PT Car Washer
Well-Known Member
Then they may have to give up that brand new $40k+ pick up truck that just sits in the parking lot all day. While taking up two parking spaces.
Pension fix
- Thread starter UPSTeamster Pragmatist
- Start date
40.... I see cars and trucks that cost way more than that.
But yet they can't afford to put anything in their 401k. You should hear all if the crying with the reduced overtime.
PT Car Washer
Well-Known Member
If a PTer raising a family can amass a $400k IRA, there is no excuse for someone making $100k/yr to not save for their future.
Gotta have it now.
I bet at least half of the oepeop we work with couldn't afford to miss one day on their paycheck.
F
Frankie's Friend
Guest
Depends on how many times they have been divorced.
That too...
If they stop making contributions while under contract, they'll be sued and lose. If they stop making contributions after the expiration of the various CBA's, their unfunded liability expense will still be in place.
The UNION doesn't get one cent of Pension contributions.
Then vote for representatives you have faith in.
Once again, the Union operates on dues, not Pension contributions. Any "continuing theft an unnecessary spending" is reported to members at monthly meetings.
Thousands of pension plans are functioning as planned, supplying income to retirees as promised. Comparing pensions with illegal ponzi schemes that always fail is ignorant.
The union doesn't get the money bit they don't want to give up control...
Bubblehead
My Senior Picture
Why would they have "unfunded liability", if they made all of their contributions before the expiration of their various CBA's???
....and there are many that are also failing due to a disproportionate ratio of retirees to active participants, which is a textbook definition of a Ponzi Scheme.
To characterize the present pension system as a Ponzi Scheme is not an "ignorant" or unfounded assertion....aside from that it is somehow legal.
Multi employer pension plans have equal number of employee/employer trustees. The "control" is shared.
If the plan is 100% funded, there is no unfunded/withdrawal liability. Anything under 100% require all participating employers, who have signed participation agreements requiring same, to pay their share of liability for their participants. It is the reason UPS paid over 6 Bl to leave the CSPF.
A disproportionate ratio of actives to retirees has nothing to do with an illegal money grabbing scheme from some thief.
PT Car Washer
Well-Known Member
Who is the thief?
Might be. All I know for sure is he's on first.
3 done 3 to go
In control of own destiny
You are delirious if you think the UNION runs on just dues. I do I vote republicans. Democrats are too busy spending the stolen pension money from unions. Then they think they will get it back when they call in their favor. But, democrats don't return it. Vicious cycle of members dues and pensions
Bubblehead
My Senior Picture
So it's worse than a Ponzi Scheme...???
Not only are they on the hook for their original investment, they are also on the hook for a share of the rest of the other participants obligations???
I guess that's what makes it legal....and what makes it so hard to get new Companies to sign on.
Isn't that what exposes a Ponzie Scheme ("thief")
.....when there are more people (disproportionately) looking to cash in, than there are "active participants"?
It's not a far fetched analogy.
DELACROIX
In the Spirit of Honore' Daumier
During the 1997 strike it was estimated that UPS would only have to pay about 450 million dollars to leave the CSPF if they were successful... Hence the Ron Carey Hate from the Company..
Ten years later in 2007 they shelled out 6 Billion to CSPF to pay for their future liabilities, also an additional 1.5 Billion to start up the new IBT/UPS pension.
Twelve years after...They had to pay 1.6 Billion this year to cover any projected costs associated with the Multi Pension Reform Act that will again be coming down the pike pretty soon. They are projecting it could be possible that they would have to pay up to 4 Billion if MPRA approves the pension benefit reductions for it's UPS retirees. They are currently active in lobbying Washington to reduce their projected obligations when the decision is made.
Quoting a line from (Hotel California):
'' YOU CAN CHECK OUT ANYTIME YOU LIKE, BUT YOU CAN NEVER LEAVE'
So you've never been to a monthly membership mtg where income and expenses are presented?
Well that's a real surprise.
Every cent expended from every pension fund must be accounted and approved by all trustees at quarterly meetings. That means your ridiculous, illegal charge would require and include the cooperation of pro-republican employer trustees on pension plans.
Not that you let facts get in the way of your ill formed opinions, but not even dues go to candidates of either party. Political contributions to candidates come from voluntary member DRIVE donations.
Saying it often enough doesn't make it so.
But if you're convinced legal pooled investments with verifiable accounting and required annual reporting of status, fits the bill of your charge, you may want to expand your allegation to Mutual Funds, Muni Bonds and every other investment plan that includes more than one party.
brownIEman
Well-Known Member
One definition of a Ponzi scheme:
'a form of fraud in which belief in the success of a nonexistent enterprise is fostered by the payment of quick returns to the first investors from money invested by later investors.'
The pensions are not based on nonexistent enterprises (though some of them no longer exist).
They do however, provide payouts to the early investors through the contributions from later investors. In this, they are like Ponzi schemes. They cannot pay earlier investors (retirees) solely off the investment that those investors put in. They require a constant influx of new investors (current working contributors) in order to pay benefits. Just like a Ponzi scheme, if the new influx of money stops or slows, the scheme fails.
If the pensions were truly sustainable, the average retiree would take out in benefits no more than what they payed in. If that were the case, retirees would never take one red cent from currently working contributors. It would not matter how many companies went under our even if no new workers ever got into the plan, you take out only what was put in in your name.
That's not how they were structured. In most pensions, the average retiree winds up pulling more than what was put in for them. They survived like a pyramid or Ponzi scheme, by the constant growth of the work force. Now that that growth rate is stalling, they are failing.
So now CS is trying to bone UPS by cutting benefits way more heavily to UPS retirees because UPS agreed back in 07 to make up shortfalls for those employees. Nice.
The current retirees, out of desperation, want a mortgage to get them into the grave at their current level, meaning in 30 years, the fund gets a multi billions payment liability and goes belly up boning you guys working now.
So basically, this proposed plan is a 30 year Ponzi scheme to extend the life of the old Ponzi scheme long enough for current retirees to shuffle off their mortal coils in comfort.
'a form of fraud in which belief in the success of a nonexistent enterprise is fostered by the payment of quick returns to the first investors from money invested by later investors.'
The pensions are not based on nonexistent enterprises (though some of them no longer exist).
They do however, provide payouts to the early investors through the contributions from later investors. In this, they are like Ponzi schemes. They cannot pay earlier investors (retirees) solely off the investment that those investors put in. They require a constant influx of new investors (current working contributors) in order to pay benefits. Just like a Ponzi scheme, if the new influx of money stops or slows, the scheme fails.
If the pensions were truly sustainable, the average retiree would take out in benefits no more than what they payed in. If that were the case, retirees would never take one red cent from currently working contributors. It would not matter how many companies went under our even if no new workers ever got into the plan, you take out only what was put in in your name.
That's not how they were structured. In most pensions, the average retiree winds up pulling more than what was put in for them. They survived like a pyramid or Ponzi scheme, by the constant growth of the work force. Now that that growth rate is stalling, they are failing.
So now CS is trying to bone UPS by cutting benefits way more heavily to UPS retirees because UPS agreed back in 07 to make up shortfalls for those employees. Nice.
The current retirees, out of desperation, want a mortgage to get them into the grave at their current level, meaning in 30 years, the fund gets a multi billions payment liability and goes belly up boning you guys working now.
So basically, this proposed plan is a 30 year Ponzi scheme to extend the life of the old Ponzi scheme long enough for current retirees to shuffle off their mortal coils in comfort.
