$174,308 retirement a year at 59 for Public Sector Worker!

[Oldstyle]

>


Just as a contrast, because these types of stories always seem to want to focus on the very top of the employment food-chain for a given organization. By that what I mean is that, as in this case there is 1, yes 1, Superintendent for a school system. The school system where I work as over 4000 employees, but only 1 Superintendent.

I joined the school system fairly late in life, at 65 I can retire with 25 years. If I were to retire today with that 25 years I'd receive retirement pension of $27,300 based on a salary of $65,000. If I had 30-years with the division retirement would be would be $33,100.

The fact is that these types of stories rarely focus on the vast majority of government employees and what they will receive, the focus on the very top tier employees to inflame the masses and to build resentment.


************************************

BTW - I have no problem with transitioning from a defined benefit plan to a defined contribution plan for government employees, however, when employees have worked there entire life under an existing plan then those promises should be honored. Transition to defined contribution plans for those entering the system with stepped changes based on longevity for those already in the system. It would take 30-40 years to wean government entities from defined benefit plans, but that would be the only way to honor commitments already made.

BTW2 - Just to piss off those that want to piss and moan about pensions that we have earned, I'm retired military if I retired today under my existing plans, then my total pension compensation would be about $44,500 (State + Military) after 45 years of service. While my wife and I should be able to live a modestly comfortable lifestyle on that amount, it's hardly rolling-in-the-dough.



>>>>

OK, how many other "administrative" personel does your school system have that didn't exist forty years ago? You say you only have "1" Superintendant but how many other high priced administrators does your system have?

People have brought up that Wisconsin school systems are threatening to lay off teachers because of budget cuts? I've seen this drill so many times before it's just more of the same dog and pony show that we're always subjected to whenever cuts are made to education. We lay off teachers...because that always gets the people with kids in school's attention...but we never seem to get around to cutting the massive administrative structure. Why is it jobs that didn't even EXIST forty years ago are suddenly so crucial that they stay while teachers are laid off?

 

[rightwinger]

Surprisingly few details in the article. That is obviously not a teachers salary. I'd like to see how he could pull such a huge retirement

 

[Oldstyle]

I've been saying that for a while... the smaller your government, the smaller your tax base, the smaller your tax base, the more you'll be taxed for the cost of services.

These people who want the Federal Government slashed to the core aren't getting that... That along with those cuts, there also goes the funding to the states. The states need those Federal Dollars to keep running...once those federal dollars are gone... the state tax rates go up to make up the difference. If they in turn slash the State Government to the core... the localities pick up the tab.

At the Federal Level... Money is taken in from all citizens and distributed as needed. Take Highways for instance(or any other population based need/service). Western States, who do not have as much need, get less Federal Funding than a State like NY or California. But in turn... Those Western States don't pay as much in. There are some exceptions.. Like Alaska.. small population... huge amounts of subsidies from the Fed. No wonder Palin could brag about her "Fiscal Responsibility" as Governor... she didn't have to worry about it.

You've totally lost me with this theory, Steel...

"The smaller your government...the smaller your tax base"?

How do you arrive at that conclusion? The smaller your government the smaller your tax base needs to be. Making government smaller does nothing to lower the tax base.

The reason Palin could brag about her fiscal responsibiity as Governor is that she actually took far less Fed. funding than her predecessors.

 

[Oldstyle]

"These people who want the Federal Government slashed to the core aren't getting that... That along with those cuts, there also goes the funding to the states. The states need those Federal Dollars to keep running...once those federal dollars are gone... the state tax rates go up to make up the difference. If they in turn slash the State Government to the core... the localities pick up the tab."

Here's the thing, Steel...government spending is out of control from the Federal level right down to the local level. We need to get it under control. Instead we're now propping up local government inefficiency with borrowed Fed dollars. Why? Because we can just print those or go further in debt borrowing it at the Federal level. States and cities can't do that. Just because the Federal Government "can" print money or run up massive debt borrowing it, doesn't mean they should.

 

[hortysir]

It's a great gig if ya can get it

 

[Douger]

"After nearly 40 years in public education, Patrick Godwin spends his retirement days running a horse farm east of Sacramento, Calif., with his daughter.

His departure from the workaday world is likely to be long and relatively free of financial concerns, after he retired last July at age 59 with a pension paying $174,308 a year for the rest of his life.

Such guaranteed pensions for relatively youthful government retirees — paid in similar fashion to millions nationwide — are contributing to nationwide friction with the public sector workers. They have access to attractive defined-benefit pensions and retiree health care coverage that most private sector workers no longer do."

And the Democrats answer is raisng taxes. The Democrats are owned by the Public Sector Unions.

Almost 15 million people looking for work in this country. Someone retires, freeing up a job, and you complain about it.

Unbelievable.

