Judge Sets Aside Airline's Pension Fund

[Ferocious]

click

Why aren't their salaries based on the free market?

A lot of Harvard MBA grads could probably run that company into the ground just as easily without the BONUSES.

:|

 

[rahvin]

Originally posted by: Ferocious
click

Why aren't their salaries based on the free market?

A lot of Harvard MBA grads could probably run that company into the ground just as easily without the BONUSES.

:|

Let me preface by saying I think there need to be radical changes in public company CEO salary compensations.

After saying that the salarys are based on the free market, they have to offer compensation packages like that to get CEO's that have experience. As an example Ben & Jerry's tried to limit CEO compensation to 13times the lowest employee. After being unable to get a CEO for 9 months they dropped the compensation limit because they couldn't find a single qualified person.

I really wish there would be a shareholder revolt against high CEO compensations.

 

[ElFenix]

Originally posted by: SuperTool


Hahaha. You read too much rightwing tripe. Ownership of some stock does not give you control over your destiny. Tomorrow, that stock can tank and you have no control over that. I am all for risk taking, but with a safety net. Social Security is that safety net.

if all these big companies start tanking then good luck collecting social security

 

[SuperTool]

Originally posted by: ElFenix

Originally posted by: SuperTool


Hahaha. You read too much rightwing tripe. Ownership of some stock does not give you control over your destiny. Tomorrow, that stock can tank and you have no control over that. I am all for risk taking, but with a safety net. Social Security is that safety net.

if all these big companies start tanking then good luck collecting social security

SS started during the Depression precisely because all these companies had tanked. Stock markets have gone up and down, but SS is still around and hasn't defaulted. Stock price is related to profit. SS payroll taxes are related to payrolls. Company could be making very little money or losing money short term, have its stock in the gutter, and still employing a lot of people and paying a lot of payroll taxes.

 

[ElFenix]

Originally posted by: SuperTool

SS started during the Depression precisely because all these companies had tanked. Stock markets have gone up and down, but SS is still around and hasn't defaulted. Stock price is related to profit. SS payroll taxes are related to payrolls. Company could be making very little money or losing money short term, have its stock in the gutter, and still employing a lot of people and paying a lot of payroll taxes.

there were a lot more workers per collecting person back then

and SS did absolutely nothing to ease the depresssion

 

[Starbuck1975]

You read too much rightwing tripe. Ownership of some stock does not give you control over your destiny. Tomorrow, that stock can tank and you have no control over that. I am all for risk taking, but with a safety net. Social Security is that safety net.

True, but you have control over the level of risk you wish to assume in your investment decisions. A diverse portfolio, or investment in low interest, low risk mutual funds, will provide the necessary financial security.

The airline industry is probably the best example of everything that is currently wrong with how American corporations operate.

1. No accountability at the upper management level. I agree that the benefits received by CEOs should be proportional to the value they add to the company...if the company tanks, they get nothing.
2. A lack of business ethics at the upper management level...the sharp decline of business ethics started in the greed fueled 1980s and peaked in the 1990s...until American consumers start holding these companies accountable with their spending habits, the ethics problem will persist.
3. Unions...they served a purpose once, but now they have become a special interest that is almost as corrupt, if not more so, then many corporate leaders...you often hear stories of unions going to bat for workers that, for all intents and purposes, are total dirtbags...similarly, the benefits provided to some low skill workers is simply ridiculous...with corporations forced to carry the burden of benefits that either the free market or the government should provide, depending on your political leanings.

The airline industry, particularly for domestic flights, is in a position where they cannot outsource jobs to compensate for the increasing labor costs of operating in the United States...throw in rising fuel costs, and executives providing nice financial cushions for themselves, and it is no wonder that yet another airline requires a government bail out.

 

[alent1234]

Originally posted by: SuperTool

Originally posted by: Jadow
where has ANYONE other than scaremongers who are against personal accounts, ever mentioned that you could own "one stock" under ANY proposal for SS? The RISKIEST investment allowed would be an S&P Index fund, which is made up of the 500 largest companies in the country.

