Hidden Pension Fiasco May Foment Another $1 Trillion Bailout

[Zebo]

Originally posted by: BoberFett

Originally posted by: Craig234

Originally posted by: Hacp
We need a law that will allow companies to reduce pension payments to their retirees in the short term. The stock market is going to go even lower, and won't go back up for another 10+ years. The last thing we need is a company going bankrupt because of the pension plan, therefore forcing Uncle Sam to foot the bill.

Ya, let's always have the poor and elderly be the front line in cutbacks to pay for the problems that benefitted the wealthy.

And yet your kind still balk at personal retirement accounts.

These pension funds have proven private business can't be trusted with our money.

SS has proven government can't be trusted with our money.

Why don't we let individuals keep all their money and do with it as they please?

Tried it, did not work for a verity of reasons from unforeseen life events to people never made enough to save. Not saying SS is ideal but only because we don't fund it properly and tap it regularly for general budget. Try eliminating cap and all income gets hit and you may even get to lower rates for normal people or increase benefit.

 

[Red Dawn]

Originally posted by: BoberFett
And yet your kind still balk at personal retirement accounts.

These pension funds have proven private business can't be trusted with our money.

SS has proven government can't be trusted with our money.

Why don't we let individuals keep all their money and do with it as they please?

How do we do that, have the government mandate that they have to sock some money away in a non risky financial vehicle so we don't end up with a bunch of destitute elderly people in 40 years?

 

[Kwatt]

Originally posted by: Hacp

Originally posted by: palehorse

Originally posted by: Hacp
The last thing we need is a company going bankrupt because of the pension plan, therefore forcing Uncle Sam to foot the bill.

what, exactly, would force Uncle Sam to foot the bill?

Most pensions are insured by the US government IIRC. Maybe we can get rid of the insurance, but I doubt it with Obama as President. These Pensions are going to wreck the lives of hardworking Americans by increasing our tax burden.

The PBGC would pick up the tab first. If they fail the the US government would most likely have to bail them out though.

Demolishing the retirements of the previous generation of "hardworking Americans" and wrecking their lives would immediately force the burden onto the US government. And I can't afford that either.

Speaking in retirement terms "individual retirement accounts" are relativity new. They were not available to everyone. They were not given a choice. Destroying the retirement of anyone because the plan is not in the next generations best interest is probably not a good precedent. 30-40 years from now people may be eyeballing your 401K with a special tax. And if you don't think Congress can change the rules in the middle... look around they do it every time money is needed.


.

 

[MooseNSquirrel]

Originally posted by: eleison

Originally posted by: MooseNSquirrel

Originally posted by: eleison

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: quest55720
This falls on Obama and his doom and gloom add in his anti-business agenda equals killing the stock market.

Don't do drugs, kids.

Yes, kids.. with Obama at the helm everything will be okay...

After much thinking - we DO need this. With all the leveraged/borrowed prosperity that capitalism has brought us - we still have people wearing Che shirts.
So, comrade, when's the next bailout to no where?

Fixed for historical accuracy.

S&M

Yes.. have we not learned anything? But we keep on piling bailout after bailout.. printing out money we do not have.. leveraging our children's future. Have we not already spent more this year than the first 4 years of Bush.. come on folks!!!!

Pain.. thats what the libs want.. and that is what they are going to get. However, I do feel for all the people who are not libs and will be caught in this whirlwind. I wish them well.. the libs and the obamabots.. not so much...

If you include the cost of Bush's tax cuts and the real cost of the Iraq war I don't think your first statement is quite accurate.

Regardless, if there is one thing most economists agree on, its deficit spending in a recession is a good thing.

I don't think the problem has ever been what we have spent in bad times, but rather how we managed our money in good times.

S&M

 

[dullard]

Originally posted by: BoberFett
And yet your kind still balk at personal retirement accounts.
These pension funds have proven private business can't be trusted with our money.
SS has proven government can't be trusted with our money.
Why don't we let individuals keep all their money and do with it as they please?

