Oleg Bach Posted May 15, 2009 Report Share Posted May 15, 2009 When a person puts money into a bank account for a rainy day - it is in effect a type of pension - When workers put money into a common account - It's actually one huge joint account held by those that are not owners of the operation and are usually unionists.. In the past we have heard the classic tales of say - the Teamsters - and their mafia overlords....who - when they collapse a buisness ALWAYS ran off with the pension fund - either taking it in a whole - or incrimental pilphering of the fund .... What's the difference between those gangster days and now, in regards to the large collapsing - formally respectable major corporations ? Disgarded workers are wondering "will I have a pension?" OR "will my pension be what it was supposed to be and not a fraction of what I expected?" IF - You put money into a money box - which is a common savings account - a pension - It is your money - an no one elses money other than the depositer...So why are pensions effected as they are being nagatively effected today - IF a company fails - WHY does upper management get to steal from the private communal bank account of the depositing worker? Call me simplistic - but the money that is a pension fund should not be effected by the problems that middle mangagement and upper management have - and their banking buddies - what right do they have to rob and take the savings of the working guys? Why do they have the privledge to steal? You can rationalize this concept anyway you want.....and say that the pensions were "invested" and were lost....Some one absorbed the money and that absorption is immoral and illegal. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moonbox Posted May 15, 2009 Report Share Posted May 15, 2009 I don't think you understand how pension funds work. The money you put in is only a FRACTION of what you take out after retirement and it depends on further funding from current workers. I'm being simplistic but basically the assumption is that when you retire, inflation and wages from current employees and their contributions are what's going to support and supplement what you put in. There's a reason the government encourages you to save in an RSP and TFSA. MOST companies can't afford to support you in retirement. Companies like GM etc have a pension plan FAR FAR FAR more generous than what the average manufacturing worker would get and it was the consumers that bore the brunt of the cost. Consumers have since refused to continue supporting GM pensioners who were paid FAR too much while they were working in the first place, so it's an unfortunate case of "what goes around comes around". The collective greed and stupidity of the union members at large is what caused this. Shareholders and CEO's aren't running off with pension money. The money is still there, it's just what pensioners contributed is A LOT less than what they want to take out. The pension plans themselves are protected. The future contributions of the company are what's not. My heart is breaking...... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Oleg Bach Posted May 15, 2009 Author Report Share Posted May 15, 2009 I don't think you understand how pension funds work.The money you put in is only a FRACTION of what you take out after retirement and it depends on further funding from current workers. I'm being simplistic but basically the assumption is that when you retire, inflation and wages from current employees and their contributions are what's going to support and supplement what you put in. There's a reason the government encourages you to save in an RSP and TFSA. MOST companies can't afford to support you in retirement. Companies like GM etc have a pension plan FAR FAR FAR more generous than what the average manufacturing worker would get and it was the consumers that bore the brunt of the cost. Consumers have since refused to continue supporting GM pensioners who were paid FAR too much while they were working in the first place, so it's an unfortunate case of "what goes around comes around". The collective greed and stupidity of the union members at large is what caused this. Shareholders and CEO's aren't running off with pension money. The money is still there, it's just what pensioners contributed is A LOT less than what they want to take out. The pension plans themselves are protected. The future contributions of the company are what's not. My heart is breaking...... That's too much information and to complex for me - seeing it's that complex I suspect that it is dishonest what you are telling me - I once was a member of ACTRA ....for every hundred dollars I put into our pension fund - I could withdraw that exact amount and pay the small tax on it. When you say companies "can't afford to support you in retirement" - that does not make sense...It is my money that I deposit - and I would like exactly what I put in back - they are not supporting me with THEIR money...I am supporting myself with MY money....If - for instance you over the years deposit 300 thousand dollars of your own hard earned cash - into a pension - you should be able to withdraw 300 thousand...not 100 thousand and have some chump say to you - sorry - we lost your money - or we sent it off else where - sorry....No - even if your deposit (investment) grows and is not static - you should be able to at least retrieve what you put in - if not - then someone has stolen it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
geoffrey Posted May 15, 2009 Report Share Posted May 15, 2009 Theft of bondholder money by union pension plans should also be illegal, but Obama loves that. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr.Canada Posted May 15, 2009 Report Share Posted May 15, 2009 Hopefully we can also bring to trial Chretien and Martin who sold out our CPP for foreign interests. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DFCaper Posted May 15, 2009 Report Share Posted May 15, 2009 Defined Benefit Pensions are flawed is a big part of the problem as well. They are based upon assumptions that will not all come true. Such as people who were originally promised a DB pension, the companies' savings were based on retiree's retiring at 65 and dying at 75. In actuality, it's more like 55 - 85. Huge difference. Benefit costs have also sky rocketed. They are also base like mentioned that the company will be around to continue funding the pension. They also assume that the funds will make money. I'm sure most lost a huge percentage last year. Now you have big companies that are shrinking, losing money in there core business and now they have to make up the market losses to the fund. A triple whammy. I think DB Pensions should be made a thing of the past. The only ones that are safe are government ones as the government will just screw non-government employees if it hits the fans. As the private industry trend of Defined contribution. That way the worker gets his money up front and it's his responsibility. If it loses money, the company is not liable. If it make extra, the worker benefits. Where I work, older employees are DB and new are DC. The company is almost bankrupt as they are forced to try and make up the stock market loses on the DB pension fund. I'll probably be laid off as a result. I have the DC pension, which may not be as good as a DB in a prefect world, but at least I know I won't get screwed... If the Government bails out DB pensions, I don't know why they wouldn't bailout my pensions loses as well. No difference.. except I have other savings... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moonbox Posted May 15, 2009 Report Share Posted May 15, 2009 That's too much information and to complex for me - seeing it's that complex I suspect that it is dishonest what you are telling me - I once was a member of ACTRA ....for every hundred dollars I put into our pension fund - I could withdraw that exact amount and pay the small tax on it. Depends on the pension. When you say companies "can't afford to support you in retirement" - that does not make sense...It is my money that I deposit - and I would like exactly what I put in back - they are not supporting me with THEIR money...I am supporting myself with MY money.... The only thing is that most union pensioners over 20 years would take WAY more than what they put in. Current pension contributers (current employees and company contributions) would make up the shortfall. This is what you see with the car companies. In the case of GM, if the company fails pensioners lose like 50% of their benefits because nobody else will be putting money into the plan. They'll get what they put in, but they'll still cry that they don't get what they expected and signed for while they were working, even though it's largely the pensions that caused the company to fail in the first place. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moonbox Posted May 15, 2009 Report Share Posted May 15, 2009 If the Government bails out DB pensions, I don't know why they wouldn't bailout my pensions loses as well. No difference.. except I have other savings... If they bail out DB pensions I'll probably kill myself. Kidding...sort of... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.