Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I am extremely sorry you lost your pension; however, the purpose of unionizing is to get bargaining strength in numbers, just as coop purchasing is buying in large numbers for a competitive edge.
Instead of your lack of empathy for union workers, why not place blame where it belongs: at the top.
When your pension was cut, what happened to the executive managers? Are they still living high on the hog?
Did they get bonuses for gutting your pension? Did they get golden handshakes and early retirement? Are they now taking world cruises with the money that could have paid for pensions instead?
How about the bigwigs in the unions? Conveniently ignoring their bloated salaries?
Because it's his. In reality, your's could be eliminated altogether, since it is his.
Many Pensions have a Dual Option, (Life Only), Both of your life's 100%, Life+75% Life+50% .. Each has different "Costs". They calculate the revised monthly payment using the age/percent of both people thru actuarial tables.
Not sure what the current law is, But the spouse has to sign-off on anything other then the default.
I think my Pension is Dual Life 100%, so if you want to elect anything other then that the Spouse/Partner need to acknowledge and sign-off on it.
Because it's "his" pension. He apparently has a survivorship option which gives you half. You are LUCKY. It could be nothing. If you die, his remains the same because it's his pension.
Yes, it's his pension. You only washed and ironed his clothes for work, and probably packed his lunch. You took care of the kids every day, taking them back and forth to school, doctors, dentists, etc. It was you that cooked Christmas and Thanksgiving dinner, and did all the Christmas shopping. You cleaned the house, washed the curtains, and fed the pets. You might have taken care of his mom in old age.
He got out of the house every day, and left the drudgery to you. I bet if there was an inheritance from your family he helped you spend it.
Why would you expect a retirement for household work? Silly thought.
On the other hand, my husband says that everything we own is shared. He would never call a pension his - it's ours.
I've read some other comments. Future payouts are in reality just an estimate, based on what happens with the investments they make. It also depends on how many people remain in the pension fund. I saw one person complain that their pension had been cut when the spouse died. In my mothers case, the pension ended when my dad died. That's how he set it up. In my case, I can set it up just for me, or for us as a couple. If it is a couple, the payout is significantly reduced. So if some of you feel cheated by your pension fund, your wrath my be displaced.
It certainly would be bad news for those receiving pensions from that private company/union pension plan. Individual pain is always sorry to hear about.
The article says,
That's because the Central States Pension fund is one of the biggest in the country and if it fails, it could also wipe out the government's pension insurance fund, the Pension Benefits Guarantee Corporation.
Although companies paid into the PBGC, they didn't pay enough to cover the large amounts of default in these private pension funds. Then it would both wipe out all Pension Guarantees for other private pensions, and put the tax payer on the hook. This is why the law now allows it under certain circumstances. There is no reason to punish those (tax payers) that had nothing to do with it. The federal govt actually went pretty far with the PBGC to help protect the small number of defaults they planned for (which was private companies/union problem). Simply a sad situation, but it should not be made worse for tax payers.
Part of the problem (not entirely), is the low interest rate environment of the last 7-8 years. Pension funds invest money expecting some rate of return to pay annuities/pensions. If the actual rate of return is too low, it pays more than it earns (and takes in from current worker's contributions). Large portions of pension plan investments are in "safe" items like bonds, which are suffering from low interest rates. Also, as other's have said, the lack of people paying in is another part of the problem.
Okay.
Quote:
Originally Posted by augiedogie
In my mothers case, the pension ended when my dad died.
Each of the different pension plans handle survivor benefits differently.
My grandfather took a slightly lower pension benefit, but my grandmother got 50% of that when he died at 87, which was good, because she lived another 11 years.
Women could go to work, and leave the men at home to do the "no retirement" housework.
Then it would be the women's retirement, and only leave half to the husband on their death. Bet things would change quick!
Nope. I would have loved for my children's father to be a stay-at-home dad. But he wouldn't even agree to watch the kids for a few weekends every month. I would have been much happier had I been given the opportunity to work with grown ups !
He is paying extra out of that pension for that annuity for survivorship. If you die he can actually get more by sending in your death certificate and have them stop taking that payment out. It is his pension that he earned. You didn't earn it.
That's not necessarily true. It all depends on the Plan's provisions. In the public sector retirement I administered, that wasn't the case.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.