And most options would call for a mix of stock and bond index funds. So take your fraudulent "one stock" arguement that I've heard a hundred times and shove it.

Stock markets go up and down just like stocks do. It's not a fraudulent arguement by any means. You could have a bear market that will reduce everyone's retirement savings.

the people who started 401k's in stocks in the 1970's are still way ahead after the bubble popping than fixed income investments. Only way fixed income will beat stocks is if interest rates go up to where they were when carter was president. And that's only if you dump your present fixed income investments, go to all cash and then buy the high rate investments that pay more than inflation.

My 401k will be worth $2 million at 6% per year at my current contribution rates. At 11% a year it's over $6 million. Best thing is that it's real cash in the bank under my name and will be given to my wife in case I die. I can change employers, they can go bankrupt I don't care. The money is diversified and in my name. I can cash it out at any time if I want to buy a Lexus.

 

[SuperTool]

Originally posted by: ElFenix

Originally posted by: SuperTool

SS started during the Depression precisely because all these companies had tanked. Stock markets have gone up and down, but SS is still around and hasn't defaulted. Stock price is related to profit. SS payroll taxes are related to payrolls. Company could be making very little money or losing money short term, have its stock in the gutter, and still employing a lot of people and paying a lot of payroll taxes.

there were a lot more workers per collecting person back then

and SS did absolutely nothing to ease the depresssion

It sure eased the Depression for people collecting SS.
SS is a tax on payrolls. It's related to the size of the overall economy, not just profits or short term psychology of the stock market. The stock market could halve, and there would be hardly a blimp on the payroll tax revenue. Also, putting SS money into the stock market won't solve the low worker per collecting person problem, it'll just shift it to the stock market. If there are more sellers than buyers, the market will tank. Sellers are retirees, buyers are workers. Same problem.

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: SuperTool

Originally posted by: ElFenix

Originally posted by: SuperTool

SS started during the Depression precisely because all these companies had tanked. Stock markets have gone up and down, but SS is still around and hasn't defaulted. Stock price is related to profit. SS payroll taxes are related to payrolls. Company could be making very little money or losing money short term, have its stock in the gutter, and still employing a lot of people and paying a lot of payroll taxes.

there were a lot more workers per collecting person back then

and SS did absolutely nothing to ease the depresssion

It sure eased the Depression for people collecting SS.
SS is a tax on payrolls. It's related to the size of the overall economy, not just profits or short term psychology of the stock market. The stock market could halve, and there would be hardly a blimp on the payroll tax revenue. Also, putting SS money into the stock market won't solve the low worker per collecting person problem, it'll just shift it to the stock market. If there are more sellers than buyers, the market will tank. Sellers are retirees, buyers are workers. Same problem.

First SS check was issued January 31, 1940. Depression started in 1929, the economy was slowly recovering during the 30's after bottoming out in 1933, and the depression ended in 1939. So I don't think SS eased anything regarding the depression.

CsG

 

[alent1234]

now the UAL unions are threatening a strike if the judge throws out their compensation contract

idiots, if they go on strike how is the airline going to earn any money to even pay part of their pensions?

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: alent1234
now the UAL unions are threatening a strike if the judge throws out their compensation contract

idiots, if they go on strike how is the airline going to earn any money to even pay part of their pensions?

Hehe, and "Bbond" was whining about what I posted in the other thread on this...

haha, here comes your saintly Unions "Bbond" - I'm sure they have the worker's best interest in mind.... ... this time. :roll:

CsG

 

[SuperTool]

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Originally posted by: SuperTool

Originally posted by: ElFenix

Originally posted by: SuperTool

SS started during the Depression precisely because all these companies had tanked. Stock markets have gone up and down, but SS is still around and hasn't defaulted. Stock price is related to profit. SS payroll taxes are related to payrolls. Company could be making very little money or losing money short term, have its stock in the gutter, and still employing a lot of people and paying a lot of payroll taxes.

there were a lot more workers per collecting person back then

and SS did absolutely nothing to ease the depresssion

It sure eased the Depression for people collecting SS.
SS is a tax on payrolls. It's related to the size of the overall economy, not just profits or short term psychology of the stock market. The stock market could halve, and there would be hardly a blimp on the payroll tax revenue. Also, putting SS money into the stock market won't solve the low worker per collecting person problem, it'll just shift it to the stock market. If there are more sellers than buyers, the market will tank. Sellers are retirees, buyers are workers. Same problem.

