Pension without social security

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I recently met someone and he told me that she will retired with a $65000 pension, but he won't have any social security because he never paid into it. So people with pension don't have social security? This person also told that's their only source of retirement. They have no 401k, no Roth nothing just a pension. But he said that his home is paid off and he also has a rental that brings him $1500 after all expenses. That can't be enough to retire just $65k per year and additional $1500/month.

What's the appeal of pension if one can't have social security? Or is it specific to some companies where you choose one or the other. This person I think retired as a teacher but I don't know the state.

Most Americans--retired and not--live on far less than $83,000 per year. If he has a paid-off home, Medicare, and a rental he can sell off if needed, he's doing better than many people with similar incomes!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I recently met someone and he told me that she will retired with a $65000 pension, but he won't have any social security because he never paid into it. So people with pension don't have social security? This person also told that's their only source of retirement. They have no 401k, no Roth nothing just a pension. But he said that his home is paid off and he also has a rental that brings him $1500 after all expenses. That can't be enough to retire just $65k per year and additional $1500/month.



What's the appeal of pension if one can't have social security? Or is it specific to some companies where you choose one or the other. This person I think retired as a teacher but I don't know the state.

Considering that the average salary of a US worker is ~62k per year I’m not sure how you would come to the conclusion that someone with a 65k pension, an extra 15k/ year in rental income and a paid off home would be unable to get by. …you sound wildly out of touch with reality.

Yep

Do: get that but I'm a bit shocked they wouldn't have saved some on their own even without a 401k to do so. Don't get how you get to 60+ and literally have nothing saved and expect your pension to be everything

Actually I don’t think you get it at all…Are you OP? If so, you said you “think” the person in question was a teacher.

Obviously it varies by state but on average teacher pensions cover 60-80% of their final working salary.

For someone making maybe ~100k max at their peak (and probably paying at least 5-10 percent of that towards pension/union dues on top of regular taxes) being able to retire with a paid off mortgage plus a cash flowing rental property and a relatively quite generous pension is already a major accomplishment and sets them up to be far better financially positioned in retirement than they ever were during their working career.

[Anonymous]

At a 4% drawdown I believe that someone would have to have saved $2,075,000 to get $83,000 per year. The problem of a pension is not having the full value to pass to descendants but fully paid off primary and rental homes substitute for this nicely.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I recently met someone and he told me that she will retired with a $65000 pension, but he won't have any social security because he never paid into it. So people with pension don't have social security? This person also told that's their only source of retirement. They have no 401k, no Roth nothing just a pension. But he said that his home is paid off and he also has a rental that brings him $1500 after all expenses. That can't be enough to retire just $65k per year and additional $1500/month.



What's the appeal of pension if one can't have social security? Or is it specific to some companies where you choose one or the other. This person I think retired as a teacher but I don't know the state.

Considering that the average salary of a US worker is ~62k per year I’m not sure how you would come to the conclusion that someone with a 65k pension, an extra 15k/ year in rental income and a paid off home would be unable to get by. …you sound wildly out of touch with reality.

Yep

A lot of Boomers saved nothing. My parents have my dad's pension and social security. They never invested otherwise. It's pretty common. Investing in IRAs and 401ks is more of a Gen X thing. A lot of Boomers did not do that even thought those options became available during their working years.

Do: get that but I'm a bit shocked they wouldn't have saved some on their own even without a 401k to do so. Don't get how you get to 60+ and literally have nothing saved and expect your pension to be everything

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I recently met someone and he told me that she will retired with a $65000 pension, but he won't have any social security because he never paid into it. So people with pension don't have social security? This person also told that's their only source of retirement. They have no 401k, no Roth nothing just a pension. But he said that his home is paid off and he also has a rental that brings him $1500 after all expenses. That can't be enough to retire just $65k per year and additional $1500/month.



What's the appeal of pension if one can't have social security? Or is it specific to some companies where you choose one or the other. This person I think retired as a teacher but I don't know the state.

Considering that the average salary of a US worker is ~62k per year I’m not sure how you would come to the conclusion that someone with a 65k pension, an extra 15k/ year in rental income and a paid off home would be unable to get by. …you sound wildly out of touch with reality.

