Unkotare
Diamond Member
- Aug 16, 2011
- 129,938
- 24,961
- 2,180
It's not a company's job to guarantee our retirement. The root problem is out burdensome income tax system. I'd rather have all of my compensation under my control to decide how much and where to invest.
It should be. That was the deal. Pensions were a part of your compensation package. It would be no less wrong to say companies are not responsible for our wages. It was a part of our end of the "service for hire" deal.
OK. Then you risk a company being in control of a pool of pension assets, with all the moral hazard that has led to underfunded pensions.
This, and health care, are just gimmicks put in place to get around wage controls and tax disincentives.
If your pension contribution was added to your cash comp and tax exempt for retirement account purposes, you'd be far better off.
Not as long as they were properly regulated.
I am one of the rare people my age (53), works in the private industry and have the fantastic benefit of having 20 years with an old fashioned real pension. It wasn't the evil companies that raided pension funds etc. It was the evil companies colluding with the government to remove the regulations that prevented them from getting their hands on it. Enron, etc. were not original pension plan sets, they were modified "investment" pensions in which a large percentage of your pension is shares in the company.
Since my pension is the old plans that are locked away in guaranteed asset funds held by an independent firm - regardless of the companies finances, no matter what happens to them.... I will get my $2,200 a month. That doesn't sound like much I know, I would have loved to have been able to add another 10 years to that, but they froze the plans in 2004.
Oh blah blah blah evil companies.
Pretty much
Are you kidding)