I'm not an American, so I have no idea how it is there, but aren't these pension funds insured by the government or something? If the government can bail out some private banks, they certainly can bail out pension funds.
That would be logical, but it just isn't so. Here, large corporations have groups that lobby congress for special favors and they get them. The largest of these lobbying groups is actually called the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, so most people think that they are a group on the side of the little guy. Not true. The system is rigged for coporations and the most wealthy.
Nope, pension funds ARE guaranteed by the US government. But it is not 100% of your money, (I believe it is around 75% or so depending how large the nest egg is)
A large well known multi national corporation just filed for bankruptcy in my area,I learned that if the company does not survied the bankruptcy that a portion of peoples hard earned pensions will be safe.
Sorry, I have to clean up all this coffee I just spewed out of my mouth when I read you asking if the governement backs up pension funds. I still can't stop laughing.
The prevailing opinion is that most of it is backed just not all of it. Why are you laughing? The government spends billions of dolars on weapons and bombs, so I think they can afford to bailout pension funds. Plus, it's not like the government has to earn the money - they just ask the FED to make some out of thin air.
elpresidente, yeah, it would really be nice if instead of spending so much on the military, the US government instead spent money insuring people's pensions. But unfortunately, they absolutely don't.
In fact, that's what's going on now in a lot of American cities and states: the municipalities did not set aside enough money for the pensions of the government workers (police, fire, teachers, clerks, garbage collectors, nurses, etc.) and now the municipalities are defaulting on their obligations to pay off the pensions of these people. And so, Detroit declares bankruptcy rather than pay what these people worked their whole lives to get.
I want the doctor to take your picture so I can look at you from inside as well.
It's about being responsible for yourself. You invest and decide which investments are worth the risk.
The problem with the public sector is that their return is guaranteed. So like a few years ago, when the bottom fell out of the economy - the rest of us lost money that we had invested in the market, public sector people lost nothing of their pension. But we're the ones who pay for it with increased taxes and fees.
While these people may have worked their whole lives, no one deserves half their salary for life, when they "retire" at the age of 45, after putting in 20 years of easy work.
The issue in the movie is that Shaw took their money and kept it for himself.
Excuse me, Nikon, but are you unaware of what's going on in municipalities across the country? They're all going bankrupt and reneging on these pension obligations. Ever hear of Detroit? These people who worked in the public sector - at far lower wages than they could have gotten in the private sector - are now getting screwed out of their pensions.
I want the doctor to take your picture so I can look at you from inside as well.
Well, I'm calling BS on your post. For example, to be a teacher, you have to have a Master's Degree. You're telling me that you couldn't get your Master's in something else, like Business, and earn more somewhere else? That's BS right there. These people said, "Hmmm, I can either make a killing in private industry, or I can serve the public, take less money up front, and get a great pension when I retire." You either are actively refusing to get this, or you're a troll.
And private companies don't offer pensions anymore, in case you haven't noticed. They offer 401(k)s, so that when they do go bankrupt, you don't lose your retirement savings. Conveniently forgot about that, huh?
I want the doctor to take your picture so I can look at you from inside as well.
Not a toll - just hate all unions and public sector entitlements.
Put them on the same SS and 401(k) as the rest of us.
Teachers come in a couple different varieties: those who do it for the love of it, and those who do it for the security, benefits, summers off, and early retirement.
The movie made a point of stating that Stiller's character took the pension funds OUT of the safe, insured plan and gave it to the private investor, who promised to triple their money.
All investments carry some risk, and sometimes the ones with the greatest risk give the biggest rewards, so Kovaks thought he was doing the right thing for the building employees, but he was really giving the money to someone who defrauded them.
Read up on Bernie Madoff, he did the same thing with a similar scheme. The typical Ponzi scheme uses the new investors' money to pay off the older investors, to make the older investors think their money earned interest. In this case, the guy running the scheme kept all the money and hid it, so no investors could collect dividends or interest.
In reality, the vast majority of employers have done away with pensions for employees. What they do instead is offer a 401(k) where the employee puts money into the fund and the employer can do some matching as a contribution to the fund. If the employee leaves the company, they can roll the 401(k) into another 401(k) plan with their new employer or roll it into an IRA. In both cases, the 401(k) and the IRA are held outside of the company and don't have any control over it. Employers have done this to get out of the pension business. Even now in 2015, some employers are offering retirees a lump sum payout of their pension or have it transferred to someplace else in the form of an annuity
It might be that some employees who were with the company for 30 years might have a pension, but it's highly unlikely in 2011 that ever single one of those employees were offered a pension who had only been working there several years.
1) Many plans are insured by the PBGC. Of course, if the sh!t really hit the fan, it would go broke, just like the FDIC would, so in essence, they have the whiff of being a bit of Ponzi Schemes themselves.
2) The link below shows outlays for the last for the government
As one can see, the US Government, even with all the wars it has waged the last ten years, spends THREE TIMES MORE on "human resource" spending than the military (depending on whether you toss the spending on veterans affairs in the military or human resource category). But if nothing else, it should be CLEAR to anyone with a brain that WELFARE AND WARFARE are connected at the hip and are by far the biggest outlays for the government. Our militarism is there for the express purpose of gaining access to the rest of the world's resources on favorable terms, which is used to supplement decaying Ponzi schemes crafted by the Feds. It is the manifesting of fascistic socialism (as if any other kind is really all that different) that is the economic foundation of the country. The remainder of the Federal outlays are to secure positions for various parasites, within the bureaucracy itself or "NGO" type organizations that rely on grants and who are insinuated closely with the bureaucracies.
A modest study of the last 10 years of the Financial Reports of the United States Government should keep people awake nights. Of course, the majority, as partisans, will simply follow whichever branch of the single party system helps them sleep better at night.
The good news is this system is quickly going broke and all we will have to worry about is will we be on the right side or the wrong side of the razor wire.