Joe T.
Member
This is incredible:
http://www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-pension-changes-20141212-story.html#page=1
Joe T.
http://www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-pension-changes-20141212-story.html#page=1
Joe T.
-
There were many reasons for the change of the site software, the biggest was security. The age of the old software also meant no server updates for certain programs. There are many benefits to the new software, one of the biggest is the mobile functionality. Ill fix up some stuff in the coming days, we'll also try to get some of the old addons back or the data imported back into the site like the garage. To create a thread or to reply with a post is basically the same as it was in the prior software. The default style of the site is light colored, but i temporarily added a darker colored style, to change you can find a link at the bottom of the site.
Lose of PENSION?
- Thread starter Joe T.
- Start date
PrairieSpyder
New member
If the pension fund is insolvent it would be lost, anyway. At least this way there will be something for the pensioners.
My question is why are the funds insolvent?
My question is why are the funds insolvent?
jcthorne
Well-known member
Bad situation but the 'do nothing' alternative will allow the pension funds to collapse and most of the members will end up with checks stopping instead of being reduced.
Its no different than if the retirees bought an annuity from an insurance fund as a retirement benefit, if the fund collapses, the checks do not continue. And the Fed Government cannot bail all of them out if they were not federally insured paying the premiums for it. These are private and local municipal funds. The checks are only as good as the backers. Same as what is happening in Detroit. Awful for the participants but not much can be done about it. The money is not there.
ARtraveler
R.I.P. Dwayne
Most pension funds are driven by regular investments in various aspects of the stock market or bonds. When these markets are going good, the pension funds will grow.
Many funds got into trouble by buying those "derivitives" that were being passed around and crashed a few years back. WARNING, WARNING, WARNING--congress is trying to bring the purchase and sale of these back. You can find out who and when by doing some due diligence.
Another problem that has caused these funds to tank, is the failure to make annual funding payments. Our State, AK, owes over 5 Billion to the public employees retirement fund, and they are now getting to the point where it is fund or collapse. This is happening all over.
Most pension funds and social security, are very similar to Ponzi schemes. Todays deposits fund the payments that are going out the door to the past recipients. There is no back up funding to cover everyone if they had to cash out.
Happy Friday. :yikes:
Many funds got into trouble by buying those "derivitives" that were being passed around and crashed a few years back. WARNING, WARNING, WARNING--congress is trying to bring the purchase and sale of these back. You can find out who and when by doing some due diligence.
Another problem that has caused these funds to tank, is the failure to make annual funding payments. Our State, AK, owes over 5 Billion to the public employees retirement fund, and they are now getting to the point where it is fund or collapse. This is happening all over.
Most pension funds and social security, are very similar to Ponzi schemes. Todays deposits fund the payments that are going out the door to the past recipients. There is no back up funding to cover everyone if they had to cash out.
Happy Friday. :yikes:
IdahoMtnSpyder
Active member
Over 30 years ago I made the comment that folks who retired in the time frame of 1980 to 2000 would enjoy the best retirement ever, before or after.
This is all part of a far larger problem of fewer and fewer workers actually engaged in producing wealth, i.e., converting natural resources into tangible products, and more and more people living off that wealth. Money is not wealth, it is a claim on someone else's labor. As more and more people depend on fewer and fewer workers who produce the necessities of life, i.e., food, clothing, shelter, and transportation, the standard of living on the whole diminishes.
This is all part of a far larger problem of fewer and fewer workers actually engaged in producing wealth, i.e., converting natural resources into tangible products, and more and more people living off that wealth. Money is not wealth, it is a claim on someone else's labor. As more and more people depend on fewer and fewer workers who produce the necessities of life, i.e., food, clothing, shelter, and transportation, the standard of living on the whole diminishes.
1. The funds lost a lot of money when the market tanked. If they could have held their investments, and not sold, a lot of it would have come back, but they had to sell to keep paying benefits.
2. Some of the investment advisors and management companies they used, charged them excessive fees.
3. The work force is shrinking. More retired workers drawing benefits, than active workers paying in.
4. Many of these were union job pensions. Union membership has droped (fewer workers paying in.)
2. Some of the investment advisors and management companies they used, charged them excessive fees.
3. The work force is shrinking. More retired workers drawing benefits, than active workers paying in.
4. Many of these were union job pensions. Union membership has droped (fewer workers paying in.)
IGETAROUND
Active member
I do not pretend to be knowledgeable about things associated with money and such. The one thing I am certain of is there was no hesitation on the part of the government to bail out the banking industry when they made poor decisions, nor was there any question that it was a good idea to save GM.
NOW when it comes to stabilizing pension plans for the middle class worker, we can't afford to do this.
We didn't question whether we could afford bullets and bombs to wage wars, but we certainly wouldn't want to be guilty of taking care of our own people who have worked and paid for the bailouts of big business and their bad decisions.
Somehow the little guy is always the one to be kicked in the teeth and told to suck it up so corporate america can continue on their merry way.
This is not the americka that I risked my life serving in the military for. We need to take care of our population as well as we take care of corporate amerika!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
NOW when it comes to stabilizing pension plans for the middle class worker, we can't afford to do this.
We didn't question whether we could afford bullets and bombs to wage wars, but we certainly wouldn't want to be guilty of taking care of our own people who have worked and paid for the bailouts of big business and their bad decisions.
Somehow the little guy is always the one to be kicked in the teeth and told to suck it up so corporate america can continue on their merry way.
This is not the americka that I risked my life serving in the military for. We need to take care of our population as well as we take care of corporate amerika!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Frank G
New member
Well said! Last week the United States of America lost it's number 1 ranking ECONOMY to CHINA. We are now number 2 and falling. We held the number one spot since the 1870's.
Last edited:
IdahoMtnSpyder
Active member
Bob Denman
New member
Having a bad day?? :dontknow:
Perhaps my plan might just work out after all...
When I've finally had enough of working; I'll the business, and all of the real estate, and move into an apartment in some warm climate, that will be more conducive to riding on a regular basis... :thumbup:
Social In-Security??? I'm not gonna plan on it... :banghead:
retread
New member
When you remember that retirement funds are supported by the people who are still working; they make the product for the company to sell, a part of the profits feed the pension fund. Then remember that 95,000,000 working age Americans are unemployed, it's easy to see a part of the problem. There's a lot more to it than this, but consider this a little food for thought.
john
john
If you study the Constitution on which this nation used to be founded, you will find that there is no provision for protecting the financial well being of either corporations or individual citizens. There is, however; a strong mandate to provide for National Security. I guess that is why the priority spending on the military.How they spend it is a different issue.
Keep in mind that, despite what our former Secretary of State said recently, it is stiil the medium and big corporations that provide most of the employment. If these corporations fail then there are no jobs or pensions for anyone - not to mention no taxes for the Government to spend.
I agree with you though. I don't think that the Administration should have bailed out the large and mismanaged corporations and financial institutions. I don't think they should bail out the large and mismanaged union pension funds either. I don't think either action is a good way to spend my tax money. The rank and file members elect their own leaders. If they choose people who won't look out for their best interests, why are they blaming anyone else? A lot of pensions aren't on the verge of insolvency.
Bob Denman
New member
I think that he forget about it being called "Capitalism", for a reason... 
Similar threads
