| |
 |
|
| Science Forum Index » Economy Forum » Question about Unfunded Pension Obligations (UPO) |
|
Page 2 of 2 Goto page Previous 1, 2 |
|
| Author |
Message |
| Ron Peterson |
 Posted: Thu Oct 13, 2005 9:38 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
rvfulltime (was xenman) wrote:
[quote:3c1cf27fb3]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. ...
[/quote:3c1cf27fb3]
I think that defined benefit pension and medical plans cause many
problems because they are subject to manipulation by the employer. In
defined contribution plans, the employer has no incentive to get rid of
employees for reasons of retirement or medical costs.
--
Ron |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Guest |
| Posted: Thu Oct 13, 2005 11:25 am |
|
|
|
|
rick++ wrote:
[quote:4229ca41ee]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.
[/quote:4229ca41ee]
You have a point, but IMO if they thought they'd continue
getting returns like the 1990s forever, they (as the line
from "Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade" goes) "chose poorly".
Whatever happened to retirement plans being operated according
to solid, conservative, actuarial assumptions?
Cheers,
Russell |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| BMJ |
| Posted: Thu Oct 13, 2005 11:39 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
Russell.Martin@wdn.com wrote:
[quote:f4e328c748]rick++ wrote:
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.
You have a point, but IMO if they thought they'd continue
getting returns like the 1990s forever, they (as the line
from "Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade" goes) "chose poorly".
Whatever happened to retirement plans being operated according
to solid, conservative, actuarial assumptions?
Cheers,
Russell
[/quote:f4e328c748]
Many funds are run by people who are too young to remember events such
as Black Monday of October '87 where the Dow lost 25% of its value in a
single day. Remember that many make their investments based upon
increasing "shareholder value" without determining whether the
valuations that the market sets on those investments have any merit or
are sustainable. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Guest |
| Posted: Thu Oct 13, 2005 11:58 am |
|
|
|
|
rick++ wrote:
[quote:5a9479a567]Whatever happened to retirement plans being operated according
to solid, conservative, actuarial assumptions?
I was quoting solid, conservative, actuarial assumptions: US treasury
bounds.
[/quote:5a9479a567]
Like I said, if people thought they'd keep getting returns like
in the 1990s forever (from whatever investment), they chose poorly.
snip
Cheers,
Russell |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Straydog |
| Posted: Thu Oct 13, 2005 12:35 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On Thu, 13 Oct 2005, Russell.Martin@wdn.com wrote:
[quote:7873713a22]rick++ wrote:
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.
You have a point, but IMO if they thought they'd continue
getting returns like the 1990s forever, they (as the line
from "Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade" goes) "chose poorly".
Whatever happened to retirement plans being operated according
to solid, conservative, actuarial assumptions?
Cheers,
Russell
[/quote:7873713a22]
I think the other "issue" is exactly what the provisions are in the given
pension plan. eg. are COLAs present? if so, how much? eg. does the plan
include benefits related to a given formula relationship to pay at
retirement, pay at top five year (eg. like SS), rank at retirement, and a
bunch of other variables. And, what is the formula relating pay of the
pension manager(s) to rate of expansion of pension assets. I can think of
other factors, as well. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Guest |
| Posted: Fri Oct 14, 2005 12:51 pm |
|
|
|
|
On Wed, 12 Oct 2005 14:30:22 -0400, "Sgt. Sausage"
<nobody@nowhere.com> wrote:
[quote:c0cf9009cc]"The Trucker" <mikcob@verizon.net> wrote in message
news:diji5m11nps@news4.newsguy.com...
[snip]
FICA taxes need to be decreased
and uncapped and
[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.
[/quote:c0cf9009cc]
Pretty fair. It might be fairer to use a diminishing-return formula
rather than an outright cap, though.
[quote:c0cf9009cc]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?
[/quote:c0cf9009cc]
How would he have come by those billions in the first place if not for
government-issued and -enforced copyright monopolies?