First SS check was issued January 31, 1940. Depression started in 1929, the economy was slowly recovering during the 30's after bottoming out in 1933, and the depression ended in 1939. So I don't think SS eased anything regarding the depression.

CsG

Well, if the first check was issued in 1930 instead of 1940, it would have eased the Depression for a lot of people. But I guess better late than never.

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: SuperTool

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Originally posted by: SuperTool

Originally posted by: ElFenix

Originally posted by: SuperTool

SS started during the Depression precisely because all these companies had tanked. Stock markets have gone up and down, but SS is still around and hasn't defaulted. Stock price is related to profit. SS payroll taxes are related to payrolls. Company could be making very little money or losing money short term, have its stock in the gutter, and still employing a lot of people and paying a lot of payroll taxes.

there were a lot more workers per collecting person back then

and SS did absolutely nothing to ease the depresssion

It sure eased the Depression for people collecting SS.
SS is a tax on payrolls. It's related to the size of the overall economy, not just profits or short term psychology of the stock market. The stock market could halve, and there would be hardly a blimp on the payroll tax revenue. Also, putting SS money into the stock market won't solve the low worker per collecting person problem, it'll just shift it to the stock market. If there are more sellers than buyers, the market will tank. Sellers are retirees, buyers are workers. Same problem.

First SS check was issued January 31, 1940. Depression started in 1929, the economy was slowly recovering during the 30's after bottoming out in 1933, and the depression ended in 1939. So I don't think SS eased anything regarding the depression.

CsG

Well, if the first check was issued in 1930 instead of 1940, it would have eased the Depression for a lot of people. But I guess better late than never.

Ofcourse there would have been no funds to distribute in 1930...

CsG

 

[Darkhawk28]

Originally posted by: SuperTool

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Originally posted by: SuperTool

Originally posted by: ElFenix

Originally posted by: SuperTool

SS started during the Depression precisely because all these companies had tanked. Stock markets have gone up and down, but SS is still around and hasn't defaulted. Stock price is related to profit. SS payroll taxes are related to payrolls. Company could be making very little money or losing money short term, have its stock in the gutter, and still employing a lot of people and paying a lot of payroll taxes.

there were a lot more workers per collecting person back then

and SS did absolutely nothing to ease the depresssion

It sure eased the Depression for people collecting SS.
SS is a tax on payrolls. It's related to the size of the overall economy, not just profits or short term psychology of the stock market. The stock market could halve, and there would be hardly a blimp on the payroll tax revenue. Also, putting SS money into the stock market won't solve the low worker per collecting person problem, it'll just shift it to the stock market. If there are more sellers than buyers, the market will tank. Sellers are retirees, buyers are workers. Same problem.

First SS check was issued January 31, 1940. Depression started in 1929, the economy was slowly recovering during the 30's after bottoming out in 1933, and the depression ended in 1939. So I don't think SS eased anything regarding the depression.

CsG

Well, if the first check was issued in 1930 instead of 1940, it would have eased the Depression for a lot of people. But I guess better late than never.

Roosevelt signed the SS act on August 14, 1935.
February 13, 1936 The first Public Assistance checks were mailed (5 States).

February 1936 Public assistance payments to recipients were first made with Federal participation under the Social Security Act for old-age assistance (17 States), aid to dependent children (10 States), aid to blind (9 States).

June 2, 1936 The Social Security account number, which contained no significant facts about the employee other than the State of registry, was approved by the Social Security Board.

August 17, 1936 An unemployed worker--Neils B. Ruud--in Madison, Wisconsin, received the first unemployment benefit check paid under a State law. The amount was $15.00.

