Re: The End of Pensions -- But Keep Voting for Republicans as You Spend Your Golden Years in a Cardboard Box on the Street
Cliff
>The End of Pensions
>By ROGER LOWENSTEIN
>Published: October 30, 2005
>I. THE LATEST FINANCIAL DEBACLE
>
>When I caught up with Robert S. Miller, the chief executive of Delphi
>Corporation, last summer, he was still pitching the fantasy that his
>company, a huge auto-parts maker, would be able to cut a deal with its
>workers and avoid filing for bankruptcy protection. But he acknowledged
>that Delphi faced one perhaps insuperable hurdle - not the current
>conditions in the auto business so much as the legacy of the pension
>promises that Delphi committed to many decades ago, when it was part of
>General Motors. This was the same fear that had obsessed Alfred P.
>Sloan Jr., the storied president of G.M., who warned way back in the
>1940's that pensions and like benefits would be "extravagant beyond
>reason." But under pressure from the United Auto Workers union, he
>granted them. And as future auto executives would discover, pension
>obligations are - outside of bankruptcy, anyway - virtually impossible
>to unload. Unlike wages or health benefits, pension benefits cannot be
>cut. Unlike other contracts, which might be renegotiated as business
>conditions change, pension commitments are forever. And given the
>exigencies of the labor market, they tend to be steadily improved upon,
>at least when times are good.
>
>For the U.A.W., Miller noted forlornly, "30 and Out" - 30 years to
>retirement - became a rallying cry. Eventually, the union got what it
>wanted, and workers who started on the assembly line after high school
>found they could retire by their early 50's. "These pensions were
>created when we all used to work until age 70 and then poop out at 72,"
>Miller told me. "Now if you live past 80, a not-uncommon demographic,
>you're going to be taking benefits for longer than you are working.
>That social contract is under severe pressure."
>
>Earlier this month, Miller and Delphi gave in to the pressure and
>sought protection under the bankruptcy code - the largest such filing
>ever in the auto industry. It followed by a few weeks the Chapter 11
>filings of Delta Air Lines and Northwest Airlines, whose pension
>promises to workers exceeded the assets in their pension funds by an
>estimated $16 billion.
>
>The three filings have blown the lid off America's latest, if
>long-simmering, financial debacle. It is not hedge funds or the
>real-estate bubble - it is the pension system, both public and private.
>And it is broken.
>
>II. THE MORAL HAZARD OF INSURANCE
>
>The amount of underfunding in corporate pension plans totals a
>staggering $450 billion. Part of that liability is attributable to
>otherwise healthy corporations that will most likely, in time, make
>good on their obligations. But the plans of the companies that fail
>will become the responsibility of the government's pension insurer, the
>Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation. The P.B.G.C., which collects
>premiums from corporations and, in theory, is supposed to be
>self-financing, is deeply in the hole, prompting comparisons to the
>savings-and-loan fiasco of the 1980's. Just as S. & L.'s of that era
>took foolish risks in part because their deposits were insured, the
>P.B.G.C.'s guarantee encouraged managements and unions to raise
>benefits ever higher.
>
>In such situations, individuals are tempted to take more risk than is
>healthy for the group; economists, in a glum appraisal of human nature,
>call it "moral hazard." In effect, America's pension system has been a
>laboratory demonstration of moral hazard in which the insurance may end
>up bankrupting the system it was intended to save. Given that pension
>promises do not come due for years, it is hardly surprising that
>corporate executives and state legislators have found it easier to pay
>off unions with benefits tomorrow rather than with wages today. Since
>the benefits were insured, union leaders did not much care if the
>obligations proved excessive. During the previous decade especially,
>when it seemed that every pension promise could be fulfilled by a
>rising stock market, employers either recklessly overpromised or
>recklessly underprovided - or both - for the commitments they made.
>
>The P.B.G.C. is now $23 billion in the red - a deficit that is expected
>to grow, significantly, as more companies go under. The balance sheet
>for the end of September will very likely show a deficit of more than
>$30 billion. If nothing is done to fix the system, the Congressional
>Budget Office forecasts, the deficit will mushroom to more than $100
>billion within two decades. This liability will almost certainly fall
>back on the taxpayers, since the alternative to a bailout - letting the
>pension agency fail - would force aging former auto workers and other
>retirees onto the street.
>
>As bad as that sounds, the problem of state and local government
>pensions is even worse. Public pensions, which are paid by taxpayers
>and thus enjoy an implicit form of insurance, are underfunded by a
>total of at least $300 billion and arguably much more. While
>governments have been winking at these deficits for years, they are now
>becoming intolerable burdens for taxpayers. In San Diego, pension abuse
>has effectively bankrupted the city. Thanks to a history of granting
>sweeter and sweeter pension deals that it has neglected to fund, the
>city has been forced to allocate $160 million, or 8 percent of the
>municipal budget, to the San Diego City Employees Retirement System
>this year, with similar allocations expected for years to come. San
>Diego has tabled plans for a downtown library, cut back the hours on
>swimming pools, gutted the parks and recreation budget, canceled needed
>water and sewer projects and fallen behind on potholes.
>
>State or local governments in New Jersey, New York, Illinois, Ohio,
>West Virginia and elsewhere face similar budget strains aggravated by
>runaway pension promises. According to Carl DeMaio, director of the
>Performance Institute, which advocates better government
>accountability, "There is a San Diego brewing in every community."
>
>Not only are taxpayers certain to suffer, but senior citizens in the
>future may also have to settle for less secure retirements anchored
>only by Social Security and whatever they've managed to put away into
>their 401(k) accounts. A backlash already has begun in state capitals,
>where the political forces that have been lobbying for Social Security
>reform have been rallying lawmakers to get out of the pension business
>altogether. Alaska's Legislature recently passed a shotgun bill to deny
>pensions to future employees. This mimics a trend in the private
>sector, in which corporations have been leaving the system, either by
>paying off their workers and terminating their pension plans or by
>"freezing" their plans, a step recently taken by Hewlett Packard, so
>that many current employees will no longer accrue benefits and new
>employees will not participate at all.
>
>If the pension system continues to wither, it is not hard to envision a
>darker future in which - as was true until early in the 20th Century,
>before the advent of pensions - many of the elderly would be forced to
>keep working to stave off poverty.
>
>III. THE SHRINKING PENSION SYSTEM
>
>Congress has been debating legislation to fix the private system, but
>it has been unable to resolve a basic tension: anything it does to ease
>the burden on failing or failed pension plans lessens the penalty for
>failure and enhances moral hazard. By making it easier for, say, a
>Delta or a Delphi to offer benefits, it raises the possible cost of a
>future bailout.
>
>The tough medicine favored by the Bush administration, which would
>eliminate loopholes in the system as well as much of the subsidy that
>now exists in the insurance system, would lead to more companies
>freezing their plans or leaving the system outright. The number of
>pension plans would continue to shrink and in time all but disappear.
