There is money in the fund. The problem is those that contribute to this fund, your employers, can not afford the costs which can be as high as 20% of your current salary. Thus the idea of having you pay a portion to the fund, thus relieving your employer of the high cost, is OK with me as long as they will keep the 25 and out. Currently he wants you to contribute 5%.
Going to a 401K does not cut it with me. Under the current system you can do 25 years and collect. This means you can have a person at the age of 46 collecting. But with a 401k virtually all employers impose severe restrictions on withdrawals while a person remains in service with the company and is under the age of 59½. Any withdrawal that is permitted before the age of 59½ is subject to an excise tax equal to ten percent of the amount distributed, including withdrawals to pay expenses due to a hardship, except to the extent the distribution does not exceed the amount allowable as a deduction under Internal Revenue Code section 213 to the employee for amounts paid during the taxable year for medical care (determined without regard to whether the employee itemizes deductions for such taxable year).
If your plan changes to a 401k new employees had better plan on staying much longer, and the Office will need to plan for a much older work force.
if you can't be 100% truthful/honest, you are in the wrong profession
You speak of an older work force A.J., if the powers to be get their way and drastically change our retirement I can just see it now. Guys and Gals in their late 50's after 25 plus years on the job trying to complete the ever changing fitness courses in order to just keep their job. Any saving's the employer and state will see by reducing their retirement contributions will be wiped out or at least hit hard by the rising workers comp. medical injury claims that will surely see an increase.
Remember, there's more to life than work. Be safe my brothers and sisters.
Hey guys and gals.
The overwhelming majority of the employed people in the United States contribute toward their retirement plans, including law enforcement officers in all but seven states (including Florida.)
You are wasting your time whining and complaining about it. It IS coming. You can count on it.
The thing that we should be uniting over, and lobbying our state representatives and the governor about, is the maintenance of the greater benefits of the Special Risk pension.
Even that is endangered if we are not vigilant and pro-active.
What exactly does he mean by cutting the multiplier to 2% for special risk? Is it retro back from day one, is it for all years forward? Being he wants new hires on 401Ks, I'm assuming changing it to 2% applies to the current high risk workforce. And really, high risk is only worth 4/10 of a percent more than no risk employees pensions. Wow after 25 years of putting your life in danger, you get 10% more than the major's secretary. Sad, What a slap in the face to LEOs!
Somewhat correct AJ.....While the changes in the FRS/special risk are lousy if they are enacted, there is a provision in the IRS rules (72T) that permits someone under the age of 59 1/2 to take systematic and substantially equal payments from their IRA to use as a pension. The only tax is normal witholding tax, no other penalty. There are restrictions on changing withdrawal amounts, etc. My wife retired at 49 after 27 years with a private company and has been drawing her 401K/IRA down for the past 10 years, with a withdrawal every month. Check with your CPA or CFP for further info. Just mention the Rule of 72T and they will know what you're talking about.
You miss the point of overhauling FRS. We are solvent and we are good. We don't need reform, it is a manufactured crisis, much like the one Ed Turanchic created to make a name for himself in his previous elected position. With Ed we ended up with most of the projects from the city, and "PLAN B." You should think twice before voting for hiim for Mayor. He caused us not to be able to stack our time in anticipation of using it for retirement. That's when we REALLY got short on the street, it hit at the same time we got the DROP.
Rick Scott, for whom I voted, is only trying to "appear" effective. It's politics, pure and simple. I only voted for him because Sink was even worse. I am so over politics in this country. Is there an honest man anywhere?
Vote NOOOOOOO on Turanchic. He is so convinced of his own intelligence it makes him dangerous. It's the law of unintended consequences, Ed. You have to be able to think a step or two ahead or we - the taxpayers - pay for your stupidity. Enough already.
The FRS has a $15 billion deficit and is 88% funded. Much better than other states but still not 100% funded.
In 2000, the FRS projected an 8.5% average annual return. It based its employer contributions on this return. From 2000-2010 the FRS earned just under 4.5%. The shortfall in returns created the current $15 billion deficit. Right now, the FRS is projecting a 7.75% return. Employer contributions and lump sum calculations are based on this return. If the FRS does not earn 7.75%, the deficit will grow a lot larger and contributions will have to be increased to make up the shortfall.
Please read and know the facts everyone on here is posting rumors and BS
According to the MyFRS website, as of December 31, 2010, the FRS pension assets were up to almost $124 billion. That is putting the fund assets back on par with where they were in 2008 when it was fully funded, and is a gain of some $30 billion since the 87,5% funding report . According to the FRS and SBA Annual reports, the amounts are as follows:
2006 $116 billion overfunded
2007 $134 billion overfunded
2008 $124.8 billion overfunded
2009 $96.5 billion 87.5% funded.
2010 $123.9 billion ???
Plain and simple you were warned about Scott, repeatedly on this site and many still supported him.
Very simply Scott's success, in his turn around business which made him a very wealthy man was very simple. He purchased businesses, then stripped the employees of benefits, results increase profit for the business and large bonus for him.
he wants to balance the budget on the public employees back...how about we just raise taxes 5% everyone pays its the same thing. then there are billions for everyone
The reason for the reform is because the employers no longer can afford the percent they have to pay into FRS for the employees, which can be as high as 20% of your pay.
As for the 72T. I am fully aware of the 72T rules. You need to check with your CPA as the government has substantially reduce the rate you can take. The current rate would only allow a yearly draw of about $10,000 a year on a $750,000 72T. Do you think you can live on that? And keep in mind you can only start your draw in the year you turn 55 or you have to pay a 10% penalty to the IRS.
if you can't be 100% truthful/honest, you are in the wrong profession
Alex Sink WAS MUCH BETTER for supporting the already under paid Florida State workers. Florida is near the bottom in what it pays it's state workers and Scott is dead set on taking even more away from them!
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 0 guests