Your Union has been lying to you your entire career

2001400ex

sarktastic said:

Reading past the headline:

That imbalance left the fund paying out $3.46 in pension benefits for every $1 it received from employers. The shortfall has resulted in the fund paying out $2 billion more in benefits than it receives in employer contributions each year.

That's meaningless as pensions should be funded as the employees were working, like in the 70s and 80s.

Kaepsknee

greenblood said:

salemcoog said:

Obviously the formulas that these funds use to dictate what should be collected and what should be paid out to retirees is out of whack. If they are gonna reduce pension payouts, they should look at increasing the pay-ins from the companies that fund them as well.

But why is Social Security in turmoil?

Agreed.





Unless your talking about raising MY SS taxes anyway.

TierbsHsotBoobs

2001400ex said:

sarktastic said:

Reading past the headline:

That imbalance left the fund paying out $3.46 in pension benefits for every $1 it received from employers. The shortfall has resulted in the fund paying out $2 billion more in benefits than it receives in employer contributions each year.

That's meaningless as pensions should be funded as the employees were working, like in the 70s and 80s.

The problem with that is pensions typically promise unsustainable returns that cannot be consistently achieved.

2001400ex

TierbsHsotBoobs said:

2001400ex said:

sarktastic said:

Reading past the headline:

That imbalance left the fund paying out $3.46 in pension benefits for every $1 it received from employers. The shortfall has resulted in the fund paying out $2 billion more in benefits than it receives in employer contributions each year.

That's meaningless as pensions should be funded as the employees were working, like in the 70s and 80s.

The problem with that is pensions typically promise unsustainable returns that cannot be consistently achieved management doesn't properly fund pensions and instead relies on growth of the company for sustainability while using pension funds for other shit.

RaceBannon

The problem with that is pensions typically promise unsustainable returns that cannot be consistently achieved the Government doesn't properly fund pensions and instead relies on growth of the economy for sustainability while using pension funds for other shit.



but why is Social Security in turmoil?

TierbsHsotBoobs

2001400ex said:

TierbsHsotBoobs said:

2001400ex said:

sarktastic said:

Reading past the headline:

That imbalance left the fund paying out $3.46 in pension benefits for every $1 it received from employers. The shortfall has resulted in the fund paying out $2 billion more in benefits than it receives in employer contributions each year.

That's meaningless as pensions should be funded as the employees were working, like in the 70s and 80s.

The problem with that is pensions typically promise unsustainable returns that cannot be consistently achieved management doesn't properly fund pensions and instead relies on growth of the company for sustainability while using pension funds for other shit.

Compounded interest matters.

2001400ex

RaceBannon said:

The problem with that is pensions typically promise unsustainable returns that cannot be consistently achieved the Government doesn't properly fund pensions and instead relies on growth of the economy for sustainability while using pension funds for other shit.



but why is Social Security in turmoil?

For the exact same reason. And the fact politicians refuse to do anything about it.

doogsinparadise

SS is only in turmoil because Congress hasn't done what they need to do to solidify it. It's the single best program that this country has ever implemented. Fix it.

PurpleJ

doogsinparadise said:

SS is only in turmoil because Congress hasn't done what they need to do to solidify it. It's the single best program that this country has ever implemented. Fix it.

I'm hearing you can set aside some of your paycheck each week in an interest-bearing account. It's called savings. Cut out the middle man that spent all the money and you'd be fine. Perpetuities are going away because people live way longer nowadays and you have no way to measure what it's going to cost in the future. People should be responsible for their own savings. Period.

godawgst

The genius of social security, Medicaid, medicare, pensions, etc is now their curse. They are in effect a Ponzi scheme. In the beginning many pay in, and there's money for everyone. At the end, there are more taking out than people to put in.

When s.s. was started there was 10 paying in for every 1 receiving money, and you collected at 62 when the avg. life expectancy was essentially that age. Today it is 2 paying for every one collecting and the avg. person lives to mid 80's.