Valuation of Pension for Retirement Planning

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Folks want to include the pensions in their net worth because it makes them feel richer and more able to keep up with the Joneses. It’s kind of pathetic.

Is it because you might be jealous of my inflation adjusted $140k annual pension with lifetime benefits?. I retired fours years ago at age 53. Do I count as part of NW? No I dont but my financial planner recently advised its “worth” about $3.5m ($140x25). Loser

+1. I have an $90k local govt pension, with survivor benefits. I have always considered it a safety net. It’s a nice feeling to know the pension will alarm pass on the my beneficiary upon my death.

DP
I have two pensions (former teacher) and mine currently provide about $87,500. One has an annual COLA of 3% and the other is up to 5%, depending on the rate of inflation, so that’s a plus.

I’ve never really bothered figuring out net worth because I’ve never had a reason to do so.

I’m sitting on a $9 million nest egg and get social security of $50k year on top of that so not only do I win - my heirs do.

Pensions aren’t assets.

My husband and I will each retire with ~100k cola adjusted pensions plus social security. To me knowing that we’ll always have that baseline security net, regardless of how long we live and what stock markets and real estate prices do is winning.

Plus it means we can afford to be more aggressive with/draw less from our other investments, so our heirs will likely win too.

Good for you. But your pensions aren’t assets. They’re a nice thing for middle class folks, sure. But they’re not assets.

If you look up assets in a dictionary the first definition is “a useful or valuable thing” so seems like a pension would fall under that category.

[Anonymous]

New poster here. I’d be interested to hear what jobs people had here that end in six figure pensions. That seems pretty rare. Government fleecing jobs?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Folks want to include the pensions in their net worth because it makes them feel richer and more able to keep up with the Joneses. It’s kind of pathetic.

Is it because you might be jealous of my inflation adjusted $140k annual pension with lifetime benefits?. I retired fours years ago at age 53. Do I count as part of NW? No I dont but my financial planner recently advised its “worth” about $3.5m ($140x25). Loser

When you croak your heirs get nothing so it’s not an asset.

But for each year they live and don’t take funds from their retirement accounts and invest those funds more aggressively because they don’t need them, their heirs win.

If the pension holder lives 25 years, those foregone withdrawals and higher investment rates will be worth way, way more than $3.5 million to their heirs.

For example, assuming a full investment in stock, just the first year of forgone withdrawal will be worth $1.516 million ($140k* 1.1^25) in 25 years.

[Anonymous]

whether it's an asset or not is truly useless and pointless argument.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Folks want to include the pensions in their net worth because it makes them feel richer and more able to keep up with the Joneses. It’s kind of pathetic.

Is it because you might be jealous of my inflation adjusted $140k annual pension with lifetime benefits?. I retired fours years ago at age 53. Do I count as part of NW? No I dont but my financial planner recently advised its “worth” about $3.5m ($140x25). Loser

+1. I have an $90k local govt pension, with survivor benefits. I have always considered it a safety net. It’s a nice feeling to know the pension will alarm pass on the my beneficiary upon my death.

DP
I have two pensions (former teacher) and mine currently provide about $87,500. One has an annual COLA of 3% and the other is up to 5%, depending on the rate of inflation, so that’s a plus.

I’ve never really bothered figuring out net worth because I’ve never had a reason to do so.

I’m sitting on a $9 million nest egg and get social security of $50k year on top of that so not only do I win - my heirs do.

Pensions aren’t assets.

My husband and I will each retire with ~100k cola adjusted pensions plus social security. To me knowing that we’ll always have that baseline security net, regardless of how long we live and what stock markets and real estate prices do is winning.

Plus it means we can afford to be more aggressive with/draw less from our other investments, so our heirs will likely win too.

Good for you. But your pensions aren’t assets. They’re a nice thing for middle class folks, sure. But they’re not assets.