-- Roy L |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Jim Blair |
| Posted: Wed Nov 02, 2005 3:50 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
"Mason A. Clark" <masoncERASETHIS@ix.netcom.com> wrote in message
news:qi4ok1pfiimeb9c6h2f458714gnvg0k0j6@4ax.com...
[quote:4f4f57003e]Outlaw *all* private pension plans.
[/quote:4f4f57003e]
Hi,
There is something to be said for outlawing private corporate pension plans.
The company is promising to pay in the future money that they don't have
now, in the expectation (hope?) they they will still be in business and have
the money at that future date. But things change, and who knows what the
company will be like at that future date?
State pension plans are based on the premise that the state will still exist
in the future and have some sort of tax base. That is much more likely than
that a given company will exist and have an adequate income stream.
[quote:4f4f57003e]....Social Security is very
efficient and dependable.
Mason C
[/quote:4f4f57003e]
???? US Social Security worked well for its first 70 years because of a
rapidly expanding population. But that does not look likely to continue,
and with people living ever longer, don't bet on SS being able to continue
as is for much longer.
I say IRA is the way to go. Save/invest 7% of your income each year and
after 40 years you can retire and live forever on it.
http://www.geocities.com/capitolhill/4834/ponzi.txt
,,,,,,,
_______________ooo___(_O O_)___ooo_______________
(_)
jim blair (jeblair@wisc.edu) Madison Wisconsin USA.
This message was brought to you using biodegradable
binary bits, and 100% recycled bandwidth. For a good
time call: http://www.geocities.com/capitolhill/4834
No animals were harmed in making this post |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| News |
| Posted: Wed Nov 02, 2005 9:28 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
"Jim Blair" <jeb@wisc.edu> wrote in message
news:dkb8q6$h48$1@news.doit.wisc.edu...
[quote:ae3508da45]
"Mason A. Clark" <masoncERASETHIS@ix.netcom.com> wrote in message
news:qi4ok1pfiimeb9c6h2f458714gnvg0k0j6@4ax.com...
....Social Security is very
efficient and dependable.
Mason C
???? US Social Security worked well for its first 70 years because of a
rapidly expanding population. But that does not look likely to continue,
and with people living ever longer, don't bet on SS being able to continue
as is for much longer.
We have an expanding population. Mexico will see to that with help from[/quote:ae3508da45]
Washington. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Jim Blair |
| Posted: Tue Nov 08, 2005 11:04 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
"News" <news@charter.net> wrote in message
news:Mzeaf.36457$E17.29511@fe03.lga...
[quote:a9e2999ffb]
"Jim Blair" <jeb@wisc.edu> wrote in message
news:dkb8q6$h48$1@news.doit.wisc.edu...
"Mason A. Clark" <masoncERASETHIS@ix.netcom.com> wrote in message
news:qi4ok1pfiimeb9c6h2f458714gnvg0k0j6@4ax.com...
....Social Security is very
efficient and dependable.
Mason C
???? US Social Security worked well for its first 70 years because of a
rapidly expanding population. But that does not look likely to
continue,
and with people living ever longer, don't bet on SS being able to
continue
as is for much longer.
We have an expanding population. Mexico will see to that with help from
Washington.
Hi,[/quote:a9e2999ffb]
Yes the US population is expanding, and that is because of immigration. If
it were not for the 1965 changes in the immigration laws, plus illegals, the
US would now have reached ZPG: Zero Population Growth.
http://dieoff.org/page54.htm
ZPG was considered to be a desirable goal back when it was considered to be
unattainable. And when people worried about "The Environment". Now that
people worry about "Saving Social Security", ZPG does not look so good.
At any rate, even the current rate of immigration is not enough to "Save
Social Security". But it likely is enough to end the US's status of a
single language country.
,,,,,,,
_______________ooo___(_O O_)___ooo_______________
(_)
jim blair (jeblair@wisc.edu) Madison Wisconsin USA.
This message was brought to you using biodegradable
binary bits, and 100% recycled bandwidth. For a good
time call: http://www.geocities.com/capitolhill/4834
No animals were harmed in making this post |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
|
All times are GMT - 5 Hours
The time now is Sun Nov 08, 2009 4:54 pm
|
|