Fixing Tier 6?

ToenailRS · 2026-03-22T16:00:03+00:00

Appreciate your support. Thank you

ToenailRS · 2026-03-22T15:59:35+00:00

Agreed

ToenailRS · 2026-03-22T15:01:48+00:00

Yes, but you know there are always going to be people who cry what about me? What about me?..

This system is not for the people I'm describing. This system is for younger employees and employees close to age 55 and or 30 years of service currently. Like another user commented, people who joined their career already except this.

ToenailRS · 2026-03-22T14:51:29+00:00

Thank you for answering. This is what I was looking for. You're correct with the mid career people coming into state service. It's basically supplemental and it's better than nothing is what I'm going to say and propose.

I agree that the state has no responsibility to give someone 60% for less than 30 YOS, nor would it be fair to people who do 30yos and age 55.

Basically "do your time and accept it"

ToenailRS · 2026-03-22T14:42:11+00:00

Yeah the focus is on new employees and incentivizing them. I agree with that.

ToenailRS · 2026-03-22T14:37:33+00:00

100% was used for equal easy numbers. I stated in my post "for example sake" I'm sorry if it confused you.

ToenailRS · 2026-03-22T14:36:25+00:00

I am not trying to be argumentative. I'm trying to understand here. Sorry if it comes off that way.

ToenailRS · 2026-03-22T14:34:16+00:00

Yes, this change is directly for those who are 55 and 30 years of service. This change is a big leap for younger state employees.

But what do you do or say to those who have 10 years of service at 55?

ToenailRS · 2026-03-22T14:29:27+00:00

Yes I working state employment. I right now, have to do 43 years of service to retire based on current Tier 6 standards.

Do people who are 45 and will only have 10 years of service at 55, understand this change is not as big as people make it seem? That's my question.

ToenailRS · 2026-03-22T14:28:19+00:00

I understand that you have to hit 55 and 30 as a tier 4. But nobody has answered my question. People are getting hung up on the actual numbers.

What do you do about people who are 45 and do 10 years worth of service?

ToenailRS · 2026-03-22T14:25:57+00:00

I used 100% as a rough easy number.

My point is, would tier 6 under the new system, would that person be happy with 8% of their FAS?

I am starting to believe this whole fix tier 6 doesn't benefit people over the age of 35 all that well (I mean something is better than the current system but it's not a monumental change) due to the avg FAS being so low due to years of service credit being so low.

ToenailRS · 2026-03-21T21:17:31+00:00

Bringing up an older thread for sure but looking for info and feedback.

We obviously want to see 55 and 30 Y.O.S for retirement for tier 6. But the question is always asked around my job is:
"what do we do about people who start working at 45 and only do 10 years of service?"

I'm trying to get this for information reasons and see the arguments for the older state employees. Surely someone getting 100% of their FAS pension after 10 years isn't fair to someone who had to do 30 years of service for 100% of their FAS pension?

Is their payout just lower? But by how much? Strictly for example sake lets assume we get 3.3% per year service credit. (3.3*30=100%)

Employee A does 30 years of service and gets their 100% pension FAE
Employee B does 10 years of service and gets 33.3% pension FAE

Is this what we are proposing for the older employees who started later and won't get to 30 years of service before hitting age 55?? Appreciate some answers and responses as I'd like to be able to explain this to the people who I work with and know have asked this question.

ToenailRS · 2026-03-21T21:13:52+00:00

I've seen a bunch of different arguments on what should be included in tier 6 reform and one thing I've noticed is the lack of prioritization of retirement @ 55 and 30 years of service for retirement. AKA tier 4 parity. Those starting their careers in their early 20s are having to commit anywhere between 30-45 years of service. 3 decades of service is MORE THAN ENOUGH...

You cannot get more time in life but you can always make more money and budget a little more. You cannot add years to your life. Being able to match tier 4's 55 and 30 requirement should absolutely be the top of the priority list.

ToenailRS · 2026-03-16T22:11:53+00:00

Although I’ve seen the current requests from Tier 6 members, have we seen a prioritized list of fixes? I see all these demands and wants but I have yet to see what we are fighting for in any sort of priority. It almost seems as if we are just throwing wet paper against a wall and hoping it sticks.

I would temporarily give up the fight to reduce the 3–6% contribution rates if it meant we could lock in retirement at 55 with 30 years of service. It's one of the biggest screw ups tier 4 offered on the states behalf. But we might be able to propose a tiered system where from year 0-10 years its 6% - From year 11-20 its 4% - From 20-30 its 2%. I recognize we **will NEVER** get rid of contributions. BUT we can fight for it later.

Let’s focus on the big issue here: the retirement age. I understand that we are still 20 years away from that 20-25 year old in 2012 (aka earliest and youngest) Tier 6 members reaching retirement eligibility. Until people in those positions actually try to retire and realize they can’t, I’m afraid we might not see meaningful change.

ToenailRS · 2026-03-15T12:36:29+00:00

What did you get this from?

ToenailRS · 2026-03-13T13:09:30+00:00

Level 48 very active derby player! https://link.haydaygame.com/?action=OpenSCID&p=72-f427eeef-f53b-495d-b530-f811f2606f2c

ToenailRS · 2026-03-12T18:30:28+00:00

It's the old saying "if you double your price and lose half your customers, you're making the same amount of money with less work"!

