Its not my fault my wife & I are doing reasonably well in our business, either, but the president says we must do 'our fair share' and put some 'skin in the game'. Up our taxes go.
So I don't see why Linda's 'lavish' retirement salary should be off the table.
However, if she was some sort of sparkling star of an administrator, and competition for the best people was tight on the hiring agencies, then they made a deal for the use of her talents for that period of time she was a superintendent.
Once you make the deal and sign the contract and then use someone's peak earning years in their working life doing your stuff, rather than her doing somebody else's stuff, the contract stands.
We had a top administrator who was, himself, a dud. He was gay too, which is relevant. His wife, though, wasn't gay, but she had several boyfriends in the House and the Senate and whenever the agency really needed some relief from foolish regulatory laws she could be depended on to deliver the package.
So, what was the proper salary for that manager? What about his retirement? Did he earn it? What about his wife?
The couple were, in the end, worth billions of dollars!
We really don't know enough about this woman ~ she may well be worth every penny she gets in her retirement ~ or, maybe she was the dud!
I agree. If it's money going out, it needs to be on the table and admit their agreement was wrong as they/unions lacked foresight while embracing greed. She needs to take a 10% cut.
One can see how SS is a rip off!
If her plan was a defined contribution plan then she would be carrying the risk of investing her pension. Since it is a defined benefit plan then the firm,in this case government, carries the risk of investing the money she has contributed towards her pension.
Just like many firms may have over or underfunded DB plans, they are required to meet their obligations. If the pension funds were poorly managed, then blame needs to be put on the people managing those funds
A contract is a contract - if you don't want to honor it, you shouldn't have entered into it. If you let people purchase your businesses' services/goods on credit, you have every right to expect them to pay you. Unless you think that if times get tough, their responsibility to pay you should be put on the table...