>This would strip the elderly of the future of what is still the most
>secure form of retirement income.
>
>The fear of runaway pension costs plainly echoes the Social Security
>debate, and many suspect that the Bush administration would not much
>mind if pensions did disappear. "I don't think the administration is
>very interested in creating a future for traditional pensions," says
>Julia Coronado, a senior research associate at Watson Wyatt, a
>human-resources consulting firm. "It doesn't fit very well with their
>vision of the ownership society."
>
>Bradley Belt, executive director of the P.B.G.C., shrugs off the
>charge. "The last thing we want to do is chase people out of the
>system," he says. Besides, the government doesn't need to chase. As
>Belt points out, the number of workers covered by pensions is shrinking
>without government help. In 1980, about 40 percent of the jobs in the
>private sector offered pensions; now only 20 percent do. The trend is
>probably irreversible, because it feeds on itself. Hewlett Packard, for
>instance, must compete with younger companies like Dell Computer that
>do not offer traditional pensions. Freezing its plan, which was a
>legacy of the company's famously employee-oriented founders, was an
>embarrassing step for H.P.'s present managers - but freeze it they did.
>
>This may have made economic sense, but federal law has long recognized
>a social purpose to pensions as well. By allowing companies to deduct
>from taxes the money they contribute into their pension funds, the
>government encourages employers to provide a safety net for their
>workers. This remains a legitimate function, and if pensions were
>allowed to die, we would need something to take their place.
>
>IV. WHY PENSIONS MATTER
>
>To understand why pensions are still important, you have to understand
>the awkward beast that benefits professionals refer to as the U.S.
>retirement system. It is not really one "system" but three, which
>complement each other in the crudest of fashions. The lowest tier is
>Social Security, which provides most Americans with a bare-bones living
>(the average payment is about $12,000 a year). The highest tier,
>available to the rich, is private savings. In between, for people who
>do not have a hedge-fund account and yet want to retire on more than
>mere subsistence, there are pensions and 401(k)'s. Currently, more than
>half of all families have at least one member who has qualified for a
>pension at some point in his or her career and thus will be eligible
>for a benefit. And among current retirees, pensions are the
>second-biggest source of income, trailing only Social Security.
>
>During most of the 90's the decline in pension coverage was barely
>lamented. It was not that big companies were folding up their plans
>(for the most part, they were not) but that newer, smaller companies
>weren't offering them. As the small companies grew into big ones (think
>Dell, or Starbucks, or Home Depot), traditional pensions covered less
>of the private-sector landscape. This did not seem like a very big
>deal. Younger workers envisioned mobile careers for themselves and many
>did not want pension strings tying them to a single employer. And most
>were able to put money aside in 401(k)'s, often matched by an employer
>contribution.
>
>It happened that 401(k)'s, which were authorized by a change in the tax
>code in 1978 and which began to blossom in the early 1980's, coincided
>with a great upswing in the stock market. It is possible that they
>helped to cause the upswing. In any case, Americans' experience with
>401(k)'s in the first two decades of their existence was sufficiently
>rosy that few people shed tears over the slow demise of pension plans
>or were even aware of how significantly pensions and 401(k)'s differed.
>But 401(k)'s were intended to be a supplement to pensions, not a
>substitute.
>
>>From the beneficiary's standpoint, pensions mean unique security. The
>worker gets a guaranteed income, determined by the number of years of
>service and by his or her salary at retirement. And pensions don't run
>dry; workers (or their spouses) get them as long as they live. Because
>the employer is committed to paying a certain level of benefits,
>pensions are known as "defined benefit" plans. Since an individual's
>benefit rises with each year of service, the employer is supposed to
>sock money away, into a fund that it manages for all of its
>beneficiaries, every year. The point is that workers don't (or
>shouldn't) have to worry about how the benefit will get there; that's
>the employer's responsibility. Of course, the open-ended nature of the
>guarantee - the very feature that makes pensions so attractive to the
>individual - is precisely what has caused employers to rue the day they
>said yes. No profit-making enterprise can truly gauge its ability to
>meet such promises decades later.
>
>A 401(k), on the other hand, promises nothing. It's merely a license to
>defer taxes - an individual savings plan. The employer might contribute
>some money, which is why 401(k)'s are known as "defined contribution"
>plans. Or it might not. Even if the company does contribute, it offers
>no assurance that the money will be enough to retire on, nor does it
>get involved with managing the account; that's up to the worker. These
>disadvantages were, in the 90's, somehow perceived (with the help of
>exuberant marketing pitches by mutual-fund firms) to be advantages:
>401(k)'s let workers manage their own assets; they were a road map to
>economic freedom.
>
>Post-bubble, the picture looks different. Various people have studied
>how investors perform in their 401(k)'s. According to Alicia Munnell, a
>pension expert at Boston College and previously a White House
>economist, pension funds over the long haul earn slightly more than the
>average 401(k) holder. Among the latter, those who do worse than
>average, of course, have no protection. Moreover, pensions typically
>annuitize - that is, they convert a worker's retirement assets into an
>annual stipend. They impose a budget, based on actuarial probabilities.
>This might seem a trivial service (some pensioners might not even
>realize that it is a service). But if you asked a 65-year-old man who
>lacked a pension but did have, say, $100,000 in savings, how much he
>could live on, he likely would not have the vaguest idea. The answer is
>$654 a month: this is the annuity that $100,000 would purchase in the
>private market. It is the amount (after deducting the annuity
>provider's costs and profit) that the average person could live on so
>as to exhaust his savings at the very moment that he draws his final
>breath.
>
>So the question arises: what if he lives longer than average? This is
>the beauty of a pension or of any collectivized savings pool. The
>pension plan can afford to support people who live to 90, because some
>of its members will expire at 66. It subsidizes its more robust members
>from the resources of those who die young. This is why a 401(k) is not
>a true substitute. Jeffrey Brown, an associate finance professor at the
>University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign and a staff member of the
>president's Social Security commission, notes that as baby boomers who
>have nest eggs in place of pensions begin to retire, they will be faced
>with a daunting question: "How do I make this last a lifetime?"
>
>V. FROM MANAGEMENT TOOL TO EMPLOYEE BENEFIT
>
>The country's first large-scale pension plan was introduced after the
>Civil War, when the federal government gave pensions to disabled Union
>Army veterans and war widows. Congress passed an act in 1890 that
>extended pensions to all veterans 65 and over. This converted pensions
>into a form of social welfare. Over the next 20 years, states and
>cities added pensions for police officers and firefighters. By World
>War I, most teachers had been granted pensions as well. Governments
>couldn't offer big paychecks for workers - teachers, the police,
>firefighters - so it offered stability and pensions instead.
