If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Huffington Post)   New "cash balance" retirement plans cost states more to administer and provide employees with lesser pensions, so naturally Republicans can't wait to implement them   (huffingtonpost.com) divider line 36
    More: Stupid, Pew Environment Group, pews, Republican, Bluegrass State, defined benefit plan, civil servants, Frying Pan News, Steve Beshear  
•       •       •

1018 clicks; posted to Politics » on 25 Sep 2013 at 12:59 PM (48 weeks ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



36 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest
 
2013-09-25 01:02:19 PM
Laser-like focus on jobs and fiscal responsibility.
 
2013-09-25 01:02:55 PM
Scam, scam, scam, the Royal Scam.
Go ahead and pull up that ladder behind you.
You'll be safe up there.
 
2013-09-25 01:03:02 PM
Much better to have unfunded liabilities with unrealistic growth rates to burden future taxpayers with.
 
2013-09-25 01:03:28 PM
Thank god it's the Huffington Post. For a second there I thought it was true!
 
2013-09-25 01:03:54 PM
So slightly more overhead, but vastly less long term liability?

media.tumblr.com
 
2013-09-25 01:06:18 PM

HotIgneous Intruder: Scam, scam, scam, the Royal Scam.
Go ahead and pull up that ladder behind you.
You'll be safe up there.


www.connollyco.com
 
2013-09-25 01:06:31 PM
But does it give more money to job creators?
 
2013-09-25 01:09:45 PM

dickfreckle: HotIgneous Intruder: Scam, scam, scam, the Royal Scam.
Go ahead and pull up that ladder behind you.
You'll be safe up there.

[www.connollyco.com image 400x400]


Off to the pandora.
 
2013-09-25 01:12:05 PM
Oh, yeah. Oooh, ahhh, that's how it always starts. Then later there's running and screaming.
 
d23 [TotalFark]
2013-09-25 01:13:35 PM
It must funnel money to their corporate donors.

This is almost always true in these cases.
 
2013-09-25 01:15:14 PM
I believe the technical term is stealing.
 
2013-09-25 01:16:17 PM
You mean pension plans funded with actual money cost more than ones filled mostly with IOUs?

Huh, who would have guessed it.
 
2013-09-25 01:16:37 PM
The question is why the pussyfooting around.  Why not just go defined-contribution like everyone else?

The answer is interesting.  It's not like public-sector unions are all that powerful. Republicans control most states and generally should be in favor. It's also interesting which states  have gone defined-contribution (401k-like).  It's not the ones you'd expect at all.  Michigan (yes, big-gubmint unionized Michigan), Alaska, the District of Columbia, and to some degree New Jersey.

The answer is because those states were actuarially caught-up (more or less) on their old-school pensions when they shifted new employees onto defined-contribution plans.  Meanwhile, states like the Carolinas have never been properly funded.  If you started diverting new employees into 401k-like plans, then the day of reckoning for that gaping hole is accelerated closer to the present day.  If you keep feeding new employees into the old system, you can keep kicking the can down the road at least 15 more years.
 
2013-09-25 01:20:31 PM
empireminecraft.com
 
2013-09-25 01:21:15 PM

d23: It must funnel money to their corporate donors.

This is almost always true in these cases.


Dafuq you mean "almost"?
 
2013-09-25 01:21:55 PM
When you pay people peanuts but offer a pension plan then later yank the pension that's called good governing.
 
2013-09-25 01:24:04 PM

Lawnchair: Michigan (yes, big-gubmint unionized Michigan),


Lol.
 
2013-09-25 01:24:15 PM

Markus5: dickfreckle: HotIgneous Intruder: Scam, scam, scam, the Royal Scam.
Go ahead and pull up that ladder behind you.
You'll be safe up there.

[www.connollyco.com image 400x400]

Off to the pandora.


Holy crap.  I got just The Royal Scam in Pandora shuffle.

/Mind blown.
 
2013-09-25 01:29:32 PM
Yes, because bankers have a sterling reputation for protecting other people's wealth.
 
2013-09-25 01:33:10 PM
...John Arnold, a onetime Enron trader who later made his fortune as a hedge-fund manager...

That would be the Enron which looted $15B from California taxpayers.

Excellent choice of someone to look out for the taxpayers.
 
2013-09-25 01:36:08 PM

jaytkay: ...John Arnold, a onetime Enron trader who later made his fortune as a hedge-fund manager...

That would be the Enron which looted $15B from California taxpayers.

Excellent choice of someone to look out for the taxpayers.


Also a one-time Enron lacky:

michellemalkinblog.files.wordpress.com
 
2013-09-25 01:50:49 PM
Time and again pensions are looted or otherwise abused by the organizations running them, yet people here still insist pensions are better than 401(k) type accounts.
 
2013-09-25 02:36:23 PM

BMFPitt: So slightly more overhead, but vastly less long term liability?

[media.tumblr.com image 300x165]


The main goal of any government should be to remain fiscally liable.
 
2013-09-25 02:37:06 PM
Feck, that should say "viable".
 
2013-09-25 03:07:26 PM

Arkanaut: Feck, that should say "viable".


