2468975 OP t1_ixza656 wrote
Reply to comment by frolicndetour in Pension for Baltimore City council members by 2468975
That’s a fair point, but correct me if I’m wrong, if you leave after 10 years you are vested and will receive a small pension, but won’t get paid that pension until you’re 65. To receive a full pension, with immediate payments, you may have to work 30 years. Whereas, in the instance of city council members, they are going to receive their full pension after 8 years of service and will receive it immediately, rather than only after turning 65 years old. That equates to decades more of payout to these council members when compared to other government employees. It doesn’t seem sustainable.
todareistobmore t1_ixzyg04 wrote
> Whereas, in the instance of city council members, they are going to receive their full pension after 8 years of service and will receive it immediately, rather than only after turning 65 years old.
Well, no. Neither full pension at 8 years or immediately. But also a big thing you seem to be overlooking is the number of people this affects--it's likely in the dozens, max. In total cost terms, it's a rounding error.
2468975 OP t1_iy00hp1 wrote
Thank you for clarifying that question. Now that it is clarified (not full or immediate), I agree it’s inconsequential now, but what about in 20 years? When dozens could have worked 8 years, turned 65, and now collect? Is that sustainable for Baltimore city government? Honestly interested in your opinion.
sit_down_man t1_iy10d4x wrote
Having this much focus on city council pensions is kinda wild. That’s such a tiny tiny portion of the budget and tbqh a very reasonable thing have regardless…
frolicndetour t1_ixzas5e wrote
I think that's about right. Does the bill provide for them to get a full pension? I haven't seen it and all the articles say they are "eligible" for a pension, which I guess I assumed meant that they are vested and would get something based on their years of service. If they get a full pension after 8 years, that is definitely bull.
bmore t1_ixzc5xz wrote
They get 2.5% of their highest salary x years served, and if elected after 2016 it's capped at 60% of their highest salary.
The pension for someone who ran for council, stayed on until they were term limited at 8 years, and retired would be about $15k annually. So anyone trying to use it as a get rich quick scheme as implied by folks in this thread would be...bad at getting rich quick? There are better ways to make money.
frolicndetour t1_ixzctkv wrote
Ok...yea that's what I thought. That it would be vested and then calculated based on time in, not the full pension. Because one of the articles seemed to suggest that they could supplement their time in by getting a job in city government, which wouldn't be necessary if they got the full pension after 8 years.
2468975 OP t1_ixzeu4i wrote
No one gets their full salary as their pension, but do they get this pension immediately after 8 years or after turning 65? That does make a difference for sustainability.
2468975 OP t1_ixzbjt3 wrote
I’m glad we’re having this conversation. I took it to mean 8 years full pension because when the police pension was revised, they said it changed from 20 to 25 years. That is for the full pension. Nobody talked about their partial pension after 10 years. We definitely need clarification of this point.
Thebronzebeast t1_ixzdb1u wrote
It still pisses me off how they can take from those who put their lives on the line to put into their own pocket as if Baltimore doesn’t have a problem keeping those positions already. The more I see the more I think of the wire as a documentary instead of tv show
Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments