knapplc Posted April 17, 2014 Share Posted April 17, 2014 An individual's responsibility for looking out for their own future doesn't alleviate the employer from the responsibility of following through on their promises. 1 Link to comment
BigRedBuster Posted April 17, 2014 Share Posted April 17, 2014 first, it seems all capitalism is a ponzi scheme. all indicators of a healthy economy involves growth, even though we live on a finite world. second, i think pensions actually make sense. at least they did when you worked at the same place your whole life. if the idea is that you put in some of your paycheck and they match it, then they invest that money in the market or where it could grow interest, what is wrong with that? the problem is when you borrow from pensions. they should be off-limits and always held in a trust, protected from liability. Or in a completely separate account that the employer has absolutely no ownership or control over. Hmmm.....I think we should call that a 401K. 401k have their own problems but the burden falls on the employee to act responsibly and look out for his own future. The employee should not trust that an employer will always be there and have their best interest at heart for the rest of their lives. I wish you could trust people like that but it's absolutely not smart to do so. When the employee leaves a company, that company should have absolutely no responsibility for that employee nor the ability to negatively affect the well being of that employee into the future. The ties are severed and each go their separate ways. With all my heart, I REALLY wish these people had their pensions to live on. But, reality is, they were sold a bill of goods on a pension with someone they shouldn't have trusted. It sucks. I completely agree that 401Ks have their own set of faults. But, at least the retired person who can't work anymore isn't reliant on one company to fund their account till they die. Link to comment
tschu Posted April 17, 2014 Share Posted April 17, 2014 This is why you don't trust pension or the government or your company's stock. You have no idea what is going to happen; nobody does. Diversify your sh#t. Link to comment
strigori Posted April 17, 2014 Share Posted April 17, 2014 first, it seems all capitalism is a ponzi scheme. all indicators of a healthy economy involves growth, even though we live on a finite world. second, i think pensions actually make sense. at least they did when you worked at the same place your whole life. if the idea is that you put in some of your paycheck and they match it, then they invest that money in the market or where it could grow interest, what is wrong with that? the problem is when you borrow from pensions. they should be off-limits and always held in a trust, protected from liability. Or in a completely separate account that the employer has absolutely no ownership or control over. Hmmm.....I think we should call that a 401K. 401k is a scam. The pension was, for a very long time, an assurance. 401k is taking your retirement money, and gambling with it, by giving it back to the same scheming slimeballs that cashed out the pensions Carl posted about, and keeping your fingers crossed that the stocks keep going up for ever. How many people had their retirement funds vanish when the mega-banks crashed the world economy? Think its just a coincidence that 401k had a rise right along side CEO and exec pay? With the rocketing rise of the DOW index? Any idea championed by the mega-banks and big businesses needs to be taken very skeptically, and examined under a microscope by the public, because odds are its good for them, and bad for you. 1 Link to comment
tschu Posted April 18, 2014 Share Posted April 18, 2014 Scam? Rocketing rise of the DOW index? It's been more or less constant for the past several decades. The financial sector in the US has grown, thus the markets have grown with it. 401k is not a scam, no more than investing any of your private money into the stock market is a scam. If you're dumb enough to allocate all of your 401k into your company's stock, well, then you get what's coming to you. You should find a good ETF or Target Date fund and put it there and leave it alone. There are plenty of things that systematically undermine the American public, but a 401k isn't one of them. 401ks, IRAs, Roth IRAs and the like are wonderful. You can place those funds wherever the hell you want - you have total control. They are the best and really the only way to invest towards a healthy retirement. Use them. Guess what, people's retirement funds took a hit in 2008. The DOW was at 13,000 and it tanked. Since then, the DOW is back over 16,000. There will be rises and falls in the economic climate, but as a whole your money is far better off in a "dumb money" index fund than in a mattress or something - or pretty much anywhere else. Link to comment
NUpolo8 Posted April 18, 2014 Share Posted April 18, 2014 Per this article 86m workers(givers) support 148m non-workers (takers) Also, FWIW, the full time private sector (so called givers/makers) and everyone else (takers) distinction is silly, to say the least. Anyone who looks at the numbers and thinks critically will see why. Silly . . . effective propaganda, probably, but silly. Not really. Yes, really. What's the difference between a self-employed garbage truck operator who has a full time contract with a municipality and a garbage truck operator who works full time directly for the municipality? Heck, let's go even further. Let's figure out the number of people (the "makers" presumably) who receive no public funding whatsoever. Farmers? Huge takers. Anyone with a public works contract? Takers. Defense contractors? Takers. Health care providers? Takers. Oil companies? Takers. Anyone who sells a product to someone else who is paid with tax dollars? TAKER. It's silly. Everyone should be a little smarter than that. You might want to read the current farm bill and reclassify farmers. Link to comment
tschu Posted April 18, 2014 Share Posted April 18, 2014 Big Farming firms are pretty much the norm now and make millions and millions of dollars off subsidies alone. Even Ma & Pa farmer can get 30k/year easily on their acreage from subsidies alone. http://farm.ewg.org/index.php It doesn't make them takers, it's just the government's way of subsidizing the food supply for everyone. (Although many game the system and ARE takers by any definition you choose to use). The newest farm bill appears to be pretty awesome in cutting wasteful BS while providing assistance where it's needed. Link to comment
carlfense Posted April 18, 2014 Share Posted April 18, 2014 You might want to read the current farm bill and reclassify farmers. Still takers. The method of payment changed but the outcomes will be very similar. Link to comment
NUpolo8 Posted April 18, 2014 Share Posted April 18, 2014 You might want to read the current farm bill and reclassify farmers. Still takers. The method of payment changed but the outcomes will be very similar. That is false. It's a price floor system now. Link to comment
carlfense Posted April 18, 2014 Share Posted April 18, 2014 You might want to read the current farm bill and reclassify farmers. Still takers. The method of payment changed but the outcomes will be very similar. That is false. It's a price floor system now. Part of it is a price floor system now. Link to comment
tschu Posted April 18, 2014 Share Posted April 18, 2014 I don't think it really matters what the method is by which things are subsidized; the end outcome is still similar (and ending direct payments is clearly a good thing, it makes the system accountable for itself.) Link to comment
carlfense Posted April 18, 2014 Share Posted April 18, 2014 I don't think it really matters what the method is by which things are subsidized; the end outcome is still similar (and ending direct payments is clearly a good thing, it makes the system accountable for itself.) That's what I was getting at . . . the only problem with the new system is that it's less visible. The percentage of local farmers who don't even know that the federal government pays for 50%+ of their crop insurance premiums is simply shocking. 1 Link to comment
deedsker Posted April 18, 2014 Share Posted April 18, 2014 I guess I came off a little too negative on my earlier post. 401k and IRA are far better for everyone. You must do your due diligence to make it work for yourself. They allow you to hop from job to job and still roll each one over to a place of your liking building on what you had before. Eliminates the need to be with x company so many years before retiring from said company to guarantee your pension only to have it ripped away from you in the future. 1 Link to comment
tschu Posted April 18, 2014 Share Posted April 18, 2014 I guess I came off a little too negative on my earlier post. 401k and IRA are far better for everyone. You must do your due diligence to make it work for yourself. They allow you to hop from job to job and still roll each one over to a place of your liking building on what you had before. Eliminates the need to be with x company so many years before retiring from said company to guarantee your pension only to have it ripped away from you in the future. Nah I thought your earlier post was quite reasonable. And I agree with you here too. Link to comment
NUpolo8 Posted April 18, 2014 Share Posted April 18, 2014 I don't think it really matters what the method is by which things are subsidized; the end outcome is still similar (and ending direct payments is clearly a good thing, it makes the system accountable for itself.) That's what I was getting at . . . the only problem with the new system is that it's less visible. The percentage of local farmers who don't even know that the federal government pays for 50%+ of their crop insurance premiums is simply shocking. There is quite a contingent that wish it would all go away. Link to comment
Recommended Posts