I was trying to determine whether that was a brilliant turn of phrase or a typo.
 
2013-09-25 03:17:06 PM

GoldSpider: Time and again pensions are looted or otherwise abused by the organizations running them, yet people here still insist pensions are better than 401(k) type accounts.


401(k)s are a racket as well.

If it were up to me, all deferred compensation schemes would be outlawed.
 
2013-09-25 03:24:46 PM

Dafatone: Lawnchair: Michigan (yes, big-gubmint unionized Michigan),

Lol.


As someone who grew up in Michigan, you'd be surprised as how much outright HATRED (and almost universal uneasiness over some of the higher-end benefits (basically UAW good, $70-80K/year + OT + benefits + pensions + crazy union work laws that famously inhibit innovation and flexibility for basically turning a wrench while getting at least some of the blame for driving the companies (and by proxy, the entire midwestern US) into the ground bad)) there is for the UAW.  Even in Metro Detroit, which more or less exists because of the UAW.

/Mostly after hearing that people were making ~90% of their salary (which was higher than yours) plus bennies on the jobs bank during the heart of the recession when the Big 3 were all trying to avoid bankruptcy.
//My personal "Maybe they've gone a little bit too far" was hearing that the line workers had better pay and benefits than the engineers designing the cars.  Yeah, that's sustainable over the long term.
 
2013-09-25 03:29:49 PM

Wendy's Chili: GoldSpider: Time and again pensions are looted or otherwise abused by the organizations running them, yet people here still insist pensions are better than 401(k) type accounts.

401(k)s are a racket as well.

If it were up to me, all deferred compensation schemes would be outlawed.


At least with the 401K, they hand you money (that you can't access for 40 years, but) that's yours (barring crazy shiat like Poland pulled) now that the corporation/government has now.

With the pension, they hand you a promise to pay you money in 40 years (assuming the company/government is still around and is able to afford it)

I trust the former more than the latter.
 
2013-09-25 03:46:46 PM

meyerkev: Wendy's Chili: GoldSpider: Time and again pensions are looted or otherwise abused by the organizations running them, yet people here still insist pensions are better than 401(k) type accounts.

401(k)s are a racket as well.

If it were up to me, all deferred compensation schemes would be outlawed.

At least with the 401K, they hand you money (that you can't access for 40 years, but) that's yours (barring crazy shiat like Poland pulled) now that the corporation/government has now.

With the pension, they hand you a promise to pay you money in 40 years (assuming the company/government is still around and is able to afford it)

I trust the former more than the latter.


The problem with pensions is that they're only as reliable as your organization. Sometimes that means they take off with your retirement.

The problem with 401(k)s (aside from the obvious market risk) is that money is constantly being bled from them by fund managers regardless of how reliable and well-intentioned your organization may be. You can mitigate the damage somewhat by putting your money into passively managed funds, but you're going to be losing some amount every year until you've withdrawn it all.
 
2013-09-25 03:58:06 PM

Wendy's Chili: meyerkev: Wendy's Chili: GoldSpider: Time and again pensions are looted or otherwise abused by the organizations running them, yet people here still insist pensions are better than 401(k) type accounts.

401(k)s are a racket as well.

If it were up to me, all deferred compensation schemes would be outlawed.

At least with the 401K, they hand you money (that you can't access for 40 years, but) that's yours (barring crazy shiat like Poland pulled) now that the corporation/government has now.

With the pension, they hand you a promise to pay you money in 40 years (assuming the company/government is still around and is able to afford it)

I trust the former more than the latter.

The problem with pensions is that they're only as reliable as your organization. Sometimes that means they take off with your retirement.

The problem with 401(k)s (aside from the obvious market risk) is that money is constantly being bled from them by fund managers regardless of how reliable and well-intentioned your organization may be. You can mitigate the damage somewhat by putting your money into passively managed funds, but you're going to be losing some amount every year until you've withdrawn it all.


Oh no, I'm being charged 27 basis points for administering my account! THIS IS AN OUTRAGE!
 
2013-09-25 04:23:20 PM

Wendy's Chili: meyerkev: Wendy's Chili: GoldSpider: Time and again pensions are looted or otherwise abused by the organizations running them, yet people here still insist pensions are better than 401(k) type accounts.

401(k)s are a racket as well.

If it were up to me, all deferred compensation schemes would be outlawed.

At least with the 401K, they hand you money (that you can't access for 40 years, but) that's yours (barring crazy shiat like Poland pulled) now that the corporation/government has now.

With the pension, they hand you a promise to pay you money in 40 years (assuming the company/government is still around and is able to afford it)

I trust the former more than the latter.

The problem with pensions is that they're only as reliable as your organization. Sometimes that means they take off with your retirement.

The problem with 401(k)s (aside from the obvious market risk) is that money is constantly being bled from them by fund managers regardless of how reliable and well-intentioned your organization may be. You can mitigate the damage somewhat by putting your money into passively managed funds, but you're going to be losing some amount every year until you've withdrawn it all.


So.  The pension funds have management fees too.  (And once again, we're working on the entirely valid assumption that there will be functionally no pensions).  Only difference is that you don't see them.