So it's justifiable to earn 174k the rest of there life as a teacher retiring at 59 when the tax payers are paying for it and the moron moonbeam wants to increase taxes. Apparently you have failed at math but stand in front of the line depending on ignorance

But to a flag waving murkin, this is just dandy.
Iraq War Facts, Statistics at October 28, 2011 - Iraq War Casualties, Spending

 

[geauxtohell]

Why do I have my doubts that a $174K annual income is the norm for a retiring public school teacher?

I have just made it to page one, but I'll go ahead and skip to page 4 for the "rest of the story".

 

[hortysir]

Almost 15 million people looking for work in this country. Someone retires, freeing up a job, and you complain about it.

Unbelievable.

So it's justifiable to earn 174k the rest of there life as a teacher retiring at 59 when the tax payers are paying for it and the moron moonbeam wants to increase taxes. Apparently you have failed at math but stand in front of the line depending on ignorance

But to a flag waving murkin, this is just dandy.
Iraq War Facts, Statistics at October 28, 2011 - Iraq War Casualties, Spending

 

[WorldWatcher]

OK, how many other "administrative" personel does your school system have that didn't exist forty years ago? You say you only have "1" Superintendant but how many other high priced administrators does your system have?

Since I wasn't in the school division 40-years ago I honestly can't say. Probably the only locally funded Director level position that we've got now that we didn't have 40-years ago is in Information Technology, since that department didn't exist until the mid-nineties and the only reason I know that is because the old Director retired a couple of years ago and we were talking about the progression of systems in the division.

I can say that we have fewer "high priced administrators" then we did 10-years ago because of efforts to reduce manpower and consolidation of departments. I don't believe the baseline administrators funded by local taxes have changed much over the years, there are a couple of positions (such as Special Education and Title 1) which are funded through state and federal grants because of compliance requirements placed on the local division by state and federal law.



The fact remains, that in a division of 4,000 the number of "high priced administrators" is pretty small and the vast majority of school systems earn no where near what the cherry picked article tries to portray.


>>>>

 

[WorldWatcher]

Why do I have my doubts that a $174K annual income is the norm for a retiring public school teacher?

I have just made it to page one, but I'll go ahead and skip to page 4 for the "rest of the story".

And the rest of the story is that the person started as a teacher (wide base of the employment pyramid) and ended at the very top position in the school system.



>>>>

 

[Trajan]

"After nearly 40 years in public education, Patrick Godwin spends his retirement days running a horse farm east of Sacramento, Calif., with his daughter.

His departure from the workaday world is likely to be long and relatively free of financial concerns, after he retired last July at age 59 with a pension paying $174,308 a year for the rest of his life.

Such guaranteed pensions for relatively youthful government retirees — paid in similar fashion to millions nationwide — are contributing to nationwide friction with the public sector workers. They have access to attractive defined-benefit pensions and retiree health care coverage that most private sector workers no longer do."

And the Democrats answer is raisng taxes. The Democrats are owned by the Public Sector Unions.

Almost 15 million people looking for work in this country. Someone retires, freeing up a job, and you complain about it.

Unbelievable.

reverse your avatar dude....think.


paying someone to do the job this person no longer does for the next 6 years if he had to wait till 65? hello.

 

[Trajan]

I am suspicious of that article. First - how many teachers make $173,000? Second - how many states offer a 100% pension?

In NJ, a teacher making $70K who retires after 30 years, will receive a 30/60 pension - $35K. I don't think that is unreasonable. However, now they have raised the retirement age to 65, so many cannot afford to leave the classroom at 50% pay. We will see many more working 40+ years - 40/60. I'm not sure if that's good for the students.

I agree, its got to be a benefits plus pay and if he got disablity, ( I read that 20% of cali retirees get some form of disability when they retire)....

he probably gets the 100% free medical which I can attest covers everything and at his age the premium has got to be oh, 1500, 2K a month. If he got 2.5% a year for every year he maxes at 90% which is the highest they allow anyway, lets say he made the max 95K as a teacher that's 88k, plus the 24k for medical, yea this figure is blown up even accounting for that, IF he has no disability.....if he does, that figure could work.

 

[chanel]

Very misleading. The highest paid teacher in our district makes 80K with a PhD. He could retire with 40K pension and 20K in medical benefits (which I believe are only paid until 65 when Medicare kicks in). That's 60K for a few years - not life.

 

[WorldWatcher]

I am suspicious of that article. First - how many teachers make $173,000? Second - how many states offer a 100% pension?

In NJ, a teacher making $70K who retires after 30 years, will receive a 30/60 pension - $35K. I don't think that is unreasonable. However, now they have raised the retirement age to 65, so many cannot afford to leave the classroom at 50% pay. We will see many more working 40+ years - 40/60. I'm not sure if that's good for the students.

I agree, its got to be a benefits plus pay and if he got disablity, ( I read that 20% of cali retirees get some form of disability when they retire)....

he probably gets the 100% free medical which I can attest covers everything and at his age the premium has got to be oh, 1500, 2K a month. If he got 2.5% a year for every year he maxes at 90% which is the highest they allow anyway, lets say he made the max 95K as a teacher that's 88k, plus the 24k for medical, yea this figure is blown up even accounting for that, IF he has no disability.....if he does, that figure could work.

