Posted on 11/06/2014 8:57:57 AM PST by Rusty0604
More than a dozen members of Congress were defeated on Tuesday night. But taxpayers will still have to keep sending most of them checks.
Members of Congress are eligible for a pension after just five years in office, so that means senators qualify for one after a single six-year term. But most can't start drawing full payments until age 62.
North Carolina's Kay Hagan, for instance, lost her first bid for reelection. For senators and representatives with only six years in office, the annual pension is about 10% of annual pay -- in Hagan's case, that's $17,400 a year based on her annual salary of $174,000. She can start collecting her pension in May when she turns 62.
Colorado's first term senator, Mark Udall, also lost Tuesday. But he'll be paid about $47,000 a year since he also served five terms in the House. Since he's 64, he can start collecting his pension as soon as he leaves office.
Senior members with 32 years in office can earn 80% of their pay, or about $139,000 a year.
This year there are nine members of Congress leaving with 80% pay.
The pensions that lawmakers get are defined benefit plans, which means they are guaranteed to be paid a certain sum for as long as they're alive. Another perk: These benefits increase with the cost of living. Both are features that have become rare in private sector retirement plans.
While most former members of Congress have to wait until age 62 to start drawing their pension, those with 20 years of service can start receiving payments at 50.
(Excerpt) Read more at money.cnn.com ...
It is worth paying them the money to get rid of them. They do far less harm to the budget (among other things) by not being in Congress.
Good riddance!
True, but I don’t think the founding fathers envisioned serving in Congress as a full-time career.
Republicans should move to change this pension program, emphasizing the need for an actuarially sound program and creating a model for other public sector employees going forward. It is a question of “Doing as you say.”
State Controller John Chiang dropped a political bomb the other day, although he was so quiet about it, one could say it was a stealth bomb.
Chiang added public pension systems to his already large fiscal database. One chart reveals that their “unfunded liabilities” – the gap between assets and liabilities for current and future pensions – exploded from $6.3 billion in 2003 to $198.2 billion in 2013.
Moreover, that startling number assumes that pension systems will see asset earnings of about 7.5 percent a year – a number that some are beginning to see as unattainable.
Read more here: http://www.sacbee.com/news/politics-government/dan-walters/article3507521.html#storylink=cpy
I’ll agree with you there.
I would also seek reform of Congressional pensions - put them on SS, let them deal with the retirement that they give us.
There is no evidence that returns have been close to 7.5% over the last 15 years. Many pension funds still assume that unrealistic RoR of 7 to 8%. If benefits are inflation protected then this is a monster of a problem. The time to kill the taxpayer guarantees for these pensions is now. No bailouts of pensions.
Heavily unionized public employee pensions in States like CA and IL are going to bankrupt their States, but they do not care because they believe that they can raise taxes as much as they want, and if all else fails the Federal gov’t will bail them out.
You are correct, 7.5% returns is not realistic. In CA, where most of their revenue relies on capital gains of the few very wealthy taxpayers, all it takes is a sharp downturn in the stock market and it takes many years to make up the loss.
It’s criminal. No way on earth would any other job do some crap like this!
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.