Yep

A lot of Boomers saved nothing. My parents have my dad's pension and social security. They never invested otherwise. It's pretty common. Investing in IRAs and 401ks is more of a Gen X thing. A lot of Boomers did not do that even thought those options became available during their working years.

Do: get that but I'm a bit shocked they wouldn't have saved some on their own even without a 401k to do so. Don't get how you get to 60+ and literally have nothing saved and expect your pension to be everything

Ugh, don’t group late boomers/Generation Jones with old boomers. We are the sweet spot - have pensions, but also saved plenty in 401ks.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:At a 4% drawdown I believe that someone would have to have saved $2,075,000 to get $83,000 per year. The problem of a pension is not having the full value to pass to descendants but fully paid off primary and rental homes substitute for this nicely.

If I were to guess only 10% of Americans will probably have a 401k balance of $2 mil if they retire at 65. This forum makes $1 my million sounds like $100k.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:At a 4% drawdown I believe that someone would have to have saved $2,075,000 to get $83,000 per year. The problem of a pension is not having the full value to pass to descendants but fully paid off primary and rental homes substitute for this nicely.

If I were to guess only 10% of Americans will probably have a 401k balance of $2 mil if they retire at 65. This forum makes $1 my million sounds like $100k.

If they have $2mil they don't need a 4% draw down. They can live very well on more than that and never run out of money

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I recently met someone and he told me that she will retired with a $65000 pension, but he won't have any social security because he never paid into it. So people with pension don't have social security? This person also told that's their only source of retirement. They have no 401k, no Roth nothing just a pension. But he said that his home is paid off and he also has a rental that brings him $1500 after all expenses. That can't be enough to retire just $65k per year and additional $1500/month.



What's the appeal of pension if one can't have social security? Or is it specific to some companies where you choose one or the other. This person I think retired as a teacher but I don't know the state.

Considering that the average salary of a US worker is ~62k per year I’m not sure how you would come to the conclusion that someone with a 65k pension, an extra 15k/ year in rental income and a paid off home would be unable to get by. …you sound wildly out of touch with reality.

Yep

Do: get that but I'm a bit shocked they wouldn't have saved some on their own even without a 401k to do so. Don't get how you get to 60+ and literally have nothing saved and expect your pension to be everything

Actually I don’t think you get it at all…Are you OP? If so, you said you “think” the person in question was a teacher.

Obviously it varies by state but on average teacher pensions cover 60-80% of their final working salary.

For someone making maybe ~100k max at their peak (and probably paying at least 5-10 percent of that towards pension/union dues on top of regular taxes) being able to retire with a paid off mortgage plus a cash flowing rental property and a relatively quite generous pension is already a major accomplishment and sets them up to be far better financially positioned in retirement than they ever were during their working career.

I don't know a single teacher with a cash flowing rental property and a paid off mortgage at retirement. And my dad was in public education for 30 years. MAYBE a paid off mortgage...but that AND a rental property? That is NOT common.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:At a 4% drawdown I believe that someone would have to have saved $2,075,000 to get $83,000 per year. The problem of a pension is not having the full value to pass to descendants but fully paid off primary and rental homes substitute for this nicely.

If I were to guess only 10% of Americans will probably have a 401k balance of $2 mil if they retire at 65. This forum makes $1 my million sounds like $100k.

If they have $2mil they don't need a 4% draw down. They can live very well on more than that and never run out of money

Are you kidding? I plan to have between 2 to 3 million. I will absolutely need a 4% drawdown. What do you think I am going to live on? I don't own a house. I did and sold. My money is in my investments and my retirement. I am at about $1 million now, but I have 15 more years to work. I won't have paid off house. I will need 80k-100k a year to live.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I recently met someone and he told me that she will retired with a $65000 pension, but he won't have any social security because he never paid into it. So people with pension don't have social security? This person also told that's their only source of retirement. They have no 401k, no Roth nothing just a pension. But he said that his home is paid off and he also has a rental that brings him $1500 after all expenses. That can't be enough to retire just $65k per year and additional $1500/month.



What's the appeal of pension if one can't have social security? Or is it specific to some companies where you choose one or the other. This person I think retired as a teacher but I don't know the state.

Considering that the average salary of a US worker is ~62k per year I’m not sure how you would come to the conclusion that someone with a 65k pension, an extra 15k/ year in rental income and a paid off home would be unable to get by. …you sound wildly out of touch with reality.

Yep

A lot of Boomers saved nothing. My parents have my dad's pension and social security. They never invested otherwise. It's pretty common. Investing in IRAs and 401ks is more of a Gen X thing. A lot of Boomers did not do that even thought those options became available during their working years.

Do: get that but I'm a bit shocked they wouldn't have saved some on their own even without a 401k to do so. Don't get how you get to 60+ and literally have nothing saved and expect your pension to be everything

Ugh, don’t group late boomers/Generation Jones with old boomers. We are the sweet spot - have pensions, but also saved plenty in 401ks.

My parents are 72 and 73. Don't assume everyone lives in an area like DC.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I recently met someone and he told me that she will retired with a $65000 pension, but he won't have any social security because he never paid into it. So people with pension don't have social security? This person also told that's their only source of retirement. They have no 401k, no Roth nothing just a pension. But he said that his home is paid off and he also has a rental that brings him $1500 after all expenses. That can't be enough to retire just $65k per year and additional $1500/month.



What's the appeal of pension if one can't have social security? Or is it specific to some companies where you choose one or the other. This person I think retired as a teacher but I don't know the state.

Considering that the average salary of a US worker is ~62k per year I’m not sure how you would come to the conclusion that someone with a 65k pension, an extra 15k/ year in rental income and a paid off home would be unable to get by. …you sound wildly out of touch with reality.

Yep

A lot of Boomers saved nothing. My parents have my dad's pension and social security. They never invested otherwise. It's pretty common. Investing in IRAs and 401ks is more of a Gen X thing. A lot of Boomers did not do that even thought those options became available during their working years.

Do: get that but I'm a bit shocked they wouldn't have saved some on their own even without a 401k to do so. Don't get how you get to 60+ and literally have nothing saved and expect your pension to be everything

Ugh, don’t group late boomers/Generation Jones with old boomers. We are the sweet spot - have pensions, but also saved plenty in 401ks.

My parents are 72 and 73. Don't assume everyone lives in an area like DC.

My Mom retired in 1993 at age of 65 and had a healthy 401k and a ESOP. 401ks started in 1981. My Mom was actually a SAHM till 53. So went back to work in late 1970s and worked at American Express that offered 401ks shortly after law passed. So from 1981 to 1993 my Mom put into 401k. And she is too old to be a Boomer. A Boomer would have been pretty young in career in 1981 and would of had plenty of time to put into a 401k.

She had 100k in the 401k in 1993 when retired. The Dow was only 3,300 that year. If she was still alive and RMDs did not exist whe would have like 4 million

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I recently met someone and he told me that she will retired with a $65000 pension, but he won't have any social security because he never paid into it. So people with pension don't have social security? This person also told that's their only source of retirement. They have no 401k, no Roth nothing just a pension. But he said that his home is paid off and he also has a rental that brings him $1500 after all expenses. That can't be enough to retire just $65k per year and additional $1500/month.



What's the appeal of pension if one can't have social security? Or is it specific to some companies where you choose one or the other. This person I think retired as a teacher but I don't know the state.

Considering that the average salary of a US worker is ~62k per year I’m not sure how you would come to the conclusion that someone with a 65k pension, an extra 15k/ year in rental income and a paid off home would be unable to get by. …you sound wildly out of touch with reality.

Yep

Do: get that but I'm a bit shocked they wouldn't have saved some on their own even without a 401k to do so. Don't get how you get to 60+ and literally have nothing saved and expect your pension to be everything

Actually I don’t think you get it at all…Are you OP? If so, you said you “think” the person in question was a teacher.

Obviously it varies by state but on average teacher pensions cover 60-80% of their final working salary.

For someone making maybe ~100k max at their peak (and probably paying at least 5-10 percent of that towards pension/union dues on top of regular taxes) being able to retire with a paid off mortgage plus a cash flowing rental property and a relatively quite generous pension is already a major accomplishment and sets them up to be far better financially positioned in retirement than they ever were during their working career.