>
>In the private sector, the first pension was offered by American
>Express, a stagecoach delivery service, in 1875. Railroads followed
>suit. Employees were required to work for 30 years before they
>qualified for benefits, and thus pensions helped companies retain
>employees as well as ease older workers into retirement. These
>employers thought of pensions as management tools, not as employee
>"benefits." But in the first half of the 20th century, as the historian
>James Wooten put it, government policies turned pensions into a tool of
>social policy. First came the tax deduction. This feature was abused,
>as companies used pensions to shelter payments to their executives. The
>rules were gradually tightened, however, forcing plans to include the
>rank and file. World War II gave more incentives to create pensions:
>punitive tax rates made the pension shelter enormously attractive and a
>government freeze on wages meant that pensions were the only avenue for
>increasing compensation.
>
>The effect of these policies was to encourage unions to bargain for
>pensions and to pressure employers to grant them. After the war, John
>L. Lewis, the legendary labor leader, staged a strike to win pensions
>for miners. Ford Motor capitulated to the U.A.W. in 1949. G.M., headed
>by the reluctant Sloan, followed in 1950. This led to a so-called
>pension stampede; by 1960, 40 percent of private-sector workers were
>covered. Meanwhile, in the auto industry, the seeds of the problem were
>already visible.
>
>Companies might establish plans, but many were derelict when it came to
>funding them. When companies failed, the workers lost much of their
>promised benefit. The U.A.W. was acutely aware of the problem, because
>of the failing condition of several smaller car manufacturers, like
>Packard. The union didn't have the muscle to force full funding, and
>even if it did, it reckoned that if the weaker manufacturers were
>obliged to put more money into their pension funds, they would
>retaliate by cutting wages.
>
>Thus in 1959, Studebaker, a manufacturer fallen on hard times, agreed
>to increase benefits - its third such increase in six years. In return,
>the U.A.W. let Studebaker stretch out its pension funding schedule.
>This bargain preserved the union's wages, as well as management's hopes
>for a profit, though it required each to pretend that Studebaker could
>afford a pension plan that was clearly beyond its means. Four years
>later, the company collapsed.
>
>The Studebaker failure was a watershed. Thousands of employees,
>including some who had worked 40 years on the line, lost the bulk of
>their pensions. Stunned by the loss, which totaled $15 million, the
>U.A.W. changed its tactics and began to lobby in earnest for federal
>pension insurance. A union pension expert tellingly explained to Walter
>Reuther, the U.A.W. chief, that insurance would reconfigure the
>"incentives" of both labor and management. Though business was
>skeptical of the idea, a decade later, in 1974, Congress finally passed
>the Employee Retirement Income Security Act, or Erisa, which, among
>other protections, established the P.B.G.C. to insure private pensions.
>Erisa, according to Wooten, who wrote a history of the act, completed
>the transition of pensions into a part of the social safety net. It was
>also the birth of moral hazard.
>
>VI. THE SURPRISINGLY PLIABLE SYSTEM OF PENSION ACCOUNTING
>
>Erisa, which would be amended several times, was supposed to ensure
>that corporate sponsors kept their plans funded. The act includes a
>Byzantine set of regulations that seemingly require companies to make
>timely contributions. As recently as 2000, most corporate plans were
>adequately funded, or at least appeared to be. Their assets took a
>serious hit, however, when the stock market tumbled. (In retrospect,
>they had been cavalier in assuming the bull market would continue.) And
>they were burned again when interest rates fell.
>
>Since pension liabilities are, for the most part, future liabilities,
>companies calculate their present obligation by applying a discount
>rate to what they will owe in the future. As interest rates move lower,
>they have to set more money aside because it is assumed that their
>assets will grow more slowly. The principle is familiar to any
>individual saver: you need to save more if you expect, say, a 5 percent
>return on your investment instead of a 10 percent return. What is much
>in dispute is just which rate is proper for pension accounting.
>
>Corporations have been gaming the system by using the highest rates
>allowable, which shrinks their reported liabilities, and thus their
>funding requirements. The P.B.G.C., when calculating the system's
>deficit, uses what is in effect a market rate; whatever it would cost
>to buy annuities for everyone covered in a pension plan is, it argues,
>the plan's true "liability." The difference between these measures can
>be extreme. Depending on whom you talk to, General Motors' mammoth
>pension fund is either fully funded or, as the P.B.G.C. maintains, it
>is $31 billion in the hole.
>
>What is not in dispute is that when interest rates fell, the present
>value of pension liabilities (by whatever measure) soared. The
>confluence of falling stock prices, plunging interest rates and a
>recession in the beginning of this decade was the pension world's
>equivalent of the perfect storm. An unprecedented wave of pension
>sponsors failed and then dumped their obligations on the P.B.G.C. (To
>do so, a sponsor generally must prove that it could not re-emerge as a
>viable enterprise without shedding its pension plan.) By far the most
>costly failures were in airlines and steel, although the list ranges
>from Kemper Insurance and Kaiser Aluminum to Murray, a lawn-mower
>manufacturer.
>
>As the P.B.G.C. assumed responsibility for more and more pensioners, it
>became clear that the premium it charged was way too cheap. Mispriced
>insurance, like mispriced anything, sends the market a distorted
>signal. Belt, the P.B.G.C. director, who served as counsel to the
>Senate Banking Committee in the late 1980's during the savings-and-loan
>crisis, says that cheap pension insurance gave rise to flawed
>incentives: namely it kept companies in the pension business who didn't
>deserve to be there. He also argues, rather convincingly, that lax
>rules allowed pension sponsors to get away with inadequate funding.
>
>For example, United Airlines did not make contributions to any of its
>four employee plans between 2000 and 2002, when it was heading into
>Chapter 11, and made minimal contributions in 2003. Even more
>surprisingly, in 2002, after two of its jets had been turned into
>weapons in the Sept. 11 disaster, and when the airline industry was
>pleading for emergency relief from Congress, United granted a 40
>percent increase in pension benefits for its 23,000 ground employees.
>
>Bethlehem Steel similarly enjoyed a three-year funding holiday as it
>was going through hard times, letting its liabilities swell in advance
>of turning them over to the government. Meanwhile, in order to gain its
>unions' approval for plant shutdowns, it agreed to costly benefit
>enhancements. In 2001 Bethlehem filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy. It was
>guided through its bankruptcy by none other than Miller, now the Delphi
>C.E.O. Miller disputes the notion that capital-scarce companies like
>Bethlehem intentionally game the system by shirking funding. "Companies
>don't like falling behind," he says. "When you have a hard choice
>between starving the capital base to feed the pension plan, or making
>capital investments to become more productive, to the extent there is
>permission that's what you do." The point is, they had permission.
>
>Neither Bethlehem nor United broke any laws. Both companies made the
>full contributions required under Erisa. When the P.B.G.C. seized their
>plans, however, Bethlehem was only 45 percent funded, and United was
>only 42 percent funded. For companies that terminate their pension
>plans, such gross underfunding has become the norm. Either assets
>suddenly vanish when the P.B.G.C. walks in the door, or, evidently, the
>system for measuring "full" funding is broken. As Belt testified to the
>Senate Committee on Finance in June, "United, US Airways, Bethlehem
>Steel, LTV and National Steel would not have presented claims in excess
>of $1 billion each - and with funded ratios of less than 50 percent -
>if the rules worked."