Hmm, we have a traditional IRA, Roth IRAs, SIMPLE IRAs, 401Ks, and dozens of other ways to have personal accounts, all or most of which are taxed less just for that purpose. And we still have the right to open up a non-tax deferred/advantaged account any where at any time for any amount of money. Basically, we DO let individuals keep their money.

Plus, SS still works quite fine. You still get more money than you and/or your company put in. You still can have a roof over your head and food on the table even if your company and you both go bust. True, if we hadn't raided SS for nearly 70 years, we'd be getting far better returns on SS. But blame politicians for the last 70 years (both Rs and Ds) for doing that.

 

[chess9]

Originally posted by: alchemize
Public pensions...public pensions, let's see, who controls those.

The states and local governments? Oh yah, that's Bush's fault! Good thing we're sending those oh so responsible state governments gobs of money to fund medicaid and their other spending blowouts. I'm sure they learned their lesson.

Well, you are at least partially right. A lot of the pension funds bought into the whole derivatives thing, though innocently. Furthermore, the pension funds were undercut by lax SEC regulation, no oversight by Congress, Treasury, FDIC, Fannie Mae or Freddie Mac. The lack of regulatory oversight on Bush's watch is in large part (not the entire cause) the cause of this problem.

-Robert

 

[StageLeft]

Hmm, we have a traditional IRA, Roth IRAs, SIMPLE IRAs, 401Ks, and dozens of other ways to have personal accounts, all or most of which are taxed less just for that purpose. And we still have the right to open up a non-tax deferred/advantaged account any where at any time for any amount of money. Basically, we DO let individuals keep their money.

He may be referring to the 12+% that's stolen out of our pay checks for social security.

You still get more money than you and/or your company put in.

Not so, you get less. $100 10 years ago is worth a lot more than $105 now. Inflation robs wealth and considering SS grows slower than inflation, it is in fact a negative investment and certainly not one that actually grows wealth, even on the scale of a pretty safe investment (not talking stock market).

 

[SagaLore]

Originally posted by: dahunan
>>>>>>>>>>>>>fnordBLAME OBAMA>>>>>>>>>>>>>BLAME OBAMA>>>>>>>>>>>>>BLAME OBAMAfnord>>>>>>>>>>>>>BLAME OBAMA>>>>>>>>>>>>>BLAME OBAMA>>>>>>>>>>>>>BLAME OBAMAfnord>>>>>>>>>>>>>BLAME OBAMA>>>>>>>>>>>>>BLAME OBAMA>>>>>>>>>>>>>BLAME OBAMAfnord>>>>>>>>>>>>>BLAME OBAMA>>>>>>>>>>>>>BLAME OBAMA>>>>>>>>>>>>>fnordBLAME OBAMA

Yes... must blame... right thing to do...

 

[Kwatt]

Originally posted by: BoberFett


Why don't we let individuals keep all their money and do with it as they please?

If everyone was fiscally responsible or we were willing to let the irresponsible die off that would be the best solution.

Congress is not, Corporations and their Managers are not and the people that work for them are not.

It seems so few are fiscally responsible that the human race would face a massive die off.

So it appears for now our choices are to take some from everyone now to save the irresponsible from themselves later. Or to let everyone keep it now and let the responsible cover the total cost later.


I am in a "defined contribution" plan. I must put in a specific amount deducted from my pay with no guarantee of payout amount later. The payout depends on how good the investment returns are. I cannot pick the investments or even the type of investments. I have absolutely no say in it. And I have no other choice of retirement plans. The only thing I can do is have my on separate plan completely funded and managed by myself. I do this but it is hard to fund 3 plans. My own , SS , and the employers.


.

 

[piasabird]

Every time Obamma takes action the Stock Market goes down. Every time the stock market goes down the pensions are worth less. At this point millions of older Americans can not afford to retire. Good luck on finding your kids a good paying job.