Patrick Godwin (subject of the OP) didn't retire as a teacher. He started his career in education as a teacher rising to the position of Superintendent of a school system with a budget of approximately $130,000,000.00.


School superintendent steps down - Folsom Telegraph
http://www.fcusd.org/Budget/Adopted Budget June 2011.pdf


>>>>

 

[Trajan]

Very misleading. The highest paid teacher in our district makes 80K with a PhD. He could retire with 40K pension and 20K in medical benefits (which I believe are only paid until 65 when Medicare kicks in). That's 60K for a few years - not life.

either way its over the top, its like paying an entry salary forever ( or lets say he lives till hes 82- 59= 23 years), for someone who isn't working while having to employ a full timer to actually do the work.

 

[Trajan]

I am suspicious of that article. First - how many teachers make $173,000? Second - how many states offer a 100% pension?

In NJ, a teacher making $70K who retires after 30 years, will receive a 30/60 pension - $35K. I don't think that is unreasonable. However, now they have raised the retirement age to 65, so many cannot afford to leave the classroom at 50% pay. We will see many more working 40+ years - 40/60. I'm not sure if that's good for the students.

I agree, its got to be a benefits plus pay and if he got disablity, ( I read that 20% of cali retirees get some form of disability when they retire)....

he probably gets the 100% free medical which I can attest covers everything and at his age the premium has got to be oh, 1500, 2K a month. If he got 2.5% a year for every year he maxes at 90% which is the highest they allow anyway, lets say he made the max 95K as a teacher that's 88k, plus the 24k for medical, yea this figure is blown up even accounting for that, IF he has no disability.....if he does, that figure could work.

Patrick Godwin (subject of the OP) didn't retire as a teacher. He started his career in education as a teacher rising to the position of Superintendent of a school system with a budget of approximately $130,000,000.00.


School superintendent steps down - Folsom Telegraph
http://www.fcusd.org/Budget/Adopted Budget June 2011.pdf


>>>>

thx. how much if it says so, does a super make btw?

 

[WorldWatcher]

thx. how much if it says so, does a super make btw?

I don't know, made a quick scan of their budget document and salaries for individual positions are not listed separately, they are grouped together by function/classification and not by individual position.


>>>>

 

[Trajan]

thx. how much if it says so, does a super make btw?

I don't know, made a quick scan of their budget document and salaries for individual positions are not listed separately, they are grouped together by function/classification and not by individual position.


>>>>

thx. gotta be at least 130-150.

 

[chanel]

I agree, its got to be a benefits plus pay and if he got disablity, ( I read that 20% of cali retirees get some form of disability when they retire)....

he probably gets the 100% free medical which I can attest covers everything and at his age the premium has got to be oh, 1500, 2K a month. If he got 2.5% a year for every year he maxes at 90% which is the highest they allow anyway, lets say he made the max 95K as a teacher that's 88k, plus the 24k for medical, yea this figure is blown up even accounting for that, IF he has no disability.....if he does, that figure could work.

Patrick Godwin (subject of the OP) didn't retire as a teacher. He started his career in education as a teacher rising to the position of Superintendent of a school system with a budget of approximately $130,000,000.00.


School superintendent steps down - Folsom Telegraph
http://www.fcusd.org/Budget/Adopted Budget June 2011.pdf


>>>>

thx. how much if it says so, does a super make btw?

Christie passed a law last year capping supt. pay at 175K. Many had to take pay cuts. They are not tenured but usually sign 5 year contracts. Some of them negotiate sweet deals in lieu of pay. One supt in N. Jersey had her own chauffeur picl her up in Manhattan every day.

The guy in the article was not your "typical public sector employee."

 

[zonly1]

"After nearly 40 years in public education, Patrick Godwin spends his retirement days running a horse farm east of Sacramento, Calif., with his daughter.

His departure from the workaday world is likely to be long and relatively free of financial concerns, after he retired last July at age 59 with a pension paying $174,308 a year for the rest of his life.

Such guaranteed pensions for relatively youthful government retirees — paid in similar fashion to millions nationwide — are contributing to nationwide friction with the public sector workers. They have access to attractive defined-benefit pensions and retiree health care coverage that most private sector workers no longer do."

And the Democrats answer is raisng taxes. The Democrats are owned by the Public Sector Unions.


Public retirement ages come under greater scrutiny - Yahoo! News

There are millions of people who have retired from public education who make a 174,000 a year pension?

Hey clitis, they only work aprox about 150 days and the TAX PAYERS FOOT THE BILL
WHAT SAY YOU>>>MR. Infinite wisdom of the obvious, why is this pay scale acceptable to compare to min wag individuals entering the work workforce?