I received your reply to my question above and then sent a follow-up question. I did not hear back from you. I now see for some reason my question is listed as being asked twice. This one without my follow-up and another that says the follow-up is still awaiting experts reply. I see you are on line now, so I will paste in my follow-up here. Thanks for taking a look at get back. As I say in the follow-up, I will give you extra for your time and expertise. Thanks Joseph....follow-up follows......
Thanks Joseph for the reply. Can you let me know why the employer would go along with the Model A plan...I know they don't have much of a choice, but assuming the above and I continued to work and past the 90% maximum, why would the City be obligated to contribute their portion to my Calpers pension...I pay approximately 9%, the City pays the balance....past 30 years of employment.....3% x 30 years equals 90%. I know in good times when I retire they would hire and replace me and continue paying for the new member into CalPers, but what if when I retired I was not replaced after retiring at 30 plus years....then they would in effect be paying for me for maybe 39 years so I could get back to 90%, which would be about the 118%. Is that just the way it goes.
Lastly for now....why would an ex want to settle for Model B. Model B does not create two separate accounts. She would be entitled to her part of the community property pension percentage at the time of dissolution, but would not receive her pension until I retired. The maximum total percentage would be 90%. So once I achieved that figure, even though she would attain a percentage of the 90 when I retired, I could not gain additional percentage once I reached the maiximum 90%. I could continue to work perhaps attaining a higher final salary by promotion, or future raises but not attain more than the 90% less my ex wife's designated percentage. I guess possible reasons for taking Model B...she does not need the money now, she may hope in fact I do get promoted and make more and or get contract raises through the years. She would delay receiving her funds but would perhaps receive more in the long run. Of course from my point of view, even thought I would lose some of my 90% and would not regain even though I continued to work after reaching the 90%, I would continue to make my full salary, I may get promoted and or I would get contractual raises and she would not get anything under Model B until I did retire or die....thanks for sharing your thoughts on why an ex may take Model B over Model A and thanks for letting me know why the City is still obligated to pay into my CalPers pension fund with Model A even after I technically pass the 90% figure. I so appreciate your help. I will definitely pay you some extra for you time and knowledgeable response. By the way do you live, work in CA. Can you let me know how you attained your knowledge of CalPERS Model A and Moldel B. Thanks so much Joseph. Dan