What do you guys think about the proposed Social Security amendment?

[Toad]

If they remove the defined benefit plans and replace them with 401k's, the amount the company contributed to the DB plan should also be contributed to the 401k by the company.

As I said, pension benefits are an integral part of compensation. If they want to remove them, compensation has to rise in some form. 401k is fine......... as long as they contribute an amount equal to the old DB.

[JB88]

Originally posted by Toad
The PBGC is a joke.

After 30+ years in commercial aviation as a pilot, pensions at Eastern, Trump and US Air, my brother will retire in October.

PBGC will give him $26,000 a year. That's if PBGC doesn't go bankrupt on him.  

Pensions EVERYWHERE should be in the employee's own name and they should transfer if the employee changes jobs or companies.

Pension benefits are benefits you EARN. They are part of your compensation package and they should belong to you.

Sadly, that's not the way it works.

i couldnt agree with you more.

corporations have a nasty habit of letting these things go when its convenient for the bottom line.

happens every day.

[Shamus]

Originally posted by Toad
If they remove the defined benefit plans and replace them with 401k's, the amount the company contributed to the DB plan should also be contributed to the 401k by the company.

As I said, pension benefits are an integral part of compensation. If they want to remove them, compensation has to rise in some form. 401k is fine......... as long as they contribute an amount equal to the old DB.

Well if the companies could afford to do that then they could afford to properly fund the plan in the first place.

There are only so many dollars available, in the neverending battle between stockholder and employee, the pendelum has swung in favor of the  stockholder currently, not a bad thing really the profits get reinvested to provide more jobs.

shamus

[Shamus]

At least thats what they say.

shamus

[lazs2]

for you guys that think that SS is gointg bankrupt because people are living longer..

Do you know what the average age of a person recieving any kind of payment from SS today is?   25 years ago?   50 years ago?   The average lifespan hasn't changed that much.

You can make SS work by simply raising the age people are eligable.   If you keep people working to age 80 say, you can payu for all the people who don't pay in at all and help fund the governments general fund with all the excess.

does anyone here think that if a 20 year old put half what he is contributing to SS into a 401k or other plan that he would not be able to retire at 50 with a very good income?

lazs

[Toad]

Originally posted by Shamus
Well if the companies could afford to do that then they could afford to properly fund the plan in the first place.

There are only so many dollars available,

shamus

Sorry, mate, I gotta call Bullshirt on this one too.

When a guy works for say.... Eastern... for 20+ years and throughout that career the company makes deposits into a pension plan for him, the amount contributed is easily tabulated. In fact, it MUST Be tabulated to comply with Federal rules.

During this time at the recurring contract negotiations, the company ALWAYS considers these pension costs as an integral part of the employee's compensation.

That bears repeating:

The company ALWAYS considers these pension costs as an integral part of the employee's compensation.

In other words, they tell the employee something like "yes, you're paid less than the pilots at XXXX airline but you have to consider the whole compensation package. We give you $ xxxx more in medical and we give you $xxxx in pension benefits that pilots at XXXX airline don't get."

It is understood by BOTH sides that Pension Benefits are part of an employees direct compensation and that regular payments will be made into the pension fund on the employee's behalf.

However, if the pension payments are not made into an account IN THE EMPLOYEE'S OWN NAME then the corporate raiders and bankruptcy judges feel free to steal... yes STEAL... this money from the employees.

Many companies do have retirement "in the employees name". This precludes the theft of earned pension benefits by the crooks that supervise the breakup of companies. My airline had "partial" retirement in our own name. Other airlines had full retirement in your own name.

It should be the law of the land that ALL pension benefits are in the employees name and this doesn't have to mean ONLY 401k plans. It's been done with regular defined benefit / defined contribution plans as well.

Again, those pension benefits are EARNED. They belong to the employee. It's clearly THEFT when they are given to anyone but the employee.

[slimm50]

Originally posted by wombatt
And besides what the hell is so wrong with people living longer?
And safe to say someone gotta take care of them and as they have paid in all those years I say they are entitled.

I agree. It's sad though that too many families have to have two wage earners, and so few have the time, resources or the desire anymore to take care of their own family members.

[Shamus]

Originally posted by Toad


However, if the pension payments are not made into an account IN THE EMPLOYEE'S OWN NAME then the corporate raiders and bankruptcy judges feel free to steal... yes STEAL... this money from the employees.

I would agree with you on this point.

Dont forget that most private sector employee are not covered by contract that requires specific contrabutions  made based an a persons induvidual compensation to a defined benifit plan, there is a promise of x% of annual wage times years of service.

The plan is funded on the whole using actuarial tables based on a projected return of investment, a real common tactic is to be very optimistic on returns to allow less funding of the plan, when those returns don't happen we get back to my point about "where do the dollars come from" to fund the plan.

I'm sure that you know a lot more about the specifics of the airline pension plans than I do. If your point is to talk about them, I defer to your knowledge.

shamus

[Toad]

However the plan is set up, defined benefit, defined contribution, or " x% of annual wage times years of service" all of those companies have to report "the number" to the Feds for tax and other purposes.

So, there is a "number" that relates to each and every employee. That amount is part of their wages and should be in a movable account in the employees name.

If it's the " x% of annual wage times years of service" based on actuarial tables based on a projected return of investment, the investment specified should be deposited into whatever account IN THE EMPLOYEES name. Then, even if the return on investment, proves less than the "optimistic estimate", the employee will still have something.

The Feds shouldn't let these crooks get away with routine underfunding for multiple years in a row, either.

[Tumor]

Every time I see ole' Granny and Grampy Kanudleheuser lumbering along in their nice new Caddy... I wonder how much of their SS check is covering the car payment.

Ya... I say privatize the whole freekin thing.

[Tumor]

Originally posted by Silat
Im a capitalist. But private enterprise wants one thing and one thing only.
they want YOUR MONEY.They dont give a care about your future..........I want my government to handle this.

Hiya Silat!!

Say hi the BW'rs for me