>
>Even leaving aside the debate over which rate to use in calculating
>pension liabilities, there is no doubt that Erisa permits companies to
>use some doubtful arithmetic. For instance, the law lets corporations
>"smooth" changes in their asset values. If the stocks and bonds in
>their pension funds take a hit (as happened to just about every fund
>recently), they don't have to fully report the impact. Nor do they have
>to ante up fresh funds to compensate for the loss for five years. A
>similar smoothing is permitted on the liability side. And though, in
>theory, Erisa discourages underfunding by requiring offenders to pay
>higher premiums, its various loopholes render the sanction toothless.
>Thanks to another loophole, companies that contribute more than the
>required amount get to skip future contributions even if they later
>become underfunded. These companies are awarded so-called "credit
>balances," which remain in place even if the actual balance is showing
>red.
>
>Incredibly, when United's plans were terminated, earlier this year,
>even though they were groaning under $17 billion in pension liabilities
>and a mere $7 billion in assets, they still had credit "balances"
>according to Erisa. (By law, the P.B.G.C. will be on the hook for most,
>but not all, of United's shortfall. The agency guarantees pensions up
>to $45,000 a year; employees, mostly pilots, who were owed richer
>pensions are uninsured above the cap.)
>
>Their dubious funding history notwithstanding, corporations - airlines
>in particular - have been lobbying for greater permissiveness for
>several years. And they have gotten it. Congress has twice relaxed the
>rules, permitting pension sponsors to use a higher rate to calculate
>their liabilities.
>
>VII. WHAT BUSH WOULD DO?
>
>Enter the Bush administration: it has essentially declared the era of
>permissiveness over. Among other changes, it wants the funding rules
>tightened. To tackle moral hazard, it wants to stop companies with poor
>credit ratings from granting benefit hikes, or from doling out unfunded
>pension benefits to unions who agree to plant shutdowns. It even wants
>to prevent workers at some companies whose bonds are given a "junk"
>rating from accruing more years of service. This would be painful to
>employees at many industrial companies, possibly including G.M.
>
>Indeed, one reading of the administration proposal is that, having seen
>the steel and airline industries raid the P.B.G.C., it is drawing the
>line at the auto industry - whose initial distress, of course, prompted
>the agency's founding. Asked about that before Delphi went bust, Belt
>admitted: "Eight auto-parts suppliers have come under Chapter 11 so far
>this year. No question our single largest source of exposure is the
>auto sector."
>
>Since G.M.'s stock was downgraded to junk status earlier this year, the
>possibility that it would file for bankruptcy has been the subject of
>on-again, off-again debate on Wall Street. G.M.'s pension plan totals
>an astronomical $90 billion; a bankruptcy filing would be the
>P.B.G.C.'s biggest nightmare. G.M. says the notion is far-fetched. The
>company seems to have plenty of liquidity and, just two weeks ago, with
>retiree costs a major concern, it reached an agreement with the U.A.W.
>to trim health benefits. G.M. and other industrial companies, along
>with their unions, have harshly attacked the Bush pension proposal,
>which would force many old-economy-type corporations to put more money
>into their pension funds just when their basic businesses are hurting.
>
>Alan Reuther, Walter's nephew and the U.A.W.'s legislative director,
>says the provisions to restrict benefits would be "totally devastating
>for workers and retirees." He makes no apologies for "30 and out" - a
>fair reward, he maintains, for hard service on the assembly line - and
>he wonders at the post-modern notion that blue-collar workers should be
>responsible for their own retirements because giant corporations can't
>handle it. Also, a typical G.M. pension for someone with 30 years on
>the job is about $18,000 a year. That is hardly to be compared with an
>airline pilot's. "The P.B.G.C. is focused on protecting themselves from
>claims and not on protecting the claims of workers," he says. "They
>forget why they were created." Social safety nets have their price - in
>this case, a little moral hazard - and that is really what the debate
>is about.
>
>What has emerged from the Beltway skirmishing thus far are bills on
>either side of Congress that would in some ways tighten funding but
>give a special break to airlines. Premiums to the P.B.G.C. would rise
>from $19 per plan participant to $30, and variable premiums on
>distressed companies would be enforced. The bills would chip away (but
>not eliminate) gimmicks like "smoothing."
>
>The Senate is still divided, however, on how to treat corporations with
>junk credit ratings - the ones most likely to wind up in the P.B.G.C.'s
>lap. Hard-liners like Senator Chuck Grassley insist they should be
>forced to strengthen their pension plans in a hurry; Senators Mike
>DeWine and Barbara Mikulski (both from states with blue-collar
>constituencies) want to give such companies lenience. So after months
>of lobbying, politicking and deal making, moral hazard is still alive.
>
>VIII. PENSION VS. POTHOLES
>
>The P.B.G.C. does not protect government pensions, but dynamics similar
>to those in the private sector have also wrecked the solvency of public
>plans. Even in states where budget restraint is gospel, public-service
>employees have found it relatively easy to get benefit hikes for the
>simple reason that no one else pays much attention to them. In the
>corporate world, stockholders, at least in theory, exert some pressure
>on managers to show restraint. But who are the public sector
>"stockholders"? The average voter doesn't take notice when the
>legislature debates the benefits levels of firemen, teachers and the
>like. On the other hand, public-employee unions exhibit a very keen
>interest, and legislators know it. So benefits keep rising.
>
>As a matter of practice, those benefits are as good as insured. Because
>public pension benefits are legally inviolable, default is not an
>option. Sooner or later, taxpayers will be required to put up the money
>(or governments will be forced to borrow the money and tax a later
>generation to pay the interest). Thus, unions can bargain for virtually
>any level of benefits without regard to the state's ability, or its
>willingness, to fund them. This creates moral hazard indeed. At least
>in the private sphere, there are rules - ineffectual rules maybe, but
>rules - that require companies to fund. In the public sector,
>legislatures wary of raising taxes to pay for the benefits that they
>legislate can simply pass the buck to the future. This explains how the
>West Virginia Teachers Retirement System has, embarrassingly, only 22
>percent of the assets needed to meet its expected liabilities. It also
>explains how Illinois, a low-tax state, is underfunded by some $38
>billion, or $3,000 per every man, woman and child in the state.
>
>California is a good example of the political forces that have driven
>benefits higher. In the 90's, Gov. Gray Davis, a Democrat who was
>strongly supported by public-employee unions, pushed through numerous
>bills to increase benefits. One raised the pension of state troopers
>retiring at age 50 to 3 percent of final salary times the number of
>years served. (Previously, the formula was 2 percent at age 50, more if
>you were older.) Thus, a cop hired at age 20 could retire at 50, find
>another job and get a pension equal to 90 percent of his final salary.
