Messino Posted July 4, 2009 Share #26 Posted July 4, 2009 That is fine,but will you have enough money saved to live off for the next 25-30 yrs if you decide not to work after you retire? I know all of us are not promised tomorrow but having enough money to live comfortably in retirement is very important. Thats why people should have at least some kind of retirement account prepared (a Roth IRA) comes to mind. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zman Posted July 5, 2009 Share #27 Posted July 5, 2009 That is fine,but will you have enough money saved to live off for the next 25-30 yrs if you decide not to work after you retire? I know all of us are not promised tomorrow but having enough money to live comfortably in retirement is very important. You have to be financially ready to pull the plug and reduce your income by half. Otherwise it'll be an absolute disaster. Retirement is still a very long way off for me so I've got plenty of time to get my stuff in order. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Locomotion69 Posted July 6, 2009 Share #28 Posted July 6, 2009 Yes,and try to max out your retirement accounts if you are able to do so. But with the high cost of living in NYC that is very difficult. One must also be near or completely debt free when they retire. This is just my opinion but a lot of financial talk show hosts over estimate how much money you need to have saved upon retirement. Everybody is different,with different lifestyles. All I know is that there is nothing worse then being poor and elderly. When you are young and poor it isn't as bad,because you are strong and healthy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TransitMan23 Posted July 9, 2009 Author Share #29 Posted July 9, 2009 Yes,and try to max out your retirement accounts if you are able to do so. But with the high cost of living in NYC that is very difficult. One must also be near or completely debt free when they retire. This is just my opinion but a lot of financial talk show hosts over estimate how much money you need to have saved upon retirement. Everybody is different,with different lifestyles. All I know is that there is nothing worse then being poor and elderly. When you are young and poor it isn't as bad,because you are strong and healthy. yeah your right...work hard now and relax later... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dahon Posted July 13, 2009 Share #30 Posted July 13, 2009 Wouldn't you guys be happy with 20/60? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Messino Posted July 13, 2009 Share #31 Posted July 13, 2009 Wouldn't you guys be happy with 20/60? 20/60 doesnt make sense because most people start these jobs at a younger age so working till 60 would make the 20 years of service void. You would have to start working for the MTA at age 40 to make 20/60 worth it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Locomotion69 Posted July 13, 2009 Share #32 Posted July 13, 2009 20 yr pensions are an endangered species. 25yrs to receive a full pension is still way better then what most workers have in the United State. 25/50 would make more sense. In my opinion they should have a minimum age requirement for certain titles. 25yrs of age for T/O's and B/O's. Both of these titles have a lot of responsibility. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jah Posted July 13, 2009 Share #33 Posted July 13, 2009 In my opinion they should have a minimum age requirement for certain titles. 25yrs of age for T/O's and B/O's. Both of these titles have a lot of responsibility. I completely disagree. If anything there should be an age limit on these titles due to the reduced reaction times and generally poor driving of old people. They say that cops and firefighters have 20 and out pensions because you don't want an old man chasing a perp or rescuing you from a fire. Well I'd rather have a younger man operating a full rush hour train than an old man too. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Y2Julio Posted July 13, 2009 Share #34 Posted July 13, 2009 25yrs of age for T/O's and B/O's. Both of these titles have a lot of responsibility. I disagree. Age is not a valid tool to measure one's responsibility. Responsibility just like wisdom does not come with age. I know lots of people that are older than 25 and aren't responsible, my older brother being one. I've held the same job for 5 years, wouldn't that in itself show that I am just as responsible as any person older than me? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Locomotion69 Posted July 14, 2009 Share #35 Posted July 14, 2009 I completely disagree. If anything there should be an age limit on these titles due to the reduced reaction times and generally poor driving of old people. They say that cops and firefighters have 20 and out pensions because you don't want an old man chasing a perp or rescuing you from a fire. Well I'd rather have a younger man operating a full rush hour train than an old man too. C'mon now, don't compare a police officer and a firefighter with a T/O...A T/O is a sedentary job most of the time. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SubwayGuy Posted July 14, 2009 Share #36 Posted July 14, 2009 I disagree. Age is not a valid tool to measure one's responsibility. Responsibility just like wisdom does not come with age. I know lots of people that are older than 25 and aren't responsible, my older brother being one. I've held the same job for 5 years, wouldn't that in itself show that I am just as responsible as any person older than me? Amen to that. Age doesn't equal wisdom or anything. Sure the stereotype is that kids are dumb and older adults are "Mature" but I'm sure I can find you someone mature enough to operate a train at 16 (not saying they should do this...just saying there are people VERY responsible for their age out there) and someone who has a safety sensitive job and is older and probably shouldn't have that job. People do change, from time to time, but for the most part irresponsible kids become irresponsible adults and no amount of "age" or "experience" will change that Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jah Posted July 14, 2009 Share #37 Posted July 14, 2009 A T/O is a sedentary job most of the time. And so is a cop and firefighter!!!!! It's safe to say that a firefighter on average spends much more of his on the clock time relaxing than fighting fires. Simple facts of life your reaction time and judgment get slower with age. I feel that B/O's need an age cap even more than T/O's though because older people statistically are terrible drivers and they weren't always that way. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TransitMan23 Posted July 19, 2009 Author Share #38 Posted July 19, 2009 And so is a cop and firefighter!!!!! It's safe to say that a firefighter on average spends much more of his on the clock time relaxing than fighting fires. Simple facts of life your reaction time and judgment get slower with age. I feel that B/O's need an age cap even more than T/O's though because older people statistically are terrible drivers and they weren't always that way. i agree i think they should give us 20/50 ..i hear now they going to make it 30/62 again like before..but we need a new union president .. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KNIGHTRIDER3:16 Posted July 19, 2009 Share #39 Posted July 19, 2009 i agree i think they should give us 20/50 ..i hear now they going to make it 30/62 again like before..but we need a new union president ..[/ 100% agree We also need change T B O U Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TransitMan23 Posted July 22, 2009 Author Share #40 Posted July 22, 2009 i agree i think they should give us 20/50 ..i hear now they going to make it 30/62 again like before..but we need a new union president ..[/ 100% agree We also need change T B O U i hear the contract is done so lets see what happens in a few weeks... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jah Posted July 22, 2009 Share #41 Posted July 22, 2009 i hear the contract is done so lets see what happens in a few weeks... The contract has nothing to do with pensions. It is illegal to negotiate pensions in contracts that is the main reason that the strike took place. The newspapers or the polititians didn't want to hold the MTA accountable for breaking the law though. No surprise there. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TransitMan23 Posted July 27, 2009 Author Share #42 Posted July 27, 2009 The contract has nothing to do with pensions. It is illegal to negotiate pensions in contracts that is the main reason that the strike took place. The newspapers or the polititians didn't want to hold the MTA accountable for breaking the law though. No surprise there. oh ok...the contracted is done they will announce the end of the month... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jah Posted July 27, 2009 Share #43 Posted July 27, 2009 oh ok...the contracted is done they will announce the end of the month... It is the end of the month. When it actually is done the award will be announced. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BklynSouth Posted July 27, 2009 Share #44 Posted July 27, 2009 I do not think that you will see a 20/50 pension in the TA. The Police have revamped thier pension for new officers and the MTA wants the newbies to take a 30/62 pension. This is to save money in the future. As for the new hires that the TA is doing it is in advance of the 25/55 people who will be making a mass exit in the 2 years. So stay clear of the doors and watch your toes. :eek: You have to remember the TA does not think in the "now" it thinks for the "Future." The day to day stuff is handled by it's managers. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Trainmaster5 Posted July 28, 2009 Share #45 Posted July 28, 2009 I do not think that you will see a 20/50 pension in the TA. The Police have revamped thier pension for new officers and the MTA wants the newbies to take a 30/62 pension. This is to save money in the future. As for the new hires that the TA is doing it is in advance of the 25/55 people who will be making a mass exit in the 2 years. So stay clear of the doors and watch your toes. :eek: You have to remember the TA does not think in the "now" it thinks for the "Future." The day to day stuff is handled by it's managers. Think and the TA. What a concept !!! I think they're lost now and clueless about the future. Every time we change governors in the state the and the TA go off in a different direction. I spoke with an assemblyman over 10 years ago and pointed out that by keeping younger workers on the payroll for 35 or 40 years they were building up pension costs for those workers while shutting out the generation after them from entering civil service in the TA at all. He agreed with some of my points but said that any changes would have to be proposed from the top.Rudy and Pataki, Shelly and Bruno. Also the would have to ask for a change. Civil service jobs used to open up when 1 generation of employees worked for 20 or 25 years and retired. Now the mayor and press want employees to work 30+ years. All this talk about a mass exit in a few years is just talk unless the US economy really turns around. So here we are with a large number of citizens wanting these jobs and a large group of present employees trying to see what happens before they make an exit. Maybe some sort of targeted buy-out or incentive is needed in the TA but with this legislature being what it is who knows what's gonna happen. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LexAveExp5 Posted August 30, 2009 Share #46 Posted August 30, 2009 this may be a stupid question but im not sure of the answer. if albany changes the retirement age to 62, would that apply to everybody or just new people that come into the system? one thing im afraid of is that they'll change the retirement age and nobody will retire like right before they get to me on the train operator list! lol. and if anyone has any spare time on their hands, could they explain the whole tier thing to me and why if its controlled by albany, how come different government jobs have different retirement ages? it doesnt make sense! thanks in advance Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zman Posted August 30, 2009 Share #47 Posted August 30, 2009 this may be a stupid question but im not sure of the answer. if albany changes the retirement age to 62, would that apply to everybody or just new people that come into the system? one thing im afraid of is that they'll change the retirement age and nobody will retire like right before they get to me on the train operator list! lol. and if anyone has any spare time on their hands, could they explain the whole tier thing to me and why if its controlled by albany, how come different government jobs have different retirement ages? it doesnt make sense! thanks in advance It's always the newbies who get the shaft. I could try to explain the entire complicated tier system to you, but then I would have to kill you. The only tier that you would be concerned with is the tier that you attain when you're hired. Right now it is 25 years of service and 55 years of age, and you must have both in order to retire on a "full" pension. Bottom line: just worry about getting in the door and don't worry about the booby prizes that will await you once you're inside. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LexAveExp5 Posted August 30, 2009 Share #48 Posted August 30, 2009 Bottom line: just worry about getting in the door and don't worry about the booby prizes that will await you once you're inside. yeah man, thats exactly what i was worried about. could you imagine if they raised the retirement age and those already in the system would have had to wait 7 years longer to retire??? that would have been the death of the open-competitive list. but im glad to hear thats not how it goes Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jah Posted August 30, 2009 Share #49 Posted August 30, 2009 this may be a stupid question but im not sure of the answer. if albany changes the retirement age to 62, would that apply to everybody or just new people that come into the system? The new tier 5 pension would only apply to new hires. Us employees can't have our pensions lessened by law only enhanced. So in other words all of us that work for the TA and are tier 4 cannot do any worse than 25/55. What they want for the new hires is tier 5 which will go back to what it once was 30/62. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FDBGuy Posted August 30, 2009 Share #50 Posted August 30, 2009 The new tier 5 pension would only apply to new hires. Us employees can't have our pensions lessened by law only enhanced. So in other words all of us that work for the TA and are tier 4 cannot do any worse than 25/55. What they want for the new hires is tier 5 which will go back to what it once was 30/62.[/quote 25/55 is great and things being what they are nobody should complain with 30/62.. Do not take anything for granted. This is coming from someone laid off after 25 yrs of service. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.