murphy's

[TiltonBB]

Originally Posted by secondcurve

It does bother me that a police chief, or any civil servant for that matter, can retire so young with full benefits and then immediately take on another police job. This shouldn't be allowed. If you retire from one police chief job and start collecting benefits you should not be able to jump to another municipality.

That brings up some interesting questions:

How many years do you think someone should have to put in before they can retire with a full pension?

Many large companies (General Motors, Nynex, Verizon, Etc.) have given early retirement and pensions to their employees. Would you restrict those employees too?

How would you determine what positions the retired could hold after retirement and what positions you would restrict them from?

Since the Chief retired in Concord Massachusetts which state (NH or MA) should have that requirement, or pass that law?

It seems that most people think that the town of Moultonborough has benefited from hiring this experienced Chief. Do you think the town would be better off hiring someone younger, with less experience, because they didn't want someone who was collecting a pension in another state?

If the Chief already gets his medical benefits in MA thus saving the town of Moultonborough that expense, does that seem wrong too?

So many questions!:

[Billy Bob]

Originally Posted by TiltonBB

That brings up some interesting questions:

How many years do you think someone should have to put in before they can retire with a full pension?

Many large companies (General Motors, Nynex, Verizon, Etc.) have given early retirement and pensions to their employees. Would you restrict those employees too?

Great point and as we now know no longer accurate. Those pensions caused GM to have to restructure. the medical coverage on retirees was killing them financially. Verizon and most other companies now do 401k programs rather then retirements . 20 years ago the average life expectancy after retirement was something like 5 years todays its substantially longer , more in the 20 year range . Companies and Governments simply cant afford to have people retiring at 50 and collecting for 30 years
retirement early is a result of good investing not being carried by your employer

[ghfromaltonbay]

Originally Posted by Billy Bob

Great point and as we now know no longer accurate. Those pensions caused GM to have to restructure. the medical coverage on retirees was killing them financially. Verizon and most other companies now do 401k programs rather then retirements . 20 years ago the average life expectancy after retirement was something like 5 years todays its substantially longer , more in the 20 year range . Companies and Governments simply cant afford to have people retiring at 50 and collecting for 30 years
retirement early is a result of good investing not being carried by your employer

Very true, Billy Bob. I was able to take an early retirement from Verizon because I met their criterion of my age & service adding up to 75 ( I was 51 and had 25 years of service). I took my pension as a lump sum and rolled it into an IRA with my 401K funds as I could see that the company was serious about downsizing. Of course, I took a part time job for several years till I was close to 59. Boy am I glad I left when I did! About 18 months after the offer, the company eliminated pensions and transferred employees pension accruals into their 401K accounts (most employees lost money in that deal)! For older retirees like my Dad who didn't have the choice of a lump sum, Verizon sold their pensions to Prudential, so now they get annuities which are not protected by federal pension laws. Nice way to treat people with 35+ years of service! That is another reason I took the money and ran, I don't trust the companies any more to protect their retirees. They also got us with the health benefits. After 5 years of retirement, they reneged on the promised amount they would subsidized and froze it at 2008 levels. My health benefit costs have more than quadrupled since then. In the meantime, the big shots get multi-million dollar salaries and golden parachutes.

[secondcurve]

Originally Posted by TiltonBB

That brings up some interesting questions:

How many years do you think someone should have to put in before they can retire with a full pension?

Many large companies (General Motors, Nynex, Verizon, Etc.) have given early retirement and pensions to their employees. Would you restrict those employees too?

How would you determine what positions the retired could hold after retirement and what positions you would restrict them from?

Since the Chief retired in Concord Massachusetts which state (NH or MA) should have that requirement, or pass that law?

It seems that most people think that the town of Moultonborough has benefited from hiring this experienced Chief. Do you think the town would be better off hiring someone younger, with less experience, because they didn't want someone who was collecting a pension in another state?

If the Chief already gets his medical benefits in MA thus saving the town of Moultonborough that expense, does that seem wrong too?

So many questions!:

I think that offering pensions from state government is ok. However, the system is too often filled with rules that aren't available to those who pay taxes to fund the pensions. For example: why should a state workers be able to spike his pension? This is when someone at the end of his/her career works boat loads of overtime for a couple of years and then the pension is based upon this bloated figure. Or when someone can cash out with a year of sick time or when someone can retiree at 50-years old. It goes on and on and it isn't fair. But for some reason state pensions can't be modified at all. Meanwhile, the folks working in the real economy can have their pensions eliminated with a stroke of a pen. Is this fair?

[Reilly]

What does any of this have to do with the original post?

[TiltonBB]

Originally Posted by Reilly

What does any of this have to do with the original post?

Why does that matter?

Is it a rules violation?

[tis]

It must be. I got reprimanded once for changing the subject. I didn't feel I changed the subject. I felt it was related but apparently the webmaster didn't and it is his forum.