Quote:
Originally Posted by 767pilot
have you seen the accounting on that one? We just got a letter from the PBGC and it seems to me that the longer you wait (65 instead of 60) you get a much larger benefit from them, making it more expensive not less. OK, maybe they'll pay fewer years making it neutral, but I don't see the savings. As fast as that thing went through, I can't imagine much thought was given to accounting items.
The accounting makes it cheaper for the government.
You will spend 5 more years paying lots of different kinds of taxes. That increases the amount you have to draw to get your money back from the government in retirement. This part is certain.
Not to mention they worry most about current expenditures. They look at 1 to 2 year blocks of time. If they can delay you 3-5 years, they prevent an accounting crisis this year or the next. Then they get to pay you in dollars that are worth less due to inflation.
Then there's the fuzzy math on working to 65. Folks, by some stats, will die a few years earlier for every year they work past 60. I challenge anyone to show that we will, as a whole, get more payout from leaving at 65. In the end these things are always costed out. It's all about the money. They didn't care about a "shortage". That part was like WMD in Iraq. It was just an excuse to get support for the legislation.
BTW, All the smart players knew it was going to put downward pressure on pilot wages for newer and future jobs.