November 24, 1936 Applications for Social Security account numbers (Forms SS-5) were distributed by the Post Office Department to persons who were working or expected to work in jobs covered by old-age insurance.

January 1, 1937 Workers began to acquire credits toward old-age insurance benefits. Employers and employees became subject to a tax of one percent of wages on up to $3,000 a year. Lump-sum payments were first made payable to eligible workers, their survivors or their estates. The Federal unemployment tax payable by employers of 8 or more was increased to two percent of payroll.

March 11, 1937 The Social Security Board announced approval of eight lump-sum payments since the inauguration of the Social Security Act's old-age benefits program began on January 1.

September 17, 1937 The name "Old-Age Benefit Program", which was provided for under Title II of the Social Security Act was changed to "Old-Age Insurance Program" to distinguish it from old-age benefits under the assistance program. The Bureau of Federal Old-Age Benefits became the Bureau of Old-Age Insurance.

January 1, 1940 Monthly benefits first became payable under old-age and survivor's insurance to aged retired workers and their dependents and to survivors of deceased insured workers. The Federal Old-Age and Survivors Insurance Trust Fund was established as a separate account in the United States Treasury to hold the amounts accumulated under the old-age and survivors insurance program. Basic provisions for hearing and review instituted by the Social Security Board under authority to establish procedures, hold hearings, and take testimony in relation to determination of rights to old-age and survivors insurance benefits (Office of Appeals Council).


You're both right in a way. Social Security's Old-Age Insurance wasn't paid until 1940, but the disability and unemployment portions were paid during the depression, which I'd imagine helped a bit.

 

[Genx87]

Originally posted by: daclayman

Originally posted by: Genx87

Originally posted by: SuperTool

Originally posted by: Jadow
these pensions = no ownership
401k's = ownership

there's a parallel with social security. System stays as is, eventually the same thing happens with social security in 35 years. We get personal accounts, people begin to get OWNERSHIP, and control their own destiny.

Hahaha. You read too much rightwing tripe. Ownership of some stock does not give you control over your destiny. Tomorrow, that stock can tank and you have no control over that. I am all for risk taking, but with a safety net. Social Security is that safety net.

Just like tomorrow the US govt can cease to exist. It is a risk.

As for UAL, let her die already. Letting taxpayers pickup the bill is ridiculous.

Then we should have let Chrysler die. Remember 1981?!? Chrysler asked the Reagan adminstration for a $1.2 billion loan. Chrysler got 'da free money' and bought a bunch of Mitsus and called um K cars and laid off as many American workers as was required.
Screw you repub hack.

I agree they should have let that company die off as well.

Thinning of the corporate herd is needed.

Hack

 

[Genx87]

Originally posted by: Jhhnn
Meh. Sucks to be a United employee- but pretty much par for the course when the company runs the pension fund. Huge executive salaries, perks, and bonuses, even as the company sinks below the surface. Looting all around, and then, so long, suckers! That goes for the shareholders, too, of course...

Independently administered pension plans are the only answer- the company and the employees both contribute, the assets are managed by an outside party, whose only interest is to grow the fund, make a small% as administrative fees... add govt controlled SS... add independent investment by future retirees, and you have a balanced and secure retirement vehicle...

Dont feel too bad for them, especially the pilots. That company like the other big airlines has been run into the ground by ridiculous wages and perks by Unions.

Jet blues captains make about 120K a year and fly nearly 70 hours a month. UAL, American, Delta captains make about 360K a year and fly 30-36 hours a month.

Do the math and you see why these tubs are failing in a new airline market where Southwest, Jet Blue, and the low cost carriers are dominating. They arent lowcost simply because they offer the cheapest fairs. They are lowcost because they have their employee wages under control.

 

[Genx87]

Originally posted by: SuperTool

Originally posted by: Genx87

Originally posted by: SuperTool

Originally posted by: Jadow
these pensions = no ownership
401k's = ownership

there's a parallel with social security. System stays as is, eventually the same thing happens with social security in 35 years. We get personal accounts, people begin to get OWNERSHIP, and control their own destiny.

Hahaha. You read too much rightwing tripe. Ownership of some stock does not give you control over your destiny. Tomorrow, that stock can tank and you have no control over that. I am all for risk taking, but with a safety net. Social Security is that safety net.

Just like tomorrow the US govt can cease to exist. It is a risk.

As for UAL, let her die already. Letting taxpayers pickup the bill is ridiculous.

Are you comparing the likelyhood of a stock market decline or a stock tanking to that of US government ceasing to exist? I'll take my chances with the US government being around.

Sure you would because it backs up your silly socialist idea that SS is a great plan.
However if the financial markets collapse I bet you 100 bucks the U.S. govt did as well.

 

[SuperTool]

Originally posted by: Darkhawk28

Originally posted by: SuperTool

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Originally posted by: SuperTool

Originally posted by: ElFenix

Originally posted by: SuperTool

SS started during the Depression precisely because all these companies had tanked. Stock markets have gone up and down, but SS is still around and hasn't defaulted. Stock price is related to profit. SS payroll taxes are related to payrolls. Company could be making very little money or losing money short term, have its stock in the gutter, and still employing a lot of people and paying a lot of payroll taxes.

there were a lot more workers per collecting person back then

and SS did absolutely nothing to ease the depresssion

It sure eased the Depression for people collecting SS.
SS is a tax on payrolls. It's related to the size of the overall economy, not just profits or short term psychology of the stock market. The stock market could halve, and there would be hardly a blimp on the payroll tax revenue. Also, putting SS money into the stock market won't solve the low worker per collecting person problem, it'll just shift it to the stock market. If there are more sellers than buyers, the market will tank. Sellers are retirees, buyers are workers. Same problem.

First SS check was issued January 31, 1940. Depression started in 1929, the economy was slowly recovering during the 30's after bottoming out in 1933, and the depression ended in 1939. So I don't think SS eased anything regarding the depression.

CsG

Well, if the first check was issued in 1930 instead of 1940, it would have eased the Depression for a lot of people. But I guess better late than never.

Roosevelt signed the SS act on August 14, 1935.
February 13, 1936 The first Public Assistance checks were mailed (5 States).

February 1936 Public assistance payments to recipients were first made with Federal participation under the Social Security Act for old-age assistance (17 States), aid to dependent children (10 States), aid to blind (9 States).

June 2, 1936 The Social Security account number, which contained no significant facts about the employee other than the State of registry, was approved by the Social Security Board.

August 17, 1936 An unemployed worker--Neils B. Ruud--in Madison, Wisconsin, received the first unemployment benefit check paid under a State law. The amount was $15.00.

November 24, 1936 Applications for Social Security account numbers (Forms SS-5) were distributed by the Post Office Department to persons who were working or expected to work in jobs covered by old-age insurance.

January 1, 1937 Workers began to acquire credits toward old-age insurance benefits. Employers and employees became subject to a tax of one percent of wages on up to $3,000 a year. Lump-sum payments were first made payable to eligible workers, their survivors or their estates. The Federal unemployment tax payable by employers of 8 or more was increased to two percent of payroll.

March 11, 1937 The Social Security Board announced approval of eight lump-sum payments since the inauguration of the Social Security Act's old-age benefits program began on January 1.

September 17, 1937 The name "Old-Age Benefit Program", which was provided for under Title II of the Social Security Act was changed to "Old-Age Insurance Program" to distinguish it from old-age benefits under the assistance program. The Bureau of Federal Old-Age Benefits became the Bureau of Old-Age Insurance.

January 1, 1940 Monthly benefits first became payable under old-age and survivor's insurance to aged retired workers and their dependents and to survivors of deceased insured workers. The Federal Old-Age and Survivors Insurance Trust Fund was established as a separate account in the United States Treasury to hold the amounts accumulated under the old-age and survivors insurance program. Basic provisions for hearing and review instituted by the Social Security Board under authority to establish procedures, hold hearings, and take testimony in relation to determination of rights to old-age and survivors insurance benefits (Office of Appeals Council).


