U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Retirement
Please register to participate in our discussions with 1.5 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.
Jump to a detailed profile or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Business Search - 14 Million verified businesses
Search for:  near: 
Reply Start New Thread
Unread 04-09-2010, 08:13 AM
22,458 posts, read 16,969,185 times
Reputation: 5058
Originally Posted by 58robbo View Post
i probably didn't get my point across properly in the op, but what i really wanted to know is how behaviour might be different if we didn't have the "bailer-outer-in-chief". if that was the case would more or less people have a plan b and c? would we be more or less inclined to spread out our risk? (when i say spread out our risk i'm not only referring to dollar income related investments)
You are asking a hypothetical question to people who have a variety of different plans based on a variety of different contribution mechanisms. Considering the variety of pension plans and the many different complexities it can be difficult to answer the hypothetical in a RETIREMENT forum. The threat to most public pensions from the recipient perspective is long term and folks in a retirement mode are of a different mindset than those in a long term planning mode.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

Unread 04-09-2010, 12:27 PM
Location: Exeter, NH
4,395 posts, read 1,735,341 times
Reputation: 3730
Default Pensions can be Robbed Anyway

We were fully vested in the pension plan when our 15,000-employee company underwent a phony "change of control." This allowed the robber-baron CEO to take the over $1 billion pension plan (about 75% of last 5 years average pay for life) and replace it with a cash settlement equal to about half a years pay (at that time). The change of control never actually took place, but the CEO had the lawyers write the papers so that it was "considered" a change of control upon vote to accept the merger by the shareholders. The CEO then sabotaged the merger, as he had always intended. Bye-Bye, retirement security. All perfectly legal.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply

Over $74,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Retirement
Similar Threads

All times are GMT -6. The time now is 10:35 PM.

2005-2014, Advameg, Inc.

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25 - Top