OT: Tyler Summitt will continue to collect Pat's pension ... until he dies

[CajunHusky]

SS is less of a Ponzi scheme and more of a crap shoot. How much return you get on the money the government took from you depends on beating the life expectancy odds. I'm probably on the plus side, but my long term financial advisor died a couple of months ago at age 64, a couple of years from his planned retirement. Uncle Sam gets to keep all the money they took from him.

I do know that had I invested what SS took from me I would have a lot better return on my money.

and there are a lot of people whose investments didn't work and now SS is all they have. I don't measure success by whether I get every penny (with interest) out of SS that I put in to it, I just need to know that if my investments don't work, if I suffer disability, get laid off from a job and my retirement fund goes belly up I know SS will be there to help. I know when I die my SS will be there to help my wife thru the end of her life.

The best Insurance is the one you never have to use...... I pay for medical insurance but I will be perfectly happy if I never have to use it.

Not everyone gets breast cancer but my wife did .... I don't know how we would pay for her care without insurance. And insurance doesn't work if risks are not shared by the community as a whole.

 

[Kibitzer]

As a matter of possible interest (since all US taxpayers provide funding) my wife will be entitled to 55% of my military retirement pension when I die. When I retired from the service in 1973 I signed up for the survivors' benefit plan; a little bit of my military pension has been deducted monthly ever since. I guess (no research, just a supposition) that my arrangement is typical for federal employees.

 

[CajunHusky]

As a matter of possible interest (since all US taxpayers provide funding) my wife will be entitled to 55% of my military retirement pension when I die. When I retired from the service in 1973 I signed up for the survivors' benefit plan; a little bit of my military pension has been deducted monthly ever since. I guess (no research, just a supposition) that my arrangement is typical for federal employees.

You should be aware that beginning Oct. 1, 2008, any retiree who has paid 360 months of SBP premiums and has reached the age of 70 is no longer required to make monthly payments for their SBP coverage.

 

[Kibitzer]

You should be aware that beginning Oct. 1, 2008, any retiree who has paid 360 months of SBP premiums and has reached the age of 70 is no longer required to make monthly payments for their SBP coverage.

Yes. Thanks. I neglected to mention that -- or that I can't designate my little great granddaughter as the recipient of this largess.

 

[tomcat]

This seems perfectly normal. Relative to pay out, keep in mind that most government employees are underpaid relative to commercial world throughout their career. For every Pat Summit, there are 1000 Clerks making $28,000 per year managing key programs or systems within a city, county, or state.

The key here, as several posters have suggested, is that the kid is getting nothing more than an actuarially accurate amount. Pat decided to give up some money up front to get him some money on the other end. It's perfectly legal. My last job was with a governmental entity and if I recall correctly, I had three options for taking lesser amounts now and providing money to my spouse if I croak before she does. In our case it makes good sense to do that because she is 9 years younger than me. She is likely to outlive me, so why shouldn't I provide at least a little something for her welfare when she reaches retirement age?

As someone pointed out, government pensions can be a good deal for employees who have accepted lower salaries when compared to similar private sector jobs. Here in Arizona, I MUST give up 9-10 percent of my pay to the retirement system. My employer then matches it. What this is is a positive incentive to provide retirement benefits. If the private sector would do something like it, everyone would be better off, at least when they retire. The key is that it is not optional. It is an unfortunate fact that given a choice. many people take the money now instead of setting it aside. This system removes that action as a possibility, to the ultimate benefit of the retiree.

 

[KnightBridgeAZ]

As some may know, my wife is disabled and gets Social Security Disability.

Now, for my wife, she was covered by a private disability plan of her employer when she became ill. She gets the same combined amount (private and Social Security) that she would have gotten from her plan without the Social Security, however, they required her to apply to the Social Security Administration. Who (at least in NJ) refuses almost all applications. However, her former employer used a consulting firm who filed the appeal, and the appeal judge was basically like "why was this denied?" which is not always the outcome.

I try never to criticize benefits that folks have worked to earn, regardless of how those benefits are funded. Pat Summitt worked to earn a pension, and did something perfectly legal in naming a beneficiary. While it is true that Tyler may not be in the poor house without the funds, think of other folks, in the same pension system as Pat, that may be dependent on those funds.