PP, you are a fool. A pension is an asset like anything else - if you want, you can sell it and get cash on the barrel head right now. Probably more liquid than real estate.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Folks want to include the pensions in their net worth because it makes them feel richer and more able to keep up with the Joneses. It’s kind of pathetic.

Is it because you might be jealous of my inflation adjusted $140k annual pension with lifetime benefits?. I retired fours years ago at age 53. Do I count as part of NW? No I dont but my financial planner recently advised its “worth” about $3.5m ($140x25). Loser

When you croak your heirs get nothing so it’s not an asset.

Generally there are survivor benefits, typically for the spouse. My plan allows me to designate a non-spouse, so I am designating my child.

Your child does not get your pension for the rest of their life. No way.

One would think so but yes, child gets survivor benefits until they pass away. You can designate anyone and generally the younger they are, the less percentage they will receive

It's all actuarial. Under my pension plan you can designate a choice of the percentage of your pension the survivor will receive, but not less than 50% of your pension. Choosing the survivor benefit lowers the amount of pension you can collect. The amount of the reduction depends on the age of the survivor; the younger they are, the greater the reduction as actuarially determined.

And, yes, the survivor is paid the pension for life.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Folks want to include the pensions in their net worth because it makes them feel richer and more able to keep up with the Joneses. It’s kind of pathetic.

Is it because you might be jealous of my inflation adjusted $140k annual pension with lifetime benefits?. I retired fours years ago at age 53. Do I count as part of NW? No I dont but my financial planner recently advised its “worth” about $3.5m ($140x25). Loser

When you croak your heirs get nothing so it’s not an asset.

But for each year they live and don’t take funds from their retirement accounts and invest those funds more aggressively because they don’t need them, their heirs win.

If the pension holder lives 25 years, those foregone withdrawals and higher investment rates will be worth way, way more than $3.5 million to their heirs.

For example, assuming a full investment in stock, just the first year of forgone withdrawal will be worth $1.516 million ($140k* 1.1^25) in 25 years.

LOL, ok. So now we're suggesting that typical pensioners are leaving millions and millions of dollars to their heirs? That's a good one.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Folks want to include the pensions in their net worth because it makes them feel richer and more able to keep up with the Joneses. It’s kind of pathetic.

Is it because you might be jealous of my inflation adjusted $140k annual pension with lifetime benefits?. I retired fours years ago at age 53. Do I count as part of NW? No I dont but my financial planner recently advised its “worth” about $3.5m ($140x25). Loser

When you croak your heirs get nothing so it’s not an asset.

But for each year they live and don’t take funds from their retirement accounts and invest those funds more aggressively because they don’t need them, their heirs win.

If the pension holder lives 25 years, those foregone withdrawals and higher investment rates will be worth way, way more than $3.5 million to their heirs.

For example, assuming a full investment in stock, just the first year of forgone withdrawal will be worth $1.516 million ($140k* 1.1^25) in 25 years.

LOL, ok. So now we're suggesting that typical pensioners are leaving millions and millions of dollars to their heirs? That's a good one.

Not sure who put the chip on your shoulder but you seem to have this idea of “pensioners” being exclusively lower class workers living hand to mouth off of their pension alone.


Im the pp who mentioned that my spouse and I will each be retiring with a ~100k pension each. We’ll also have roughly 4 million combined in 401ks /brokerage accounts and a paid off home and rental property.

Baring some catastrophe we expect to leave an inheritance in the millions to our children. We have many colleagues in similar circumstances.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Folks want to include the pensions in their net worth because it makes them feel richer and more able to keep up with the Joneses. It’s kind of pathetic.

Is it because you might be jealous of my inflation adjusted $140k annual pension with lifetime benefits?. I retired fours years ago at age 53. Do I count as part of NW? No I dont but my financial planner recently advised its “worth” about $3.5m ($140x25). Loser

When you croak your heirs get nothing so it’s not an asset.

But for each year they live and don’t take funds from their retirement accounts and invest those funds more aggressively because they don’t need them, their heirs win.

If the pension holder lives 25 years, those foregone withdrawals and higher investment rates will be worth way, way more than $3.5 million to their heirs.

For example, assuming a full investment in stock, just the first year of forgone withdrawal will be worth $1.516 million ($140k* 1.1^25) in 25 years.

LOL, ok. So now we're suggesting that typical pensioners are leaving millions and millions of dollars to their heirs? That's a good one.

We plan to leave a few millions to our kids. Yes, we have pensions. Not sure what's so funny about that.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Folks want to include the pensions in their net worth because it makes them feel richer and more able to keep up with the Joneses. It’s kind of pathetic.

Is it because you might be jealous of my inflation adjusted $140k annual pension with lifetime benefits?. I retired fours years ago at age 53. Do I count as part of NW? No I dont but my financial planner recently advised its “worth” about $3.5m ($140x25). Loser

When you croak your heirs get nothing so it’s not an asset.

But for each year they live and don’t take funds from their retirement accounts and invest those funds more aggressively because they don’t need them, their heirs win.

If the pension holder lives 25 years, those foregone withdrawals and higher investment rates will be worth way, way more than $3.5 million to their heirs.

For example, assuming a full investment in stock, just the first year of forgone withdrawal will be worth $1.516 million ($140k* 1.1^25) in 25 years.

LOL, ok. So now we're suggesting that typical pensioners are leaving millions and millions of dollars to their heirs? That's a good one.

Not sure who put the chip on your shoulder but you seem to have this idea of “pensioners” being exclusively lower class workers living hand to mouth off of their pension alone.


Im the pp who mentioned that my spouse and I will each be retiring with a ~100k pension each. We’ll also have roughly 4 million combined in 401ks /brokerage accounts and a paid off home and rental property.

Baring some catastrophe we expect to leave an inheritance in the millions to our children. We have many colleagues in similar circumstances.

You're gonna have to make some pretty hefty RMDs from those 401k, my friend,

Look, pensions are nice. They really are. But you don't hear me slobbering over my social security checks. It's basically the same thing. The appeal of a pension is that it makes up some for toiling away in a relatively low paying job for many years. People who make big money aren't offered and don't been pensions.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Folks want to include the pensions in their net worth because it makes them feel richer and more able to keep up with the Joneses. It’s kind of pathetic.

Is it because you might be jealous of my inflation adjusted $140k annual pension with lifetime benefits?. I retired fours years ago at age 53. Do I count as part of NW? No I dont but my financial planner recently advised its “worth” about $3.5m ($140x25). Loser

When you croak your heirs get nothing so it’s not an asset.

But for each year they live and don’t take funds from their retirement accounts and invest those funds more aggressively because they don’t need them, their heirs win.

If the pension holder lives 25 years, those foregone withdrawals and higher investment rates will be worth way, way more than $3.5 million to their heirs.

For example, assuming a full investment in stock, just the first year of forgone withdrawal will be worth $1.516 million ($140k* 1.1^25) in 25 years.

LOL, ok. So now we're suggesting that typical pensioners are leaving millions and millions of dollars to their heirs? That's a good one.

Not sure who put the chip on your shoulder but you seem to have this idea of “pensioners” being exclusively lower class workers living hand to mouth off of their pension alone.


Im the pp who mentioned that my spouse and I will each be retiring with a ~100k pension each. We’ll also have roughly 4 million combined in 401ks /brokerage accounts and a paid off home and rental property.

Baring some catastrophe we expect to leave an inheritance in the millions to our children. We have many colleagues in similar circumstances.

You're gonna have to make some pretty hefty RMDs from those 401k, my friend,

Look, pensions are nice. They really are. But you don't hear me slobbering over my social security checks. It's basically the same thing. The appeal of a pension is that it makes up some for toiling away in a relatively low paying job for many years. People who make big money aren't offered and don't been pensions.

yeah but who cares if you made millions because, somehow, you managed to turn out to be a jerk.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Folks want to include the pensions in their net worth because it makes them feel richer and more able to keep up with the Joneses. It’s kind of pathetic.

Is it because you might be jealous of my inflation adjusted $140k annual pension with lifetime benefits?. I retired fours years ago at age 53. Do I count as part of NW? No I dont but my financial planner recently advised its “worth” about $3.5m ($140x25). Loser

When you croak your heirs get nothing so it’s not an asset.

But for each year they live and don’t take funds from their retirement accounts and invest those funds more aggressively because they don’t need them, their heirs win.

If the pension holder lives 25 years, those foregone withdrawals and higher investment rates will be worth way, way more than $3.5 million to their heirs.

For example, assuming a full investment in stock, just the first year of forgone withdrawal will be worth $1.516 million ($140k* 1.1^25) in 25 years.

LOL, ok. So now we're suggesting that typical pensioners are leaving millions and millions of dollars to their heirs? That's a good one.

Not sure who put the chip on your shoulder but you seem to have this idea of “pensioners” being exclusively lower class workers living hand to mouth off of their pension alone.


Im the pp who mentioned that my spouse and I will each be retiring with a ~100k pension each. We’ll also have roughly 4 million combined in 401ks /brokerage accounts and a paid off home and rental property.

Baring some catastrophe we expect to leave an inheritance in the millions to our children. We have many colleagues in similar circumstances.

You're gonna have to make some pretty hefty RMDs from those 401k, my friend,

Look, pensions are nice. They really are. But you don't hear me slobbering over my social security checks. It's basically the same thing. The appeal of a pension is that it makes up some for toiling away in a relatively low paying job for many years. People who make big money aren't offered and don't been pensions.

yeah but who cares if you made millions because, somehow, you managed to turn out to be a jerk.

I don't mean to be a jerk, but what's with all the talk of pensions like it's winning the lottery? To qualify you need to work literally for decades at a job that doesn't pay much. That's all I'm saying.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Folks want to include the pensions in their net worth because it makes them feel richer and more able to keep up with the Joneses. It’s kind of pathetic.

Is it because you might be jealous of my inflation adjusted $140k annual pension with lifetime benefits?. I retired fours years ago at age 53. Do I count as part of NW? No I dont but my financial planner recently advised its “worth” about $3.5m ($140x25). Loser

When you croak your heirs get nothing so it’s not an asset.

But for each year they live and don’t take funds from their retirement accounts and invest those funds more aggressively because they don’t need them, their heirs win.

If the pension holder lives 25 years, those foregone withdrawals and higher investment rates will be worth way, way more than $3.5 million to their heirs.

For example, assuming a full investment in stock, just the first year of forgone withdrawal will be worth $1.516 million ($140k* 1.1^25) in 25 years.

LOL, ok. So now we're suggesting that typical pensioners are leaving millions and millions of dollars to their heirs? That's a good one.

Not sure who put the chip on your shoulder but you seem to have this idea of “pensioners” being exclusively lower class workers living hand to mouth off of their pension alone.


Im the pp who mentioned that my spouse and I will each be retiring with a ~100k pension each. We’ll also have roughly 4 million combined in 401ks /brokerage accounts and a paid off home and rental property.

Baring some catastrophe we expect to leave an inheritance in the millions to our children. We have many colleagues in similar circumstances.

You're gonna have to make some pretty hefty RMDs from those 401k, my friend,

Look, pensions are nice. They really are. But you don't hear me slobbering over my social security checks. It's basically the same thing. The appeal of a pension is that it makes up some for toiling away in a relatively low paying job for many years. People who make big money aren't offered and don't been pensions.

Except that the pension is more than 3x as much as a social security paycheck, I can start collecting in my early 50s and it comes with health insurance. But yeah otherwise exactly the same.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Folks want to include the pensions in their net worth because it makes them feel richer and more able to keep up with the Joneses. It’s kind of pathetic.

