| |
 |
|
| Science Forum Index » Economy Forum » Question about Unfunded Pension Obligations (UPO) |
|
Page 1 of 2 Goto page 1, 2 Next |
|
| Author |
Message |
| Brablo |
 Posted: Mon Oct 10, 2005 3:52 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
what are the ramifications of an upo on a corporation's balance sheet?
why does the corporation make a contractual obligation to its employees
on their pensions (defined-benefits plan)? finally, it just seems
sleezy to me that corporations would rescind on their agreement to fund
a pension for their employees.
in the case of some of these big companies (i think gmc is one of
them),they made huge promises to give their employees pensions, but
then they later rescinded. can a lawsuit follow? |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Guest |
| Posted: Tue Oct 11, 2005 12:36 pm |
|
|
|
|
On 10 Oct 2005 14:52:29 -0700, "Brablo" <gestureofrespect@yahoo.com>
wrote:
[quote:b4ea227ebc]what are the ramifications of an upo on a corporation's balance sheet?
why does the corporation make a contractual obligation to its employees
on their pensions (defined-benefits plan)? finally, it just seems
sleezy to me that corporations would rescind on their agreement to fund
a pension for their employees.
in the case of some of these big companies (i think gmc is one of
them),they made huge promises to give their employees pensions, but
then they later rescinded. can a lawsuit follow?
[/quote:b4ea227ebc]
IMHO ALL OF THE BIG FOUR WILL default on pensions and the taxpayers
will pick up the bill. This will lead more and more folks to demand
the same level of benefits if the taxpayers pick up enough of them.
The point is that the World no longer seems to believe in morals where
money is concerned. I have been told that the super rich fudge on
payment as long as they can. Mmillions have gone through this before
and lost pensions. Wht should a family who did not belong to a union
and saved for their own retirement pick up the check?
"Trust no Man" |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Mason A. Clark |
| Posted: Tue Oct 11, 2005 1:29 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
Outlaw *all* private pension plans. Social Security is very
efficient and dependable.
Mason C |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Guest |
| Posted: Tue Oct 11, 2005 1:34 pm |
|
|
|
|
Mason A. Clark
Outlaw *all* private pension plans. Social Security is very
efficient and dependable.
LK
Dependable for what? You can't live on it. Efficient? It depends on a
large labor force to pay for a smaller retired labor force, problem is
that the large labor force is growing smaller, the retired labor force
is growing bigger. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Straydog |
| Posted: Tue Oct 11, 2005 1:36 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
Good comments below...FYI.
On Tue, 11 Oct 2005, eighter7@ev1net.net wrote:
[quote:654c798dd3]On 10 Oct 2005 14:52:29 -0700, "Brablo" <gestureofrespect@yahoo.com
wrote:
what are the ramifications of an upo on a corporation's balance sheet?
why does the corporation make a contractual obligation to its employees
on their pensions (defined-benefits plan)? finally, it just seems
sleezy to me that corporations would rescind on their agreement to fund
a pension for their employees.
in the case of some of these big companies (i think gmc is one of
them),they made huge promises to give their employees pensions, but
then they later rescinded. can a lawsuit follow?
IMHO ALL OF THE BIG FOUR WILL default on pensions and the taxpayers
will pick up the bill. This will lead more and more folks to demand
the same level of benefits if the taxpayers pick up enough of them.
The point is that the World no longer seems to believe in morals where
money is concerned. I have been told that the super rich fudge on
payment as long as they can. Mmillions have gone through this before
and lost pensions. Wht should a family who did not belong to a union
and saved for their own retirement pick up the check?
"Trust no Man"
[/quote:654c798dd3] |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| ynotssor |
| Posted: Tue Oct 11, 2005 1:38 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
<Lawyerkill@aol.com> wrote in message
news:1129059257.774060.302870@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com
[quote:c93479a261]Dependable for what? You can't live on it. Efficient? It depends on a
large labor force to pay for a smaller retired labor force, problem is
that the large labor force is growing smaller, the retired labor force
is growing bigger.
[/quote:c93479a261]
Nominated for "Understatement of the Year" award. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Guest |
| Posted: Wed Oct 12, 2005 6:41 am |
|
|
|
|
Straydog wrote:
[quote:3d0040904c]Good comments below...FYI.
On Tue, 11 Oct 2005, eighter7@ev1net.net wrote:
On 10 Oct 2005 14:52:29 -0700, "Brablo" <gestureofrespect@yahoo.com
wrote:
what are the ramifications of an upo on a corporation's balance sheet?
why does the corporation make a contractual obligation to its employees
on their pensions (defined-benefits plan)? finally, it just seems
sleezy to me that corporations would rescind on their agreement to fund
a pension for their employees.
in the case of some of these big companies (i think gmc is one of
them),they made huge promises to give their employees pensions, but
then they later rescinded. can a lawsuit follow?
IMHO ALL OF THE BIG FOUR WILL default on pensions and the taxpayers
will pick up the bill. This will lead more and more folks to demand
the same level of benefits if the taxpayers pick up enough of them.
The point is that the World no longer seems to believe in morals where
money is concerned. I have been told that the super rich fudge on
payment as long as they can. Mmillions have gone through this before
and lost pensions. Wht should a family who did not belong to a union
and saved for their own retirement pick up the check?
[/quote:3d0040904c]
That's not all. Read the following about pension funds and it
should make your blood boil.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/9622990/site/newsweek/
Cheers,
Russell |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Straydog |
| Posted: Wed Oct 12, 2005 7:07 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On Wed, 12 Oct 2005, Russell.Martin@wdn.com wrote:
[quote:263b2d2720]Straydog wrote:
Good comments below...FYI.
On Tue, 11 Oct 2005, eighter7@ev1net.net wrote:
On 10 Oct 2005 14:52:29 -0700, "Brablo" <gestureofrespect@yahoo.com
wrote:
what are the ramifications of an upo on a corporation's balance sheet?
why does the corporation make a contractual obligation to its employees
on their pensions (defined-benefits plan)? finally, it just seems
sleezy to me that corporations would rescind on their agreement to fund
a pension for their employees.
in the case of some of these big companies (i think gmc is one of
them),they made huge promises to give their employees pensions, but
then they later rescinded. can a lawsuit follow?
IMHO ALL OF THE BIG FOUR WILL default on pensions and the taxpayers
will pick up the bill. This will lead more and more folks to demand
the same level of benefits if the taxpayers pick up enough of them.
The point is that the World no longer seems to believe in morals where
money is concerned. I have been told that the super rich fudge on
payment as long as they can. Mmillions have gone through this before
and lost pensions. Wht should a family who did not belong to a union
and saved for their own retirement pick up the check?
That's not all. Read the following about pension funds and it
should make your blood boil.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/9622990/site/newsweek/
Cheers,
Russell
[/quote:263b2d2720]
Oh--I'll have to look later, not now--but I bet I know what its going to
say, plus more. Unfunded pension funds are more widespread than you think.
Wanna get mad? You gotta read that book I talked about "The Creature from
Jekyll Island--a Second look at the Fed" by Edward Griffin. I talked about
it earlier in the year. It was an eye-opener for me and I plan to read it
again. I'm not sure I agree with the author that the Fed should be
disolved, but I sure learned about a lot of the secondary implications of
money, banking, and how it all controls all of the societies. If I could
write one sentence about the Fed, it might be a real Frankenstein
monster...a creation of man. Trouble is, the next sentence I might write
is..maybe its a necessary evil.
But, what else is going on? Another book I read indicates that all of our
pension plans--guess what--are starting to invest larger and larger
fractions of their assets in places like--guess what--India and China
because--guess what--the ROI is higher (or they think it will be higher)
and what does that do? It reduces the availability of money here in the
USA for expansion, upgrades, improvements in OUR commercial
infrastructure. So, does that sound like more FDI? or do those brilliant
economists take that into account (for all the $billions) that are also
going overseas? And, maybe some years from now when the 3rd world
economies get developed as far as they can, then their ROI will fall back,
and what will the pension funds do then?
I see a great train wreck in the future. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Brablo |
| Posted: Wed Oct 12, 2005 7:38 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
Straydog,
There is absolutely nothing wrong with investing overseas. As a matter
of fact, that increases our capital account, which contributes to GDP!
Look what's happening now: The Japanese, Brits, Europeans, Chinese,
etc. own a large chunk of the USA, and we are indebted to them because
they have invested far more in us than we have in them.
Relax. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Bruno R |
| Posted: Wed Oct 12, 2005 8:43 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
[quote:860750b99b]I see a great train wreck in the future.
[/quote:860750b99b]
We need very basic fundamental reforms to address these issues, IMHO!