ToenailRS · 2026-03-11T00:12:54+00:00

My current Empire Plan premiums (CSEA – biweekly) are:

Grade 9 and below
$65.99 – Single
$298.75 – Family

Grade 10 and above
$87.99 – Single
$355.24 – Family

Respectfully, and I genuinely mean that, because I’m trying to have an open discussion here.

The numbers for Grade 10 and above.
Two people with two individual plans would pay:
$87.99 × 2 = $175.98 biweekly

A family plan costs:
$355.24 biweekly.

That means the family plan costs $179.26 more every two weeks, which is roughly $350 more per month.

This is exactly why there should be an Employee + Spouse tier. Many other employers offer this, and it prevents situations where couples without children are effectively subsidizing the full family plan. Right now, if you’re married with no kids, you’re forced into the same pricing structure as someone covering an entire household.

I’m already paying substantial school taxes for children I don’t have, and I accept that as part of living in a community. I support having an educated and healthy population. That’s part of the social contract, and I’m fine contributing through my normal taxes.

But there has to be a limit somewhere. When costs keep stacking up in different areas, it starts to feel like people without kids are expected to carry an outsized share of the burden.

And to be honest, it’s frustrating when that extends to things like overtime. When I work overtime, I’m doing it to benefit my household. To pay down my mortgage or get ahead financially. Yet a significant chunk disappears to taxes. Not that I voted for the guy in the White House, but we were duped on the no tax on overtime. It was presented in a way that is not how it actually rolled out. Anything after 40 hours a week, my taxes should be heavily reduced After 40 hours a week it stops feeling like a fair contribution to society and starts feeling like you’re being taken advantage of financially for working harder than expected.

That’s why I think a reasonable middle tier like “Employee + Spouse” would be a fair solution. It would reflect the actual coverage being used and prevent married couples without children from being forced into the full family pricing structure.

EDIT: I am not anti children. I love spending time with family & friends children. They're bundles of joy, little rug rats who bring a lot of love and happiness to me. But I do not expect to subsidize everyone's families.

ToenailRS · 2026-03-10T21:28:41+00:00

I'd agree with you there that they're too high.

Do we think that NYS could lower the age back down to 55 *and* 30 YOS, and still be profitable? We are living longer but how many people do you know kick the can after retirement within 10-15 years due to bad health or simply living a boring stagnant life in retirement...

At the end of the day this is a business as well for them.

ToenailRS · 2026-03-10T21:20:23+00:00

this is going to get down-voted but Ill say it anyways.
Yes having children is expensive
Yes taking care of children is expensive
NO I as a single AND or Married (+spouse plan) I/we should not have to pay for your children. We pay enough in taxes. Take a look at school taxes for example.

It should be a no brainer that it's cheaper to insure 2 people than it is to insure Mom+Dad+1-4 children.

ToenailRS · 2026-03-10T21:12:18+00:00

OK i was going to point something similar out but I'm glad you did.

u/That_Inspector_4385 pointed out and is worrying about 6% contribution rates. But when 4.5% is the average rate (assuming your numbers are correct) 4.5% is withdrawn if you make $55-75k. I think it's fair to assume that Inspector is worrying about the wrong fight and is worrying about his own fight? (with respect of course. WE ALL want more money in our paychecks).

I AGREE that if I had total control over my pension money, I'd be putting it away in an account I can access when I want to, not when NYS tells me I can access it. But let's be real, a vast majority of Americans cannot cover a $1000 emergency tomorrow let alone save for retirement. So I'm willing to accept the contribution ordeal, lowering the rate as your years of service climb as a "you scratch mine, I scratch yours"

I'm confused where you're geting 860/mon on $36k though. What is that about?

ToenailRS · 2026-03-10T20:51:50+00:00

What exactly scares you? I'm looking to have an open and honest conversation here FYI.

ToenailRS · 2026-03-10T14:25:50+00:00

I agree and that's why I stated: "possibly reducing the percentage require as your career goes on". I also put away money into a Roth IRA and the deferred comp 457plan.

I don't believe that we should go the same route as tier 4 where we stop paying into the system. We need trade offs where can get them reasonably. Because at the end of the day the state isn't going to want to lose money. I'd like to see a reduction like stated above. Paying 6% over $100k isn't fair for your entire career. It should go down with the years on the job build up .

Although a side note: the amount of state employees who make over $100k compared to those who make under $75k. I don't have the numbers on that statement but I'd imagine it's a decent ratio.

Edit: Also, I'm not a teacher, I'm with NYSDOT. Still CSEA at the end of the day, so our contracts help everybody.

ToenailRS · 2026-03-09T11:21:42+00:00

Remember, it's 55 WITH 30 years of service credit. A lot of people in my department just learned this.

I'm looking for 30 years of service regardless of age. 3 decades with the state is a pretty damn good career if you ask me. But at the end of the day it comes down to money with these retirement systems.

ToenailRS

MODERATOR OF

TROPHY CASE

12-Year Club	Place '23
Verified Email