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.
People have no idea how much they are paying for the advice they are getting.
You can't really say that. If you were GM management, that's gone. If you retired with an airline, you are on the government plan so that instead of being able to eat out once or twice a month, you get to carry out some hamburgers and fries.
If you worked in Detroit, so far, your pension hasn't been cut, but the funding is still insolvent. Most states have insolvent pension funds that assume a hopeless 8% return, but in reality ... not so good. If I was a pensioner in Detroit - only ten years in or so - I would fear for they payments when I passed 70. If you spent your working life their and you are in your 50's or 40's it's worse. Lots of Ohio, Indiana, et. al. cities just haven't hit the fan yet. The states are less than a generation from a serious failure.
I don't know about GM, but I know it was pretty common practice for Eastman-Kodak employees in my hometown to take a lump sum payment - many didn't think they would live very long. I think the pension eventually went belly up, but the lump sum guys weren't just simply a loss.
One persistent feature of the conservative attack on Social Security, and especially on the emerging campaign to increase benefits, is the notion that the typical American will do just fine in retirement just as it is.
Andrew G. Biggs of the pro-business American Enterprise Institute has been especially vocal on the topic in recent weeks, with articles in the Wall Street Journal, Washington Post and Forbes appearing all since just before Christmas. The pieces overlap in their treatment of the theme, which is succinctly defined by the headline in the Journal: "New Evidence on the Phony 'Retirement Crisis.'"
I never read the LA times for a reason. I think it laid off and declared bankruptcy recently. You can only read so much BS, let alone have to pay to read BS stuff. 75 editorial staffs were laid off, IIRC.
I don't know about GM, but I know it was pretty common practice for Eastman-Kodak employees in my hometown to take a lump sum payment - many didn't think they would live very long. I think the pension eventually went belly up, but the lump sum guys weren't just simply a loss.
Often, employees take the lump sum as it is a great way to purchase those large ticket items that they did not save for. For example, when Procter & Gamble spun off their orange juice assets about 15 years ago, the local Florida Ford dealership experienced a mini boom.
As for Kodak, the total pension liability was 86% covered with $4.9B in assets to cover $5.6b in benefits.
I never read the LA times for a reason. I think it laid off and declared bankruptcy recently. You can only read so much BS, let alone have to pay to read BS stuff. 75 editorial staffs were laid off, IIRC.
Ummm not sure about paying since I read online for free. As far as reading BS is that your summation after reading the link? The bankruptcy was with their parent company and they came out of that in 2012. Am I missing something more current? If so please link so I can put all in perspective. Isn't all of this more about the message and not the messenger?
Quote:
One persistent feature of the conservative attack on Social Security, and especially on the emerging campaign to increase benefits, is the notion that the typical American will do just fine in retirement just as it is.
Andrew G. Biggs of the pro-business American Enterprise Institute has been especially vocal on the topic in recent weeks, with articles in the Wall Street Journal, Washington Post and Forbes appearing all since just before Christmas. The pieces overlap in their treatment of the theme, which is succinctly defined by the headline in the Journal: "New Evidence on the Phony 'Retirement Crisis.'"
How can conservatives say that with straight faces when statistics say otherwise?
I have to shake my head at the idea of a campaign to increase Social Security benefits. The real issue is how to sustain the current benefits for the long run. So where will the funding come from in order to increase the benefits? Such talk is pandering to the lowest common denominator, and it only encourages those who think they should be guaranteed the lifestyle of their choosing for as long as they live.
And the story always ends the same way...only government can save you from yourself.
This is more like 'only big government can save you from small government'.
If local government allowed low earners to buy small houses, low earners would have paid-off homes in retirement and thus would not be destitute living on only Social Security.
I have to shake my head at the idea of a campaign to increase Social Security benefits. The real issue is how to sustain the current benefits for the long run. So where will the funding come from in order to increase the benefits? Such talk is pandering to the lowest common denominator, and it only encourages those who think they should be guaranteed the lifestyle of their choosing for as long as they live.
If those people had been allowed the lifestyle of owning a small home, they would already be guaranteed that lifestyle as along as they live.
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.
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.
