 |
Re: Potential major changes to Railroad Retirement
Author: OPRRMS
Date: 04-18-2012 - 01:22
C. Cutler Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Personally I will be proud to work into my 70s. I
> don't mind a bit.
>
> Ryan's at least offering an orderly way to reduce
> retirement benefits, which is inevitable. None of
> the government retirement programs are affordable.
>
>
> If you prefer the disorderly way to cut retirement
> benefits, look at what will happen soon in Italy,
> Spain, France, and Greece. Or look at what
> actually did happen in Eastern Europe in the early
> 1990s.
>
> It will be very ugly.
From your comments, I gather you don't work in the railroad industry (or if you do, you aren't covered by Railroad Retirement), since you seem to have the often misinformed opinion of how it works and how it's funded. Maybe this'll will help clarify it for you :
FFEG FLASH: INDUSTRY CLARIFYING RAILROAD RETIREMENT FOR HOUSE COMMITTEE
Many of you have seen emails regarding railroad retirement language contained in the U.S. House FY 2013 Budget Resolution. The budget resolution that passed the House of Representatives at the end of March contained language in its report that stated one way to save the taxpayers $2 billion over 10 years was to conform Railroad Retirement Tier I benefits with Social Security benefits.
The House Budget Committee got this wrong. Any benefits paid out under Tier I that are more generous than Social Security are paid for out of the Tier II account, which is made up of contributions of employers and employees - not taxpayers as a whole. Labor and Management are aware this language was in the budget resolution and are in the process of explaining railroad retirement to the Members of the House Budget Committee so they better understand how the program works. In the meantime, please keep in mind that this was only report language in the House budget resolution. The passage of the budget resolution by the House does not mean this will happen. First, the Senate would have to pass a budget resolution of their own, which they have no plans to do, and a final budget document containing this language would have to be produced. Then Congress would have to pass another bill to make this happen and the President would have to sign it into law. We will keep you updated on this topic as events warrant.
Source: Union Pacific
-------------------------------------------------------
> Personally I will be proud to work into my 70s. I
> don't mind a bit.
>
> Ryan's at least offering an orderly way to reduce
> retirement benefits, which is inevitable. None of
> the government retirement programs are affordable.
>
>
> If you prefer the disorderly way to cut retirement
> benefits, look at what will happen soon in Italy,
> Spain, France, and Greece. Or look at what
> actually did happen in Eastern Europe in the early
> 1990s.
>
> It will be very ugly.
From your comments, I gather you don't work in the railroad industry (or if you do, you aren't covered by Railroad Retirement), since you seem to have the often misinformed opinion of how it works and how it's funded. Maybe this'll will help clarify it for you :
FFEG FLASH: INDUSTRY CLARIFYING RAILROAD RETIREMENT FOR HOUSE COMMITTEE
Many of you have seen emails regarding railroad retirement language contained in the U.S. House FY 2013 Budget Resolution. The budget resolution that passed the House of Representatives at the end of March contained language in its report that stated one way to save the taxpayers $2 billion over 10 years was to conform Railroad Retirement Tier I benefits with Social Security benefits.
The House Budget Committee got this wrong. Any benefits paid out under Tier I that are more generous than Social Security are paid for out of the Tier II account, which is made up of contributions of employers and employees - not taxpayers as a whole. Labor and Management are aware this language was in the budget resolution and are in the process of explaining railroad retirement to the Members of the House Budget Committee so they better understand how the program works. In the meantime, please keep in mind that this was only report language in the House budget resolution. The passage of the budget resolution by the House does not mean this will happen. First, the Senate would have to pass a budget resolution of their own, which they have no plans to do, and a final budget document containing this language would have to be produced. Then Congress would have to pass another bill to make this happen and the President would have to sign it into law. We will keep you updated on this topic as events warrant.
Source: Union Pacific