Is it because you might be jealous of my inflation adjusted $140k annual pension with lifetime benefits?. I retired fours years ago at age 53. Do I count as part of NW? No I dont but my financial planner recently advised its “worth” about $3.5m ($140x25). Loser

When you croak your heirs get nothing so it’s not an asset.

But for each year they live and don’t take funds from their retirement accounts and invest those funds more aggressively because they don’t need them, their heirs win.

If the pension holder lives 25 years, those foregone withdrawals and higher investment rates will be worth way, way more than $3.5 million to their heirs.

For example, assuming a full investment in stock, just the first year of forgone withdrawal will be worth $1.516 million ($140k* 1.1^25) in 25 years.

LOL, ok. So now we're suggesting that typical pensioners are leaving millions and millions of dollars to their heirs? That's a good one.

Not sure who put the chip on your shoulder but you seem to have this idea of “pensioners” being exclusively lower class workers living hand to mouth off of their pension alone.


Im the pp who mentioned that my spouse and I will each be retiring with a ~100k pension each. We’ll also have roughly 4 million combined in 401ks /brokerage accounts and a paid off home and rental property.

Baring some catastrophe we expect to leave an inheritance in the millions to our children. We have many colleagues in similar circumstances.

You're gonna have to make some pretty hefty RMDs from those 401k, my friend,

Look, pensions are nice. They really are. But you don't hear me slobbering over my social security checks. It's basically the same thing. The appeal of a pension is that it makes up some for toiling away in a relatively low paying job for many years. People who make big money aren't offered and don't been pensions.

Except that the pension is more than 3x as much as a social security paycheck, I can start collecting in my early 50s and it comes with health insurance. But yeah otherwise exactly the same.

But how many years will you have had to work at your job to collect that pension and at what salary? And what happens should you decide you don't want to work at your low paying job long enough to qualify for the pension?

Nothing is free, my friend.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Folks want to include the pensions in their net worth because it makes them feel richer and more able to keep up with the Joneses. It’s kind of pathetic.

Is it because you might be jealous of my inflation adjusted $140k annual pension with lifetime benefits?. I retired fours years ago at age 53. Do I count as part of NW? No I dont but my financial planner recently advised its “worth” about $3.5m ($140x25). Loser

When you croak your heirs get nothing so it’s not an asset.

But for each year they live and don’t take funds from their retirement accounts and invest those funds more aggressively because they don’t need them, their heirs win.

If the pension holder lives 25 years, those foregone withdrawals and higher investment rates will be worth way, way more than $3.5 million to their heirs.

For example, assuming a full investment in stock, just the first year of forgone withdrawal will be worth $1.516 million ($140k* 1.1^25) in 25 years.

LOL, ok. So now we're suggesting that typical pensioners are leaving millions and millions of dollars to their heirs? That's a good one.

Not sure who put the chip on your shoulder but you seem to have this idea of “pensioners” being exclusively lower class workers living hand to mouth off of their pension alone.


Im the pp who mentioned that my spouse and I will each be retiring with a ~100k pension each. We’ll also have roughly 4 million combined in 401ks /brokerage accounts and a paid off home and rental property.

Baring some catastrophe we expect to leave an inheritance in the millions to our children. We have many colleagues in similar circumstances.

You're gonna have to make some pretty hefty RMDs from those 401k, my friend,

Look, pensions are nice. They really are. But you don't hear me slobbering over my social security checks. It's basically the same thing. The appeal of a pension is that it makes up some for toiling away in a relatively low paying job for many years. People who make big money aren't offered and don't been pensions.

Except that the pension is more than 3x as much as a social security paycheck, I can start collecting in my early 50s and it comes with health insurance. But yeah otherwise exactly the same.

But how many years will you have had to work at your job to collect that pension and at what salary? And what happens should you decide you don't want to work at your low paying job long enough to qualify for the pension?

Nothing is free, my friend.

You’re right, I’m an oppressed proletariat working at slave wages. I’ll happily accept your contributions to better my plight. Just let me know where to direct the Venmo request.