Update 15: Judge Approves End of United Pension Plans - Forbes.com
As my husband and I approach our "golden years," articles like this are hard to read. I am learning that you plan your retirement with certain things considered, well....certain. For instance, my husband has a railroad pension. He has worked and contributed to this for almost thirty-two years, and we count on its being there, especially since its existence means he is not vested in Social Security (not that that is a sure thing either.) We have other funds to supplement what my husband will draw as his pension, but in our planning, it will be the main source of our income. So what will happen to us if, like has happened to United's employees, a large portion of that income is no longer there?
I don't think that people can count on retirement investments that they have not made themselves anymore, and even those are subject to market fluctuations and other problems. My husband was planning on retiring at 55, which was why he took a job in supervision. Neither of us are sorry that he took the job, but the rules changed five years in and he can't retire until he has ten years service with his current railroad. I never thought he would really retire that young anyway, but still. The requirements have changed.
When he took this job, his retirement came with the same health insurance that we have now. It is not great coverage; we had a lot better when he was an agreement employee, but ANY coverage is way better than NO coverage. Now we will pay for our health care coverage after he retires, and it will be subject to the same increases as those paid by people who are working. Again, this is something that we have to live with, but it is a big change.
I have not worked long enough to get a teacher's retirement, and for health reasons it does not look like I will. If I do continue, say, as a substitute, the amount of money I will draw will be very small, but it is still better than nothing. I was very proud of myself for getting vested in Social Security, especially since I now have RA and could possible qualify for SSI at some point. I was surprised to learn, though, that Social Security benefits are paid to people who have never worked if their spouse is entitled to draw them. Since my salary has never been very big, some of the people who draw benefits through their spouses will actually draw more than I will (if the funds are there for me to draw). I guess that is OK in a way. After all, at least under the current structure, I will benefit from the money my husband has contributed to railroad retirement over the years. However, such things are a burden on the system.
I do not think it pays to worry about these things to the point that you make yourself sick, but I do think it would be stupid not to plan. I understand why Social Security came about (I think), but in today's world I don't think anything can be guaranteed. Maybe it never could. I asked my father, who is a child of the Depression, what happened before health insurance and guaranteed retirements. His response was that people who could not pay the doctor did not get treated and people who had not planned did not have any "golden years." I feel like my generation in particular is sort of caught in the middle because the rules of retirement that we had sort of taken for granted are changing daily. At least my children will know that they have to plan for themselves, but I do not think theirs will be an easy row to hoe either.
As my husband and I approach our "golden years," articles like this are hard to read. I am learning that you plan your retirement with certain things considered, well....certain. For instance, my husband has a railroad pension. He has worked and contributed to this for almost thirty-two years, and we count on its being there, especially since its existence means he is not vested in Social Security (not that that is a sure thing either.) We have other funds to supplement what my husband will draw as his pension, but in our planning, it will be the main source of our income. So what will happen to us if, like has happened to United's employees, a large portion of that income is no longer there?
I don't think that people can count on retirement investments that they have not made themselves anymore, and even those are subject to market fluctuations and other problems. My husband was planning on retiring at 55, which was why he took a job in supervision. Neither of us are sorry that he took the job, but the rules changed five years in and he can't retire until he has ten years service with his current railroad. I never thought he would really retire that young anyway, but still. The requirements have changed.
When he took this job, his retirement came with the same health insurance that we have now. It is not great coverage; we had a lot better when he was an agreement employee, but ANY coverage is way better than NO coverage. Now we will pay for our health care coverage after he retires, and it will be subject to the same increases as those paid by people who are working. Again, this is something that we have to live with, but it is a big change.
I have not worked long enough to get a teacher's retirement, and for health reasons it does not look like I will. If I do continue, say, as a substitute, the amount of money I will draw will be very small, but it is still better than nothing. I was very proud of myself for getting vested in Social Security, especially since I now have RA and could possible qualify for SSI at some point. I was surprised to learn, though, that Social Security benefits are paid to people who have never worked if their spouse is entitled to draw them. Since my salary has never been very big, some of the people who draw benefits through their spouses will actually draw more than I will (if the funds are there for me to draw). I guess that is OK in a way. After all, at least under the current structure, I will benefit from the money my husband has contributed to railroad retirement over the years. However, such things are a burden on the system.
I do not think it pays to worry about these things to the point that you make yourself sick, but I do think it would be stupid not to plan. I understand why Social Security came about (I think), but in today's world I don't think anything can be guaranteed. Maybe it never could. I asked my father, who is a child of the Depression, what happened before health insurance and guaranteed retirements. His response was that people who could not pay the doctor did not get treated and people who had not planned did not have any "golden years." I feel like my generation in particular is sort of caught in the middle because the rules of retirement that we had sort of taken for granted are changing daily. At least my children will know that they have to plan for themselves, but I do not think theirs will be an easy row to hoe either.
You can skip to the end and leave a response.
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home