/In fact, since higher risk often means higher fees, and pensions have to go higher risk to make the crazy returns they have to make to pay out anything, Wall Street does VERY well off pensions.
 
2013-09-25 04:34:26 PM

Wendy's Chili: The problem with 401(k)s (aside from the obvious market risk) is that money is constantly being bled from them by fund managers regardless of how reliable and well-intentioned your organization may be.


Who is taking money out of your 401k? Are you talking about the expense ratios on the mutual funds within the 401k, or is yours actually charging a percentage of the total value every year? If you invest in the same funds outside of your 401k you're still going to pay the same, and you should be able to find some worthy options that are well under 1% expense ratio.

You can mitigate the damage somewhat by putting your money into passively managed funds, but you're going to be losing some amount every year until you've withdrawn it all.

Are you talking about index funds? Why are you going to be losing money? Yeah, there's probably a 0.1% expense, but that's effectively zero in my book.
 
2013-09-25 05:14:01 PM

meyerkev: So. The pension funds have management fees too. (And once again, we're working on the entirely valid assumption that there will be functionally no pensions). Only difference is that you don't see them.


You don't see them because they don't affect the benefits.

dukeblue219: If you invest in the same funds outside of your 401k you're still going to pay the same


True, but my issue is that millions of Americans who wouldn't otherwise invest in these funds and aren't savvy enough to distinguish between them are pushed into them by employers, the media, and tax laws that basically amount to a subsidy for the financial services industry. That and the fact that the 401(k) has utterly failed as a retirement vehicle.
 
2013-09-25 07:50:00 PM

Wendy's Chili: meyerkev: So. The pension funds have management fees too. (And once again, we're working on the entirely valid assumption that there will be functionally no pensions). Only difference is that you don't see them.

You don't see them because they don't affect the benefits.

dukeblue219: If you invest in the same funds outside of your 401k you're still going to pay the same

True, but my issue is that millions of Americans who wouldn't otherwise invest in these funds and aren't savvy enough to distinguish between them are pushed into them by employers, the media, and tax laws that basically amount to a subsidy for the financial services industry. That and the fact that the 401(k) has utterly failed as a retirement vehicle.


They worked well for me.
And the company I worked for that had a pension (didn't stay long enough to qualify) went belly up
 
2013-09-25 08:17:59 PM

Wendy's Chili: You don't see them because they don't affect the benefits


Well, they will once there is NO MONEY and they're cutting the benefits left and right.

Door #1: They hand you the money as salary and let you do whatever.
Door #2: They put the money in the pension fund (instead of paying it to you as salary) and manage it for you
Door #3 (And this is the really common door): They promise you the world, put nothing in the pension fund, pay you a high(er than they could afford if they were actually funding pensions) salary regardless, and kick the can down the road to your grandkids.  Then when your grandkids start working, the salaries suck because they're trying to pay your pension and his/her salary at the same time.

Wendy's Chili: True, but my issue is that millions of Americans who wouldn't otherwise invest in these funds and aren't savvy enough to distinguish between them are pushed into them by employers, the media, and tax laws that basically amount to a subsidy for the financial services industry. That and the fact that the 401(k) has utterly failed as a retirement vehicle.


This is fair.

One of the things that was never really stated when we shifted over to 401K's was just HOW MUCH MONEY you needed to retire (especially as education and life expectancies increased).  And in turn, it never meant that we were able to ask for the higher salaries that were required to save up for retirement  while living the good life (which is good because those salaries were going to our (grand)parent's pensions).

You need to be saving an INSANE amount of money if you want to enter the workforce at 25, retire at 65, and live until 85.  1/3rd of your total income (including interest) needs to be going straight to retirement.  In fact, since you theoretically want to be living on your last salary, it's probably HIGHER since you need to account for 40 years of pay raises.

So your $60K salary was never $60K.  It was actually supposed to be $45K while you dumped $15K into a retirement fund.  In fact, because taxes suck (but are necessary) and you were paying for your parent's pensions today through SS, it was actually $30K while you dumped $15K into a retirement fund and $15K into taxes.

Combine this with the lower financial savvy of the average person, the total lack of explanation about options (For example: If your 401K has 2% fees, what does that mean for you and your 5% return?) and some really horrible stories about fee kickbacks to employers in exchange for locking employees onto a high-fee 401K, and I honestly can't say that I'm surprised that the 401K is failing as a retirement vehicle.

I just also can't say that pensions are doing any better.  Because there's no way you can employ someone for 30-40 years and then pay them a useful pension for another 20-30.  Especially if the situation changes and the company/government loses the ability to pay out due to a changing economic climate (ala Detroit.  Yeah, Orr's making it sound worse than it is, but if they get 20% of what they were promised, I'd be astonished because there is no money and there never was).  Give me my money NOW while you can afford to pay and it's my physical money.  IOU's are worth nothing.
 
2013-09-25 08:29:36 PM

BMFPitt: Arkanaut: Feck, that should say "viable".

I was trying to determine whether that was a brilliant turn of phrase or a typo.


What with 'full faith and credit,' isn't it both?
 
Displayed 36 of 36 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report