Politicians should leave OPERS alone
By
-
To the editor:
This is the first "letter to the editor" I have ever written, so I hope you realize the extent to which I am concerned.
I must preface this with: I don't always agree, but I read and very much enjoy your editorials. Needless to say, this time I feel you are wrong, I'll assume because of lack of correct information.
I just attended a state meeting where we were told by the director of the Ohio Retirement Study Council (ORSC) that all five Ohio retirement
plans are doing fine. It was pointed out that the majority of the money paid to retirees is spent in Ohio. If it were given to the federal government, where would it be spent?
You made a point that the pensions were not set up to do what they are doing. This is true of Social Security, but it is exactly why the PERS was established. PERS was set up first as a pension fund and then to provide health care. Next year, some of the health care benefits will be less for the same reason the other plans offer less benefits - money.
I must state the obvious, the pension money is available because it is used only for the members' pension. If there are increases they have been budgeted into the equation. The money came from the employers and the members. The members paying at a higher rate than Social Security.
I will agree the money to fund the employer may come from taxes, but we also pay those same taxes.
My personal experience comes from two local hospitals, Clinton Memorial for 24 years and Highland District for six years. I feel comfortable stating I worked for less pay for those 30 years and it took me years to gain the same benefits. These two hospitals never had a levy on the ballot or received any tax money.
Maybe the general public should be more concerned with where their Social Security money is being spent and who is receiving the benefits. The politicians should fix their own system and leave a working system alone. PERS benefits are not given to retirees but earned through employment many times at lower wages with a higher percentage of their salary paid into a retirement fund.
Sincerely,
Karin Smith
To the editor:
This is the first "letter to the editor" I have ever written, so I hope you realize the extent to which I am concerned.
I must preface this with: I don't always agree, but I read and very much enjoy your editorials. Needless to say, this time I feel you are wrong, I'll assume because of lack of correct information.
I just attended a state meeting where we were told by the director of the Ohio Retirement Study Council (ORSC) that all five Ohio retirement plans are doing fine. It was pointed out that the majority of the money paid to retirees is spent in Ohio. If it were given to the federal government, where would it be spent?
You made a point that the pensions were not set up to do what they are doing. This is true of Social Security, but it is exactly why the PERS was established. PERS was set up first as a pension fund and then to provide health care. Next year, some of the health care benefits will be less for the same reason the other plans offer less benefits - money.
I must state the obvious, the pension money is available because it is used only for the members' pension. If there are increases they have been budgeted into the equation. The money came from the employers and the members. The members paying at a higher rate than Social Security.
I will agree the money to fund the employer may come from taxes, but we also pay those same taxes.
My personal experience comes from two local hospitals, Clinton Memorial for 24 years and Highland District for six years. I feel comfortable stating I worked for less pay for those 30 years and it took me years to gain the same benefits. These two hospitals never had a levy on the ballot or received any tax money.
Maybe the general public should be more concerned with where their Social Security money is being spent and who is receiving the benefits. The politicians should fix their own system and leave a working system alone. PERS benefits are not given to retirees but earned through employment many times at lower wages with a higher percentage of their salary paid into a retirement fund.
Sincerely,
Karin Smith
[[In-content Ad]]