You're both right in a way. Social Security's Old-Age Insurance wasn't paid until 1940, but the disability and unemployment portions were paid during the depression, which I'd imagine helped a bit.

Well, well, well. A misinformed conservative... What else is new?

 

[Genx87]

Originally posted by: SuperTool

Originally posted by: Darkhawk28

Originally posted by: SuperTool

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Originally posted by: SuperTool

Originally posted by: ElFenix

Originally posted by: SuperTool

SS started during the Depression precisely because all these companies had tanked. Stock markets have gone up and down, but SS is still around and hasn't defaulted. Stock price is related to profit. SS payroll taxes are related to payrolls. Company could be making very little money or losing money short term, have its stock in the gutter, and still employing a lot of people and paying a lot of payroll taxes.

there were a lot more workers per collecting person back then

and SS did absolutely nothing to ease the depresssion

It sure eased the Depression for people collecting SS.
SS is a tax on payrolls. It's related to the size of the overall economy, not just profits or short term psychology of the stock market. The stock market could halve, and there would be hardly a blimp on the payroll tax revenue. Also, putting SS money into the stock market won't solve the low worker per collecting person problem, it'll just shift it to the stock market. If there are more sellers than buyers, the market will tank. Sellers are retirees, buyers are workers. Same problem.

First SS check was issued January 31, 1940. Depression started in 1929, the economy was slowly recovering during the 30's after bottoming out in 1933, and the depression ended in 1939. So I don't think SS eased anything regarding the depression.

CsG

Well, if the first check was issued in 1930 instead of 1940, it would have eased the Depression for a lot of people. But I guess better late than never.

Roosevelt signed the SS act on August 14, 1935.
February 13, 1936 The first Public Assistance checks were mailed (5 States).

February 1936 Public assistance payments to recipients were first made with Federal participation under the Social Security Act for old-age assistance (17 States), aid to dependent children (10 States), aid to blind (9 States).

June 2, 1936 The Social Security account number, which contained no significant facts about the employee other than the State of registry, was approved by the Social Security Board.

August 17, 1936 An unemployed worker--Neils B. Ruud--in Madison, Wisconsin, received the first unemployment benefit check paid under a State law. The amount was $15.00.

November 24, 1936 Applications for Social Security account numbers (Forms SS-5) were distributed by the Post Office Department to persons who were working or expected to work in jobs covered by old-age insurance.

January 1, 1937 Workers began to acquire credits toward old-age insurance benefits. Employers and employees became subject to a tax of one percent of wages on up to $3,000 a year. Lump-sum payments were first made payable to eligible workers, their survivors or their estates. The Federal unemployment tax payable by employers of 8 or more was increased to two percent of payroll.

March 11, 1937 The Social Security Board announced approval of eight lump-sum payments since the inauguration of the Social Security Act's old-age benefits program began on January 1.

September 17, 1937 The name "Old-Age Benefit Program", which was provided for under Title II of the Social Security Act was changed to "Old-Age Insurance Program" to distinguish it from old-age benefits under the assistance program. The Bureau of Federal Old-Age Benefits became the Bureau of Old-Age Insurance.

January 1, 1940 Monthly benefits first became payable under old-age and survivor's insurance to aged retired workers and their dependents and to survivors of deceased insured workers. The Federal Old-Age and Survivors Insurance Trust Fund was established as a separate account in the United States Treasury to hold the amounts accumulated under the old-age and survivors insurance program. Basic provisions for hearing and review instituted by the Social Security Board under authority to establish procedures, hold hearings, and take testimony in relation to determination of rights to old-age and survivors insurance benefits (Office of Appeals Council).


You're both right in a way. Social Security's Old-Age Insurance wasn't paid until 1940, but the disability and unemployment portions were paid during the depression, which I'd imagine helped a bit.

Well, well, well. A misinformed conservative... What else is new?