 

[Special K]

Originally posted by: Skoorb

You still get more money than you and/or your company put in.

Not so, you get less. $100 10 years ago is worth a lot more than $105 now. Inflation robs wealth and considering SS grows slower than inflation, it is in fact a negative investment and certainly not one that actually grows wealth, even on the scale of a pretty safe investment (not talking stock market).

This is exactly what I was going to post. SS is not an investment, it's a safety net. I could do far better if I were able to opt out of SS and invest the funds as I please. Of course, the system wouldn't work for anyone if people were given the option to opt out of it.

 

[RichardE]

Originally posted by: piasabird
Every time Obamma takes action the Stock Market goes down. Every time the stock market goes down the pensions are worth less. At this point millions of older Americans can not afford to retire. Good luck on finding your kids a good paying job.

Millions could afford to retire before all this? Or are you pulling *fear* numbers out of your ass?

From what I understand there was widespread fear of the lack of savings for older Americans when the bubble was at it's top. Looks to me like nothing changed.

Not to mention, do you think people retire and die at 70? Think they are taking all there money out right away upon 65? Do you have any comprehension at all about how people live after 65 and why bubbles and bursts really don't affect them since they have *planned* for such bursts and bubbles?

Not to mention this seems like a chronic problems since it needed help during the boom years, which really says something.


So all in all, this article has little substance in any real world application, it is like me saying "we are running out of oxygen because more people are being born and more trees are cut down" Ignoring *everything* else related to this issue to drive home some agenda on a few points is misleading and the reason everyone with some sort of higher brain function has already dismissed this for what it is.

 

[StageLeft]

From what I understand there was widespread fear of the lack of savings for older Americans when the bubble was at it's top. Looks to me like nothing changed.

It was, even a few years ago the numbers were damning. A great number of people at age, like 55, had a combined 401k level enough to cover maybe 1-2 living, so even before the stock market crashed most people were going to rely heavily on SS.

 

[TallBill]

Personal retirement accounts for the win. Don't see it ever happening though (IE, replacing SS)

 

[ebaycj]

Originally posted by: Zebo

Originally posted by: BoberFett

Originally posted by: Craig234

Originally posted by: Hacp
We need a law that will allow companies to reduce pension payments to their retirees in the short term. The stock market is going to go even lower, and won't go back up for another 10+ years. The last thing we need is a company going bankrupt because of the pension plan, therefore forcing Uncle Sam to foot the bill.

Ya, let's always have the poor and elderly be the front line in cutbacks to pay for the problems that benefitted the wealthy.

And yet your kind still balk at personal retirement accounts.

These pension funds have proven private business can't be trusted with our money.

SS has proven government can't be trusted with our money.

Why don't we let individuals keep all their money and do with it as they please?

Tried it, did not work for a verity of reasons from unforeseen life events to people never made enough to save. Not saying SS is ideal but only because we don't fund it properly and tap it regularly for general budget. Try eliminating cap and all income gets hit and you may even get to lower rates for normal people or increase benefit.

Take SS as it is right now.

1. Remove cap at ~$100,000 salary (cant remember exact number).

2. Add in a provision preventing the general fund from being used/borrowed from by government.

3. Split contributions 75/25 between the general fund (75%), and an individual's private fund (similar to IRA / 401k, 25%).

4. Any surplusses in the general fund (75% portion) must be removed from the general fund and split evenly among all contributors, based on their current (or predicted future) benefit levels (from the general fund portion of their SS). Any surplus payments due will go into individuals' private funds (the 25% portion).

5. The investment strategy for the general fund should be fairly conservative, utilizing mostly "safe" financial vehicles in order to stimulate long term growth, while still achieving the necessary fund accumulation to stay self-sustaining and to match inflation. Investments in individual's private portions would be up to each individual.



If this plan works out, slowly increase the individual's portion to 50% and decrease the 'general fund' portion to 50%.