Alas, the decision making parties only face up to diddle piddly issues that
only lead to protracted arguments that will change nothing in spite of our
collective opinions. One person's opinion! |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Straydog |
| Posted: Wed Oct 12, 2005 9:53 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On Wed, 12 Oct 2005, Brablo wrote:
[quote:d97e55e4ae]Straydog,
There is absolutely nothing wrong with investing overseas. As a matter
of fact, that increases our capital account, which contributes to GDP!
Look what's happening now: The Japanese, Brits, Europeans, Chinese,
etc. own a large chunk of the USA, and we are indebted to them because
they have invested far more in us than we have in them.
[/quote:d97e55e4ae]
Sorry, I don't buy that at all.
[quote:d97e55e4ae]Relax.
[/quote:d97e55e4ae] |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Straydog |
| Posted: Wed Oct 12, 2005 11:16 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On Wed, 12 Oct 2005, Bruno R wrote:
[quote:991dc76bab]I see a great train wreck in the future.
We need very basic fundamental reforms to address these issues, IMHO!
Alas, the decision making parties
[/quote:991dc76bab]
I'm affraid that the decision making parties are either: i) the rich, or
ii) the ones that work for the rich (eg. lobbyists, lawyers, PR entities,
marketing, and politicos who trade "favors" for campaign contributions).
[quote:991dc76bab]only face up to diddle piddly issues that
only lead to protracted arguments that will change nothing in spite of our
collective opinions. One person's opinion!
[/quote:991dc76bab]
Good opinion, otherwise. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| rvfulltime (was xenman) |
| Posted: Wed Oct 12, 2005 11:35 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On 10 Oct 2005 14:52:29 -0700, "Brablo" <gestureofrespect@yahoo.com> wrote:
[quote:cf36a92f09]what are the ramifications of an upo on a corporation's balance sheet?
why does the corporation make a contractual obligation to its employees
on their pensions (defined-benefits plan)? finally, it just seems
sleezy to me that corporations would rescind on their agreement to fund
a pension for their employees.
in the case of some of these big companies (i think gmc is one of
them),they made huge promises to give their employees pensions, but
then they later rescinded. can a lawsuit follow?
[/quote:cf36a92f09]
The primary problem of defined benefit pension plans is that they are
dependent upon the continued operation and well being of the company.
In theory a company could immediately go belly up and it's pension be
safe because in theory it was fully funded. In real life companies rarely
implode like Enron. They take years to fall apart. Their downfall is
slow and painful. While this is happening, pension contributions fall
behind. Employees take early retirement, frequently taking lump sum
amounts, which would stress a well funded pension. The company at
this time is usually weak from better managed competition. So while
the company is down, they get hammered by unexpected pension
payouts which makes its obligations to the pension plan even heavier.
So not only is the company feeling stress from competition, their cash
flow is stressed by the pension plan, which in turn prompts more
employees t retire early. A good example of this is Delta Airlines.
These events have resulted in many people believing that the
defined benefit pension plan is a bad idea and defined contribution
plans are the way to go. Now if we were back in the 1950s and 1960s
where competition was a lot less, free markets were not so free, fair
trade (minimum price) laws were still in effect, and government control of
pricing in a number of industires, businessess would be a lot more stable
and so would defined benefit pensions. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Sgt. Sausage |
| Posted: Wed Oct 12, 2005 12:30 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
"The Trucker" <mikcob@verizon.net> wrote in message
news:diji5m11nps@news4.newsguy.com...
[snip]
[quote:440239f6c6]FICA taxes need to be decreased
and uncapped and
[/quote:440239f6c6]
[snip]
If the taxes are uncapped, then should not the
benefits be uncapped too ?
I'm (generally) in agreement with what you
are saying, but how fair is it to uncap the
tax when the benefit is capped. On could
potentially pay in *billions* (think Bill
Gates) and collect, what, a couple grand
a month? An argument could be made that
Mr. Gates doesn't need the benefit but
you don't *know* that. MS could go the
way GM is heading and Mr. Gates could
end up broke. So, he'll end up paying in
billions and collect a couple grand a
month. Is that fair? |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| rick++ |
| Posted: Thu Oct 13, 2005 8:25 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
The economy has pulled the rug out from employers too.
At current long term interest rates a pension fund has
to keep a balance nearly four times higher per employee
per equivalent payout and tenure than they needed 15
years ago when long term interest rates were twice as
high. In the 1990s many employers didnt need to fund
plans at all because the stock bubble increased funds
enough. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
|
All times are GMT - 5 Hours
The time now is Sun Nov 08, 2009 6:57 am
|
|