>
>The higher benefits trickled down to the local level, as counties that
>feared losing police officers to the state felt forced to copy the
>formula. Counterintuitively, as benefits were going up, the California
>Public Employees Retirement System (Calpers), which was boasting high
>returns in the stock market, allowed state agencies and local
>governments to reduce their contributions.
>
>Contra Costa County, which adopted the "3 percent at 50" formula for
>its Police Department, got by with contributing only $55 million to
>retirement costs in 1999, near the market peak. When the market tanked,
>the county found itself with lower assets and greater obligations. Six
>years later, the county's retirement bill had more than tripled to $180
>million. Bill Pollacek, the county treasurer-tax collector, says the
>excess earnings from the bull market were spent, among other things, on
>higher benefits; "the losses were left for the taxpayers."
>
>This example was repeated with various twists across the country. In
>New Jersey, for example, Christine Whitman, the Republican governor in
>the 90's, ultimately relied on buoyant stock-market predictions to
>finance hefty tax cuts, which were the centerpiece of her
>administration. In 1997, New Jersey borrowed $2.8 billion, at an
>interest rate of 7.64 percent. The money was advanced to its pension
>system, on the convenient theory that its pension managers would make
>more in the market than the state paid out in interest. For a while,
>they did. The state even raised benefits.
>
>Meanwhile, Trenton achieved a sort of transitory budget balance by
>contributing less to its pension system. New Jersey's contribution to
>the Police and Firemen's Retirement System was zero in 2001 through
>2003. But during the dot-com debacle, its investments plunged. And the
>state came under intense budget pressure because of the recession, and
>so gave itself a few years more to start paying down its pension
>liability (which further widened the gap). This year, the last
>easy-funding year, New Jersey will contribute $220 million to its
>pension system; by 2010, the annual bill will be an impossible-seeming
>$2.5 billion.
>
>I spoke to Jon Corzine and Doug Forrester, the candidates in next
>Tuesday's gubernatorial election, and while each expressed the proper
>horror with regard to past mismanagement, neither had much to say about
>how they would replenish New Jersey's pension system. State pension
>officials say that if New Jersey were a private corporation, its system
>would be nearly bankrupt. "In the real world this is a P.B.G.C.
>takeover," Fred Beaver, the head of the pension division, told me.
>Raising taxes is politically forbidden (Forrester has been campaigning
>to cut property-tax rates).
>
>And the state's reported pension underfunding, officially $25 billion,
>is undoubtedly optimistic. It assumes that New Jersey's pension assets
>will earn 8.25 percent, a number collectively determined - some say
>pulled from thin air - by the state's pension council. Even Orin
>Kramer, a private hedge-fund manager who also is also chairman of the
>council, says that any assumption higher than 7.5 percent is
>unrealistic. "The published numbers are divorced from economic
>reality," Kramer says. "No one even does the math for what will happen
>if you only do 7 percent because it's too serious. You start firing
>cops and teachers."
>
>According to Barclay's Global Investors, if you use realistic
>assumptions, the total underfunding in all public plans is on the order
>of $460 billion. If this figure is even close to true, future taxpayers
>will be hopelessly in hock to the police, firefighters and teachers of
>the past.
>
>Cutting pensions (unlike health benefits) is simply not an option.
>State constitutions forbid public entities, even prospectively, from
>reducing the rate at which employees accrue benefits. They can tinker
>with, or abolish, benefits for future employees, as Alaska did, but for
>a worker already on the payroll, benefits - even benefits that might
>not be earned for many decades hence - are sacrosanct. These benefits
>are like headless nails; once driven in they can never be removed. This
>year, New York's Legislature approved 46 new bills - more headless
>nails - to increase pension benefits, according to E.J. McMahon, an
>analyst at the Manhattan Institute. New York's benefits already rank
>among the most generous in the country, and the new bills would expand
>categories of workers who can retire early, or who can qualify for
>higher rates. Such bracket creep is pervasive.
>
>
>One of the biggest pension offenders is San Diego, where six members of
>the pension board, including the head of the local firefighters' union
>and two other union officials, have been charged with violating the
>state's conflict-of-interest code, a felony. What is interesting about
>San Diego is that, juicy details aside, its pension mess actually looks
>rather commonplace. The six board members are accused of making a deal
>to let City Hall underfund the pension system in return for agreeing to
>higher benefits - including special benefits for themselves. Explicitly
>or otherwise, this is what unions and legislators have been doing all
>over the country. A senior adviser on pensions to Gov. Arnold
>Schwarzenegger told me he fears that ever higher benefits are
>inescapable, given the fact that legislators control the benefits of
>people whose support is vital in elections.
>
>Calpers, the country's biggest state-employee retirement system,
>responds that the pension system has worked well. And for Calpers's 1.4
>million members, it has. The average benefit for retirees is $21,000 a
>year, more than most at General Motors. But at some point, the interest
>of the public and the interests of public employees diverge.
>
>Earlier this year, Schwarzenegger tried to move California to a
>401(k)-style defined contribution plan (for new employees), but the
>Legislature refused to go along. Schwarzenegger has vowed to revisit
>the issue in 2006. This battle is being fought from statehouse to
>statehouse. Michigan (mimicking Alaska) has closed its pension plan to
>some new employees, and various states, including Florida, Colorado,
>South Carolina, Arizona, Ohio and Montana, are taking a partial step of
>letting employees choose between defined contribution plans and
>traditional pensions. This compromise does not really change much. Most
>employees who are given the choice opt, quite naturally, to keep their
>pensions.
>
>Partly for that reason, the Citizens Budget Commission, a politically
>neutral watchdog, concluded that only by ending pensions outright (for
>new employees) could New York avert a future fiscal calamity. "Changes
>in pension benefits for future workers would yield fiscal gains only
>slowly," the commission noted in a position paper, "but the service to
>the future fiscal health of the City and State would be enormous."
>
>Most legislatures are not about to do that anytime soon. There is a
>legitimate argument for preserving public pensions, however, if only
>they could be put on a sound fiscal basis. Critics like Grover
>Norquist, the tax-cut crusader, lampoons pensions as remnants of a
>stodgy, Old World economy. The desire to collect a pension, he argues,
>keeps workers from moving to better opportunities and shackles
>employers to workers who are just marking time.
>
>But while mobility is generally considered a virtue in the modern
>economy, it isn't appropriate everywhere. It may be desirable for a
>software engineer to move from job to job, notes Robert Walton, a
>Calpers assistant executive; "for teachers, firefighters, nurses,
>engineers, that isn't the type of work force you want." Stability is a
>virtue. The trick is to force legislatures to commit to funding with
>the same zeal with which they commit to benefits.
