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.
haven't we been over this? if the employees were smart, they wouldn't count on the pension as part of their retirement unless it was part of the PBGC....but let's keep revisiting this scenario anyways.
arent all pensions part of the pbgc?
are you saying that public employees shouldnt count on getting their pensions? that would be nice.
when someone suggests that promises were made to public workers and they should be lived up to, i just want to see if they feel public workers are entitled to a better deal than private sector workers.
Last edited by CaptainNJ; 03-01-2011 at 09:21 AM..
Not ignored, I just didnt think it's even worth a discussion. So by your logic, why not write a blank check and pay all the failing/bankrupted companies' employees because they were also PROMISED!!! big bonus/stock options, pension and so on when they joined. In case you didnt know, our state is having major financial problems it's probably already bankrupt if it was a private company, so your argument is under these dismal balance sheets we should payout huge sum of money to its employees and further push the state into bankruptcy?
Think about that for a min.
I have my own company stock plan/pension whatever you call it, it was also promised to me when i joined. But i have no illusion if the company goes bankrupt or in failing state all of that will be gone. It's called COMMON SENSE. To protect myself, i invest my own money in 401k, rentals etc.... for my retirement. if you decide not do that and now find yourself in a bad situation, there is noone but yourself to blame.
If the state is healthy and has money, noone would even argue about paying the pensions. But that's not the case, everyone suffers why should the public sector get special treatment especially considering it's by their own mismanagement that got us into this situation.
The sense of entitlement and ever expanding dependency on a welfare state in this country nowdays are disturbing.
ok let's go over this again.
state workers are paid by the state, which is us, the taxpayers. whereas, a private company is paid by the owners (partners, shareholders, management...whatever you'd like to call them).
the people who pay the state workers haven't been paying them part of their compensation for 17 years (because they needed to set it aside, to pay at a future date). let's say that your company did the same thing. they took your 401k contributions, and pocketed it in the partners' pockets, and said...we'll make sure it's there when you turn 59.5, we promise. then, when you turn 59.5, it's not there. well, the partners bought second homes using all that extra money they had in the meantime....and now, you're owed your 401k money but it's not there, because they didn't put it there.
that's all good in your book right, because now, the owners....they just simply don't have enough money to pay you. so no biggie right?
are you saying that public employees shouldnt count on getting their pensions? that would be nice.
when someone suggests that promises were made to public workers and they should be lived up to, i just want to see if they feel public workers are entitled to a better deal than private sector workers.
from what i was reading online, it's "insurance", and it costs $x per employee. i didn't see anything saying they are required to have this, so i assumed that some pensions aren't part of it?
state workers are paid by the state, which is us, the taxpayers. whereas, a private company is paid by the owners (partners, shareholders, management...whatever you'd like to call them).
the people who pay the state workers haven't been paying them part of their compensation for 17 years (because they needed to set it aside, to pay at a future date). let's say that your company did the same thing. they took your 401k contributions, and pocketed it in the partners' pockets, and said...we'll make sure it's there when you turn 59.5, we promise. then, when you turn 59.5, it's not there. well, the partners bought second homes using all that extra money they had in the meantime....and now, you're owed your 401k money but it's not there, because they didn't put it there.
that's all good in your book right, because now, the owners....they just simply don't have enough money to pay you. so no biggie right?
plus if gagaliya thinks for one minute private sector employees aren't acting "entitled" and "whiny" and haven't filed MEGA lawsuits over misuse of funds and "changing the game", he's sorely mistaken.
from what i was reading online, it's "insurance", and it costs $x per employee. i didn't see anything saying they are required to have this, so i assumed that some pensions aren't part of it?
ill check but i believe its required. i know there are certain rules pensions must follow in order to get favorable tax treatment. id expect that to be required. hmm it says on the web site they insure private plans, so now i have to research the deal with public plans.
