[QUOTE=trashhauler;1837188]
Originally Posted by
Viper446
He means instead of 2% x 25 years if you raise the multiplier it could be 2.2% x 25 years. So instead of 50% of 260K you get 55% of 260K. I can live with that.
A new multiplier would need to be in the next contract. Again, the multiplier was to compensate the guys who would not benefit from the increased B fund in the new contract.. If you didn't qualify for the multiplier in 2006 (50+ w/ 10+ years service at date of signing) you aren't covered.... period. Also, it was a snapshot looking backward. Example, if you had 10 years in 2006 and were 55 years old and retire in 2016 at 65, you have 10 years at 2.01% and the last 10 at 2.00%. The "big money" was the guy with 25+ service and 57 or older, who got 2.05% looking back. Ex: If he retired that year at 60 and had his high 5 made, he got 25 years X 2.05%=51.25.... X 260K =$133,250.