>
>De Maio, the San Diego watchdog, is lobbying for a federal law that
>would impose Erisa-type rules on public plans. Another solution might
>be found in the Texas Municipal Retirement System, which represents 800
>cities and towns in the state. It has a blended system of automatic
>employer and employee contributions that are managed by the system and
>turned into an annuity upon retirement. These sorts of remedies could
>avert plenty of future San Diegos. In principle they are quite simple.
>It is only the politics that are difficult.
>
>IX. HOW DO YOU MAKE SAVINGS LAST A LIFETIME?
>
>On the private side, benefits professionals have been touting so-called
>cash-balance plans, a hybrid that in some ways looks like a 401(k), as
>the best hope for saving the pension industry. With a traditional
>pension, employees accrue benefits very slowly during their first 20
>years and very rapidly during their next 10 (this is why pension plans
>act as retention tools; you pay a penalty for leaving early). Thus, an
>employee who stays at a company for 30 years gets a much bigger pension
>than one who works at three companies for 10 years each. Cash-balance
>plans were devised to appeal to younger workers, most of whom do not
>envision retiring at the firm that hired them out of college. In these
>plans, employees accrue benefits steadily, one decade to the next.
>There is no penalty for leaving, and workers who change jobs simply
>roll their accrued benefits into their next plan, as with a 401(k).
>Many firms converted to cash-balance plans in the 90's to attract
>younger and more mobile workers.
>
>But the downside of giving more to junior employees is that senior
>employees get less. When I.B.M. converted, it reduced the rate at which
>some employees of long standing would accrue benefits, touching off a
>firestorm. The company was sued, I.B.M. lost and the legal status of
>similar plans remains in doubt. The pension industry has been lobbying
>Congress to clarify the status of existing cash-balance plans, but
>neither the administration nor anyone on Capitol Hill has done so.
>
>To some people, this is further evidence that the Bush administration
>would just as soon be done with pension plans altogether. I put that
>recently to Elaine Chao, the secretary of labor, and while her answer
>was diplomatic, she made no bones about the fact that, in the
>administration's view, traditional pensions are losing their relevance.
>"Defined benefit plans have their advantages," she told me, "but in an
>increasingly mobile 21st-century work force, the lack of flexibility of
>D.B. plans is yielding to greater usage of defined contributions
>plans."
>
>It's hard to argue with her, if you look at the numbers. Although 44
>million people are covered by private-sector plans, half are people who
>have already retired and are collecting benefits or whose plans have
>been frozen or terminated. In other words, on-the-job employees
>accruing benefits - once the backbone of the system - constitute only
>half. At that rate, even without legislation, the private-sector
>pension community will mostly die off in a generation.
>
>And pension sponsors are likely to get another jolt soon. Under current
>accounting standards, companies can "smooth" their earnings reports, so
>that each quarter's net income reflects the average assumed performance
>of the company's pension assets, whether up or down, but not the actual
>performance. (Discrepancies from the average are sifted back into the
>earnings stream over time.) This means that reported earnings are often
>wildly misleading. Robert Herz, chairman of the Financial Accounting
>Standards Board, has criticized this practice as "a Rube Goldberg
>device." If FASB follows up and disallows it, corporate pension
>sponsors would have to cope with a lot more volatility in their
>earnings. Managers hate volatility, and such a change would prompt many
>of them to fold their plans.
>
>If defined benefits are on their last legs, then it would make sense to
>try to incorporate their best features into 401(k)'s. The drawback to
>401(k)'s, remember, is that people are imperfect savers. They don't
>save enough, they don't invest wisely what they do save and they don't
>know what to do with their money once they are free to withdraw it.
>Quite often, they spend it.
>
>Here there is much the government could do. For instance, it could
>require that a portion of 401(k) accounts be set aside in a lifelong
>annuity, with all the security of a pension. Behavioral economists like
>Richard Thaler have demonstrated that you can change people's behavior
>even without mandatory rules. For instance, by making a high
>contribution rate the "default option" for employees, they would tend
>to deduct (and save) more from their paychecks. If you make an annuity
>a prominent choice, more people will convert their accounts into
>annuities.
>
>Otherwise, it's not hard to predict that as octogenarians and
>nonagenarians become commonplace in society, many are going to outlive
>their savings, which is even more scary than outliving the savings of
>the P.B.G.C. Promoting an annuity culture is probably the single best
>way to make up for the demise of pensions. Yet most companies that
>provide 401(k)'s don't even give the option of purchasing an annuity
>when people cash in their accounts. As Brown, the Illinois professor,
>notes, "There is no box to check that says 'annuities."' That is a
>minor scandal. "I wish someone in Washington were thinking bigger
>thoughts about what the optimal retirement package should look like,"
>says Watson Wyatt's Coronado.
>
>What are Secretary Chao's thoughts? She bounced the question to the
>Treasury Department. Mark Warshawsky, the Treasury's top economist, has
>written about the need for annuities, and in an interview he allowed
>that as 401(k)'s become the primary, or the only, source of retirement
>income for more people, "I think it is a concern that annuities are not
>being offered in those plans." When I asked what the Treasury was doing
>about encouraging annuities, Warshawsky merely said that it was under
>study. Anything that smacks of regulation (like rules to make sure
>employees get a particular menu of choices, whether for annuities or
>for their portfolios) gives the administration shivers. This is what
>you would expect, given the administration's strong free-market
>tendencies.
>
>But the government is already deeply involved, since it shelters
>retirement savings - pensions, yes, but also 401(k)'s, which are
>similarly permitted to grow tax-free. When it passed Erisa, Congress
>agreed that corporations that invested tax-sheltered retirement funds -
>pensions - should have to live by certain rules. But in the defined
>contribution world - the world of 401(k)'s - there are no rules.
>Employers can contribute or not. Employees can diversify or blow it all
>on the company stock (even if it is Enron). If nothing else, the
>century-long experiment with pensions has proved that in the absence of
>the right rules, the money will not always be there. The purpose of
>pension reform should be not merely to avoid a fiscal disaster but to
>find a fiscally sound way to preserve the likelihood of secure
>retirements. If people are going to retire on 401(k)'s, those should be
>subject to rules, and guidance, as well.
>
>It would be nice to think that reform would include a future for
>pensions, but on the private side at least, it is doubtful. As Delphi's
>Miller put it simply: "A pension plan makes no sense in today's world.
>It's not wise for a company to make financial promises 40 or 50 years
>down the road." Most American executives would agree. Miller says he
>has not decided what to do at Delphi. If workers grant wage
>concessions, he has said, the pension plan, which is $4.5 billion shy
>of what it needs, might even survive. This has the sound of a
>bargaining ploy. Knowing that the P.B.G.C.'s guarantee is in place, the
>unions will probably insist on keeping their wages as close to intact
>as they can, and Miller will probably end up handing the pension plan
>over to the agency, just as he did at Bethlehem. Then, Miller and other
>executives will get stock and dandy bonuses in a new Delphi that is
>happily stripped of pension obligations, and some 45,000 employees and
>retirees will, in time, happily collect their pensions - courtesy of
>the U.S. Government. Moral hazard at work.
