for the people buying the goods or services then to pay for them (in higher salaries at the time) instead of passing the buck to the next generation, but it's not the fault of the people who agreed to the terms and then followed them.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Rules about collecting pensions and rehiring are often complicated and vary from plan to plan. Some rehired retirees do not continue receiving their pension after being rehired. It just depends how things are written up.

 

Keep in mind that the employees pay into their pension funds. They receive less of a salary because a portion goes toward funding their pensions.

 

ItĂ¢â‚¬â„¢s also not unusual for military to accept a job after retiring and draw both a pension and a salary. I donĂ¢â‚¬â„¢t have a problem with that.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

in the private sector pensions have been phased out or are in that process.

The 401K with match is the "new" pension.

Yes, several decades ago pensions were affected by ERISA which led to no choice but to phase out many private pension plans.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think I just don't see it so much as a loophole, since it's so simple a kid could think of it. As opposed to some loopholes, which require a CPA to do some very creative thinking - yeah, I'm not real happy about people using those kinds of loopholes, since they really weren't intended to work that way, and the people benefiting are by definition people who can afford to throw money at fancy CPAs. 

 

I'm also getting the impression we're thinking of different kinds of people - I'm mostly envisioning people who are 65+, who either want/need to work more, or who were begged by their employer to please work more, and military people, who are younger, but who get those benefits because it's a high risk job that doesn't pay enough otherwise where the military doesn't even want 50yo foot soldiers. If people in other careers like being a principal are retiring way before the age of 65 and getting a pension, then I think the terms of that pension were off - why was it written in such a way that they could retire at, say, 50 and draw a pension? (I don't know what age y'all are thinking of, I just get the impression that some of y'all are talking about people significantly younger than 65 who were not in a high risk, physically demanding occupation like the military)

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm also getting the impression we're thinking of different kinds of people - I'm mostly envisioning people who are 65+, who either want/need to work more, or who were begged by their employer to please work more, and military people, who are younger, but who get those benefits because it's a high risk job that doesn't pay enough otherwise where the military doesn't even want 50yo foot soldiers. If people in other careers like being a principal are retiring way before the age of 65 and getting a pension, then I think the terms of that pension were off - why was it written in such a way that they could retire at, say, 50 and draw a pension? (I don't know what age y'all are thinking of, I just get the impression that some of y'all are talking about people significantly younger than 65 who were not in a high risk, physically demanding occupation like the military)

 

Yes, this is what I think we all agree on.  The original post talking about it had a school superintendent who retired drawing 100% of his pay as a pension, but never quit working the same job so suddenly got a raise of 100% by keeping his paycheck coming in too.

 

It's 100% different than those who retire and find a different job or who opt for part time at a part time salary or similar.  Those are legit.  The former, I suspect, was never the intention of that retirement system.

  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ds just got an email from YALE with the subject line, Ă¢â‚¬Å“Yale is affordable!Ă¢â‚¬ Hahahaha! He is not even close to having the stats to get into Yale, and we can in no way afford it. Made me think of this thread!

 

Getting in is one thing and many schools really try to get applicants even if they have very little or no chance for admission as that downs their acceptance rate (a positive thing in their eyes).

 

However, Yale is well known as being a school that gives much better than average financial assistance.  They have the endowment to do so.  For the truly middle class (meaning 200K or less if I recall it correctly) who can get admitted, they could easily be among the least expensive options if one doesn't opt for a full ride at a less selective place.

 

If you feel up to playing around, run their NPC and see how it compares.  I'm curious to know if what used to be true from my college searching days still is.  At our school kids rarely are up to Yale's caliber.  I can't recall any who have actually applied there even when they had the stats.  Popular Ivies are Cornell (most popular), U Penn, and probably Princeton.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

A pension is rarely 100 percent of salary. Many public employees are underpaid compared to private industry (my state legislature skipped funding raises during the recession for example). I'm not sure this is a "get rich" scheme.

 

I don't have a huge problem with a state-wage-scale teacher doing this, but the superintendent usually has a custom contract, so their financial situation should be different.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Getting in is one thing and many schools really try to get applicants even if they have very little or no chance for admission as that downs their acceptance rate (a positive thing in their eyes).

 

However, Yale is well known as being a school that gives much better than average financial assistance. They have the endowment to do so. For the truly middle class (meaning 200K or less if I recall it correctly) who can get admitted, they could easily be among the least expensive options if one doesn't opt for a full ride at a less selective place.

 

If you feel up to playing around, run their NPC and see how it compares. I'm curious to know if what used to be true from my college searching days still is. At our school kids rarely are up to Yale's caliber. I can't recall any who have actually applied there even when they had the stats. Popular Ivies are Cornell (most popular), U Penn, and probably Princeton.

I said Yale, but just went and checked and it was from Harvard. I did run the NPC, and the COA was only about $10K more than our state flagship. I guess that is a good deal if you have the stats and get in.

 

Ds received quite a bit of mail from schools he doesnĂ¢â‚¬â„¢t have the stats for. I am so glad IĂ¢â‚¬â„¢ve researched enough to know better.

Edited by Jazzy
  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share

Ă—
Ă—
  • Create New...