Did it really help? Unemployment in 1940 was still at 20%.

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: SuperTool

Originally posted by: Darkhawk28

Originally posted by: SuperTool

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Originally posted by: SuperTool

Originally posted by: ElFenix

Originally posted by: SuperTool

SS started during the Depression precisely because all these companies had tanked. Stock markets have gone up and down, but SS is still around and hasn't defaulted. Stock price is related to profit. SS payroll taxes are related to payrolls. Company could be making very little money or losing money short term, have its stock in the gutter, and still employing a lot of people and paying a lot of payroll taxes.

there were a lot more workers per collecting person back then

and SS did absolutely nothing to ease the depresssion

It sure eased the Depression for people collecting SS.
SS is a tax on payrolls. It's related to the size of the overall economy, not just profits or short term psychology of the stock market. The stock market could halve, and there would be hardly a blimp on the payroll tax revenue. Also, putting SS money into the stock market won't solve the low worker per collecting person problem, it'll just shift it to the stock market. If there are more sellers than buyers, the market will tank. Sellers are retirees, buyers are workers. Same problem.

First SS check was issued January 31, 1940. Depression started in 1929, the economy was slowly recovering during the 30's after bottoming out in 1933, and the depression ended in 1939. So I don't think SS eased anything regarding the depression.

CsG

Well, if the first check was issued in 1930 instead of 1940, it would have eased the Depression for a lot of people. But I guess better late than never.

Roosevelt signed the SS act on August 14, 1935.
February 13, 1936 The first Public Assistance checks were mailed (5 States).

February 1936 Public assistance payments to recipients were first made with Federal participation under the Social Security Act for old-age assistance (17 States), aid to dependent children (10 States), aid to blind (9 States).

June 2, 1936 The Social Security account number, which contained no significant facts about the employee other than the State of registry, was approved by the Social Security Board.

August 17, 1936 An unemployed worker--Neils B. Ruud--in Madison, Wisconsin, received the first unemployment benefit check paid under a State law. The amount was $15.00.

November 24, 1936 Applications for Social Security account numbers (Forms SS-5) were distributed by the Post Office Department to persons who were working or expected to work in jobs covered by old-age insurance.

January 1, 1937 Workers began to acquire credits toward old-age insurance benefits. Employers and employees became subject to a tax of one percent of wages on up to $3,000 a year. Lump-sum payments were first made payable to eligible workers, their survivors or their estates. The Federal unemployment tax payable by employers of 8 or more was increased to two percent of payroll.

March 11, 1937 The Social Security Board announced approval of eight lump-sum payments since the inauguration of the Social Security Act's old-age benefits program began on January 1.

September 17, 1937 The name "Old-Age Benefit Program", which was provided for under Title II of the Social Security Act was changed to "Old-Age Insurance Program" to distinguish it from old-age benefits under the assistance program. The Bureau of Federal Old-Age Benefits became the Bureau of Old-Age Insurance.

January 1, 1940 Monthly benefits first became payable under old-age and survivor's insurance to aged retired workers and their dependents and to survivors of deceased insured workers. The Federal Old-Age and Survivors Insurance Trust Fund was established as a separate account in the United States Treasury to hold the amounts accumulated under the old-age and survivors insurance program. Basic provisions for hearing and review instituted by the Social Security Board under authority to establish procedures, hold hearings, and take testimony in relation to determination of rights to old-age and survivors insurance benefits (Office of Appeals Council).


You're both right in a way. Social Security's Old-Age Insurance wasn't paid until 1940, but the disability and unemployment portions were paid during the depression, which I'd imagine helped a bit.

Well, well, well. A misinformed conservative... What else is new?

Well well well - A misinformed socialist - whodda thunk it. The first check was infact issued Jan 31 1940... but what does the SSA know... Learn some history.

Miss Fuller's claim was the first one on the first Certification List and so the first Social Security check, check number 00-000-001, was issued to Ida May Fuller in the amount of $22.54 and dated January 31, 1940.