>
>http://www.nytimes.com/2005/10/30/magazine/30pensions.html?ei=5090&en=c2ff69df888a2169&ex=1288324800&partner=rssuserland&emc=rss&pagewanted=all
tillius
claiming the Republicans stole the election(s).
Typical lib-tard flip-flop.
Oh - I guess your entry in my kill file expired. Better fix that
<pinko>
Tillman
Gunner Asch
wrote:
Every Republican best put their waders on for the next couple
weeks...since Bush nominated Alito...the Dems are going to be shitting
and pissing in all directions. Hummm...maybe a Tyvek suit might be
appropriate.
Gunner
"Pax Americana is a philosophy. Hardly an empire.
Making sure other people play nice and dont kill each other (and us)
off in job lots is hardly empire building, particularly when you give
them self determination under "play nice" rules.
Think of it as having your older brother knock the shit out of you
for torturing the cat." Gunner
F. George McDuffee
It is not the Demopublicans or the Republocrats -- it is the
system.
As Townsand wisely observed in his book "Up the Organization," --
never attempt the impossible as you are bound to fail.
Operationally we have attempted to create a financial perpetual
motion machine, whereby an endless stream of [real] income will
be generated with no further effort on our part. This is just as
impossible in the holistic economic sense as in the physical
sense, and the US citizens are about to pay the price for
attempting it.
While there are some moral/ethical implications, it appears that
the movers and shakers have realized the rapidly approaching
crackup and are getting as much out as they can before everything
goes down the tubes.
Company pensions are only a part, albeit a large part, of the
problem. The implosion of the real estate bubble will make the
dot com [con?] bubble seem like chump change.
Why do I keep hearing "apres moi la deluge" as Allen Greenspan
edges closer to the door?
GmcD
On Mon, 31 Oct 2005 07:41:06 -0500, Cliff <Clhu...@aol.com>
wrote:
>On 30 Oct 2005 12:58:42 -0800, "Artie" <rtwo...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>>The End of Pensions
>>By ROGER LOWENSTEIN
>>Published: October 30, 2005
<huge snip>
gru...@sbcglobal.net
Cliff wrote:
as You Spend Your Golden Years in a Cardboard Box on the Street
I can't envision a better place for you...... you will have NO internet
access there ! Yipeee !!!!
When are you heading out ?? Soon I hope. Let us all know what city and
corner your on so we can avoid it.
Grummy
tillius
At least I know I won't be living in a cardboard box because I took
PERSONAL RESPONSIBILITY for my future and BUSTED MY ASS.
You know, they ought to pass a law - if you're TOO STUPID to take care
of yourself, you SHOULDN'T BE ALLOWED TO VOTE!
That's the real problem. We let the lib-tard following mind-numb robot
clones vote when we should really give them all non-pointy scisssors,
construction paper and not-toxic (edible) paste and let them sit in the
park and make paper flowers while we employ some of the marginally
mainstreamable lib-tards to walk around with druel rags so the
construction paper doesn't get all soggy.
You know - if YOU don't like the principles this country was founded
on, GET OUT!!! Go to some euroslime socialist pig stye of a
country/euro-state and shout across the pond how much better you have
it there.
and we'll all be happy for you :)
Tillman
Steve Lusardi
one political party. It is a failure of the system and the demise of the
family unit in the 1st world. This is a global problem, not just the USA.
Steve
"Cliff" <Clhu...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:t54cm1pkuovhg5393...@4ax.com...
g-a...@excite.com
Two cheers to you. Somehow personal responsibility in this country has
gone out the door. If I end up living on the streets in the near future
its my fault.
The ones I like are the ones that rack up thousands of dollars in
credit card debt and blame it on the credit card companies for the easy
credit.
Further, somehow its the oil company's fault for high gas prices and we
forget that oil is a commodity that is freely traded and that America
refuses to conserve. I'll get rid of or stop driving my big truck (its
got a hemmi) when it no longer makes economical sense for me to own it.
gary
PabloRena ---> AnalProbe
"tillius" <tillman...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1130785311.1...@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
> Yeah baby! Woooohoooo.
>
> At least I know I won't be living in a cardboard box because I took
> PERSONAL RESPONSIBILITY for my future and BUSTED MY ASS.
>
> You know, they ought to pass a law - if you're TOO STUPID to take care
> of yourself, you SHOULDN'T BE ALLOWED TO VOTE!
>
> That's the real problem. We let the lib-tard following mind-numb robot
> clones vote when we should really give them all non-pointy scisssors,
> construction paper and not-toxic (edible) paste and let them sit in the
> park and make paper flowers while we employ some of the marginally
> mainstreamable lib-tards to walk around with druel rags so the
> construction paper doesn't get all soggy.
Wow Shill-man, you must have sat up all night composing that last paragraph.
I can tell that you were working at the outer limits of your personal
creativity envelope. Since you took PERSONAL RESPONSIBILITY for your future
and BUSTED YOUR ASS, I guess that you'll be willing to surrending all of
your Social Security withholdings and live off the fruits of your superhuman
labor when you get on up into retirement age, right?
Don't get all righteous and start spouting off about you wanting to keep
what is rightfully yours! If you keep one cent of your Social Security
savings then you aren't being true to your "conservative" ideals and rugged
individuality. If you take one cent of Social Security, then you too will
become a "Lib-tard".
tillius
> got a hemmi) when it no longer makes economical sense for me to own it.
I'll run mine on an ethanol and nitrous oxide blend, which can be made
from ingredients right on the farm.
Tillman
tillius
that exceeds the amount that I was forced to contribute at a
<rediculously conservative> rate of 4% growth compounted annually.
Beyond that, I don't want a dime.
Of course, I'd happilly 'donate' all that I've been forced to
contribute so far if I could "Opt Out" of any further forced
contributions today. That it. Cut it - no more give, no take. But if
they're gonna keep taking, I'm gonna take what I can back and reverse
as much of the damage as I can.
Or better yet, reduce the total contribution to Social InSecurity to 3%
(both employee and employer) for those over 35 who OPT OUT. Those over
35 who opt to stay in, keep paying the current personal rate (reducing
the employer portion to 1.5%). Don't let anyone under 35 opt in. They
can pay the 3% total too, until the last person on this failed plan is
gone.
That doesn't make me a lib-tard like you (by the way, lib-tard is not
captalized, because none of you morons deserve the respect of being
treated as proper).
I know this is all a little more complicated than the average lib-tard
can understand, but give it a try, huh?
> If you take one cent of Social Security, then you too will become a "Lib-tard
Well, NOT! You're just plain wrong on that one. See above.
freakin lib-tards
Tillman
PabloRena ---> AnalProbe
> You know what - I sure will give up ever cent of my social security
> that exceeds the amount that I was forced to contribute at a
> <rediculously conservative> rate of 4% growth compounted annually.