A: PBGC insures defined benefit plans, the type that promise to pay a specific monthly benefit at retirement. PBGC does not insure retirement plans that do not promise specific benefit amounts ("defined contribution plans"), such as profit-sharing or 401(k) plans.
These FAQs cover only single-employer plans, which are normally sponsored by an individual company for the benefit of its workers. Another PBGC program insures multiemployer plans covering unionized workers of non-related employers in the same industry, such as trucking or construction.
A: The easiest way is to ask your employer or plan administrator for a copy of the "Summary Plan Description," or SPD. The SPD will state whether your plan is covered by the PBGC program. Although PBGC insures most defined benefit plans, some are not covered. For example, plans offered by "professional service employers" (such as doctors and lawyers) with fewer than 26 employees, by church groups, or by federal, state or local governments usually are not insured.
seems like the public pensions dont have the same funding requirements and part of that is because of the insurance requirements for private plans. so im not sure what the mechanism is if a public pension becomes insolvent. i guess a bailout. so maybe they could get stuck with nothing.
seems like the public pensions dont have the same funding requirements and part of that is because of the insurance requirements for private plans. so im not sure what the mechanism is if a public pension becomes insolvent. i guess a bailout. so maybe they could get stuck with nothing.
well, since the state insures a life insurance company if it goes bankrupt, so that you and i still collect on our policy, and if the PBGC is essentially the government insuring pensions, up to a certain point....why would the PBGC insure a state or government pension....the state or government should be taking care of it ahead of time, and if PBGC had to step in because the state didn't fund it, wouldn't that basically just being tax dollars insuring tax dollars? making lots of assumptions here of course.
well, since the state insures a life insurance company if it goes bankrupt, so that you and i still collect on our policy, and if the PBGC is essentially the government insuring pensions, up to a certain point....why would the PBGC insure a state or government pension....the state or government should be taking care of it ahead of time, and if PBGC had to step in because the state didn't fund it, wouldn't that basically just being tax dollars insuring tax dollars? making lots of assumptions here of course.
but the pbgc acts like an insurance company collecting premiums and maintaining money on hand to pay out "claims." in the absence of that for public pensions, i guess the idea is to turn directly to the general fund. that could be a problem since there is nothing but IOU's in there.
state workers are paid by the state, which is us, the taxpayers. whereas, a private company is paid by the owners (partners, shareholders, management...whatever you'd like to call them).
the people who pay the state workers haven't been paying them part of their compensation for 17 years (because they needed to set it aside, to pay at a future date). let's say that your company did the same thing. they took your 401k contributions, and pocketed it in the partners' pockets, and said...we'll make sure it's there when you turn 59.5, we promise. then, when you turn 59.5, it's not there. well, the partners bought second homes using all that extra money they had in the meantime....and now, you're owed your 401k money but it's not there, because they didn't put it there.
that's all good in your book right, because now, the owners....they just simply don't have enough money to pay you. so no biggie right?
It's like talking to a brick wall, if i put my money into 401k and the company took it away yes that's unacceptable but if the money was funded by company and now it's failing/in bankruptcy then no i wont feel entitled to ask the taxpayer to give them back to me.
Here i will put in an example a 5 yearold will understand:
I put $1 into my retirement, the company matches it with $30 (and that's not even an exaggeration despite how ridiculous the ratio are)
After 10 years, I have contributed $40k, the company funded $1.2mil. Now if the company is on the brink of bankruptcy with no money. It is wrong to take away my $40k, but they have every right to change that 1.2mil distribution to try stay solvent.
In private sector if the company is not doing well, salary is cut, bonuses are cut, everything is cut to make the company viable, if you dont like it, quit. Why should state be any different It's precisely this entitlement that drove it close to bankruptcy and cost everyone's tax to skyrocket.
It's like talking to a brick wall, if i put my money into 401k and the company took it away yes that's unacceptable but if the money was funded by company and now it's failing/in bankruptcy then no i wont feel entitled to ask the taxpayer to give them back to me.
The tax payers were always going to be paying the pension.
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.