CsG

 

[Zebo]

Originally posted by: Ferocious
click

Why aren't their salaries based on the free market?

A lot of Harvard MBA grads could probably run that company into the ground just as easily without the BONUSES.

:|

You're paid what you're worth, always, no exceptions. Proof is that someone pays it. And that someone has infinity more justifcation in deterining value than you since they are the ones paying it.

 

[Zebo]

Originally posted by: alent1234

Originally posted by: SuperTool

Originally posted by: Jadow
where has ANYONE other than scaremongers who are against personal accounts, ever mentioned that you could own "one stock" under ANY proposal for SS? The RISKIEST investment allowed would be an S&P Index fund, which is made up of the 500 largest companies in the country.

And most options would call for a mix of stock and bond index funds. So take your fraudulent "one stock" arguement that I've heard a hundred times and shove it.

Stock markets go up and down just like stocks do. It's not a fraudulent arguement by any means. You could have a bear market that will reduce everyone's retirement savings.

the people who started 401k's in stocks in the 1970's are still way ahead after the bubble popping than fixed income investments. Only way fixed income will beat stocks is if interest rates go up to where they were when carter was president. And that's only if you dump your present fixed income investments, go to all cash and then buy the high rate investments that pay more than inflation.

My 401k will be worth $2 million at 6% per year at my current contribution rates. At 11% a year it's over $6 million. Best thing is that it's real cash in the bank under my name and will be given to my wife in case I die. I can change employers, they can go bankrupt I don't care. The money is diversified and in my name. I can cash it out at any time if I want to buy a Lexus.

LOL Good luck with that bro.🙂 I've see mines value stay at exactly the same value since 2000 AND I contribute over $1800 a month with the company match. That's five years of dog sh1t when I've made much more controlling my own destinty though private deals.

I have a little theory on the whole historical stock market "rise", take it for what it's worth. I'm not trained at all just read lots of Buffet and other succesful people works hoping some will rub off on me.🙂😛

Pessimist in me says stock market is already way over valued sicne the 1970's.. has'nt moved in ~6yrs in real terms..P/E ratios are still historically insanly high... the last big jump in the market was during the 80's-90s when all those new annuity funds were created and were all the rage...all traded and shifted from more secure pensions and bonds in the market which made it explode...


The facts are DOW did'nt move at all from 1965-1980. That's 15 years you could be SOL, not making a dime on your investment. Has'nt moved at all the last 6-7. IMO all the gains, and overvalued market we have today is from 401(k)tax code that was enacted in 1981... Take a look at the DJ historical charts, notice the jump post 1980... once all those funds were vested and equilibrium was reached, like five/six years ago we are leveling out again like back in the 60-80's. When no ones buying stock stock does'nt move up... Where's that NEW money gonna come from to percipitate a rise in share price? Why people going to buy? These companies sure as hell don't pay dividens anymore and few who do it's not at a % rate worth buying thier junk. Think about that.

 

[NJDevil]

Originally posted by: glenn1

Stock markets go up and down just like stocks do. It's not a fraudulent arguement by any means. You could have a bear market that will reduce everyone's retirement savings.

It depends on what your timeframe is. In the short term you are of course correct. Over the longer term, "safer" investments are actually worse than stocks because of lost opportunity cost and the fact that these asset classes sometimes don't even keep pace with inflation. As with all matters financial, you can't give a cookie cutter answer that applies to everyone.

Markets often follow 5-10 year (if not more) trends. Imagine retiring at the end of a 10 year down trend, that wouldn't be very fun would it.

 

[Ozoned]

Originally posted by: Zebo
I've see mines value stay at exactly the same value since 2000 AND I contribute over $1800 a month with the company match.

I certainly hope that you have requested that they use lubricant to make it less painful for you.

 

[miketheidiot]

Originally posted by: Jadow
these pensions = no ownership
401k's = ownership

there's a parallel with social security. System stays as is, eventually the same thing happens with social security in 35 years. We get personal accounts, people begin to get OWNERSHIP, and control their own destiny.

so i guess legal contracts mean nothing?