I don't know a single teacher with a cash flowing rental property and a paid off mortgage at retirement. And my dad was in public education for 30 years. MAYBE a paid off mortgage...but that AND a rental property? That is NOT common.

That's not relevant to this discussion, though, because the OP is asking about a given person who has both things. It's not uncommon for public sector pensions to pay that percentage and they'd be able to live a very similar if not better lifestyle than they had while working, probably even if they had the mortgage still but definitely if they don't.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I recently met someone and he told me that she will retired with a $65000 pension, but he won't have any social security because he never paid into it. So people with pension don't have social security? This person also told that's their only source of retirement. They have no 401k, no Roth nothing just a pension. But he said that his home is paid off and he also has a rental that brings him $1500 after all expenses. That can't be enough to retire just $65k per year and additional $1500/month.

What's the appeal of pension if one can't have social security? Or is it specific to some companies where you choose one or the other. This person I think retired as a teacher but I don't know the state.

Considering that the average salary of a US worker is ~62k per year I’m not sure how you would come to the conclusion that someone with a 65k pension, an extra 15k/ year in rental income and a paid off home would be unable to get by. …you sound wildly out of touch with reality.

Yep

A lot of Boomers saved nothing. My parents have my dad's pension and social security. They never invested otherwise. It's pretty common. Investing in IRAs and 401ks is more of a Gen X thing. A lot of Boomers did not do that even thought those options became available during their working years.

Do: get that but I'm a bit shocked they wouldn't have saved some on their own even without a 401k to do so. Don't get how you get to 60+ and literally have nothing saved and expect your pension to be everything

Ugh, don’t group late boomers/Generation Jones with old boomers. We are the sweet spot - have pensions, but also saved plenty in 401ks.

+1 I threw what I could into an IRA from post college jobs in the 80's. It wasn't much and honestly I sort of forgot about it. It's got $300K in it now. However, after grad school and traveling around, I got a grown up job so have a pension and over $3M in my TSP. I honestly think Gen Jones/late Boomers who came of age when we did were pretty scared of were we'd end up. I remember being horrified of becoming a bag lady (de-instutionalization had led to a flood of homeless on city streets), constant stories of Soc Sec not being around when we retired, housing/car loan interest rates in the double digests, then a number of market crashes.................yeah, I prioritized my future self. Bonus I have a job with a pension.

Back to OP - yeah, folks do think that amount in retirement is just fine.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I recently met someone and he told me that she will retired with a $65000 pension, but he won't have any social security because he never paid into it. So people with pension don't have social security? This person also told that's their only source of retirement. They have no 401k, no Roth nothing just a pension. But he said that his home is paid off and he also has a rental that brings him $1500 after all expenses. That can't be enough to retire just $65k per year and additional $1500/month.



What's the appeal of pension if one can't have social security? Or is it specific to some companies where you choose one or the other. This person I think retired as a teacher but I don't know the state.

Considering that the average salary of a US worker is ~62k per year I’m not sure how you would come to the conclusion that someone with a 65k pension, an extra 15k/ year in rental income and a paid off home would be unable to get by. …you sound wildly out of touch with reality.

Yep

Do: get that but I'm a bit shocked they wouldn't have saved some on their own even without a 401k to do so. Don't get how you get to 60+ and literally have nothing saved and expect your pension to be everything

Actually I don’t think you get it at all…Are you OP? If so, you said you “think” the person in question was a teacher.

Obviously it varies by state but on average teacher pensions cover 60-80% of their final working salary.

For someone making maybe ~100k max at their peak (and probably paying at least 5-10 percent of that towards pension/union dues on top of regular taxes) being able to retire with a paid off mortgage plus a cash flowing rental property and a relatively quite generous pension is already a major accomplishment and sets them up to be far better financially positioned in retirement than they ever were during their working career.

I don't know a single teacher with a cash flowing rental property and a paid off mortgage at retirement. And my dad was in public education for 30 years. MAYBE a paid off mortgage...but that AND a rental property? That is NOT common.

They probably came from money. My sister is an elementary school teacher and my dad bought her a $600k house and a small $300k condo that she is renting.

[Anonymous]

It's not the just the amount but the stability especially if it's a teacher/cop pension. Way less stressful than managing your own funds and seeing your balance drop during major downturns like in 08.