> Beyond that, I don't want a dime.
>
> Of course, I'd happilly 'donate' all that I've been forced to
> contribute so far if I could "Opt Out" of any further forced
> contributions today. That it. Cut it - no more give, no take. But if
> they're gonna keep taking, I'm gonna take what I can back and reverse
> as much of the damage as I can.
Yup, there's the backpeddling from the Modern Age Horatio Alger know as
"Tillman". You would really be making your point if you said that you were
going to simply give it all up, not take any Social Security back during
your retirement years. Of course, that wouldn't be fair though right? You
deserve to get back what you put in right? Wait a second, would you say
that you are entitled to get this money back? Damn, I never thought that
I'd hear a self-made man such as yourself use the word "entitled". Isn't
this word supposed to be used only by unwed,welfare-mothers and
crack-addicts (same thing) right? You know, those people who live off the
government tit.
> Or better yet, reduce the total contribution to Social InSecurity to 3%
> (both employee and employer) for those over 35 who OPT OUT. Those over
> 35 who opt to stay in, keep paying the current personal rate (reducing
> the employer portion to 1.5%). Don't let anyone under 35 opt in. They
> can pay the 3% total too, until the last person on this failed plan is
> gone.
If its a failed plan, why are your parents collecting Social Security and
why did your parent's collect it too? Does this mean anyone who contributes
and collects Social Security income is a failure by extension? Can you
think abstractly Shillman? Where did you come up with these numbers?
> That doesn't make me a lib-tard like you (by the way, lib-tard is not
> captalized, because none of you morons deserve the respect of being
> treated as proper).
That's right, only rugged individualists such as yourself deserve respect.
Everyone else is a mindless twit, shuffling to pick up their unemployment
checks, or buy their beer with their FEMA relief funds when they should be
out earning their fortunes or dying to do so!
> I know this is all a little more complicated than the average lib-tard
> can understand, but give it a try, huh?
>
Yes, you really should be making public policy decisions for the entire
nation. I don't know how we've done without you for so long! Our nation
needs a leader like you to seperate the wheat from the chaff.
> Tillman
jim rozen
says...
>
>You know what - I sure will give up ever cent of my social security
>that exceeds the amount that I was forced to contribute at a
><rediculously conservative> rate of 4% growth compounted annually.
>Beyond that, I don't want a dime.
No.
Social security is a welfare program. You were taxed to
provide welfare for old folks when you were working.
Now that you're no longer working, it just happens they
abolished that welfare program.
You get NOTHING. Too bad. This is how republicans operate.
Get over it.
Jim
--
==================================================
please reply to:
JRR(zero) at pkmfgvm4 (dot) vnet (dot) ibm (dot) com
==================================================
Guido
wrote:
>You know what - I sure will give up ever cent of my social security
>that exceeds the amount that I was forced to contribute at a
><rediculously conservative> rate of 4% growth compounted annually.
>Beyond that, I don't want a dime.
>
While it is a moot question whether the origin of
any kind of property is derived from Nature at all ...
it is considered by those who have seriously considered
the subject, that no one has, of natural right, a
separate property in an acre of land ... Stable
ownership is the gift of social law, and is given
late in the progress of society.
Thomas Jefferson
Private property ... is a Creature of Society, and is
subject to the Calls of that Society, whenever its
Necessities shall require it, even to its last Farthing,
its contributors therefore to the public Exigencies are
not to be considered a Benefit on the Public, entitling
the Contributors to the Distinctions of Honor and Power,
but as the Return of an Obligation previously received,
or as payment for a just Debt.
Benjamin Franklin
tillius
> "Tillman". You would really be making your point if you said that you were
> going to simply give it all up, not take any Social Security back during
> your retirement years. Of course, that wouldn't be fair though right? You
> deserve to get back what you put in right? Wait a second, would you say
> that you are entitled to get this money back? Damn, I never thought that
> I'd hear a self-made man such as yourself use the word "entitled". Isn't
> this word supposed to be used only by unwed,welfare-mothers and
> crack-addicts (same thing) right? You know, those people who live off the
> government tit.
Yep - you missed it as I figured you would.
> Wait a second, would you say
> that you are entitled to get this money back?
Hmm - now find the word 'entitled' in anything I wrote above?
You know why I want it back?
Because the Federal Government, regardless of whether it's run by
Repulicans or lib-tards, will do a much worse job than the average
responsible American will at using it constructively.
Well, that's my last word on it to you. Won't waste anymore time trying
to get a gallon of understanding into your 2 oz sized comprehension
threshold.
And, since you obviously do not have the capability to express
intelligent thought, there's no reason to continue reading your
dribble. Off to the lib-tard kill file with you! <pinko>
Tillman
tillius
>>that exceeds the amount that I was forced to contribute at a
>><rediculously conservative> rate of 4% growth compounted annually.
>>Beyond that, I don't want a dime.
> No.
> Social security is a welfare program. You were taxed to
> provide welfare for old folks when you were working.
> Now that you're no longer working, it just happens they
> abolished that welfare program.
> You get NOTHING. Too bad. This is how republicans operate.
> Get over it.
> Jim
Nice work clipping just the portion of the post that fit your argument.
Try putting it in context with the whole of the post next time.
Of course it's a tax. It WAS intended to help elderly citizens who were
unable to help themselves, NOT to be their entire retirement plan.
And it should go away. Not all at once, since we do have a
RESPONSIBILTY to see through the dependancies an irresponsibly
conceived, executed and managed program has created.
> Or better yet, reduce the total contribution to Social InSecurity to 3%
> (both employee and employer) for those over 35 who OPT OUT. Those over
> 35 who opt to stay in, keep paying the current personal rate (reducing
> the employer portion to 1.5%). Don't let anyone under 35 opt in. They
> can pay the 3% total too, until the last person on this failed plan is
> gone.
You know, they do have a few programs out there that MAY improve your
reading comprehension level.
Tillman
gru...@sbcglobal.net
Steve Lusardi wrote:
> This is a very good article. It is correct, but it is not the fault of any
> one political party. It is a failure of the system and the demise of the
> family unit in the 1st world. This is a global problem, not just the USA.
Shhhhh!
You'll confuse ol' Cliff who WANTS to believe ALL the worlds problems
are solely the fault of one man currently in high office. He has a
few CLOWN friends who think the same way.
You must have missed how perfect things were under the last
administration <snicker>
His stupid one liners are sure to follow.........
Grummy
jim rozen
says...
>Nice work clipping just the portion of the post that fit your argument.
Your words, are your words sir. If you don't want them
quoted, don't put them down in the first place.
>Try putting it in context with the whole of the post next time.
>You know, they do have a few programs out there that MAY improve your
>reading comprehension level.
Right, but they won't help politicians change social security
at all. This program is indeed the 'third rail' of entitlements.
Touch it, you die. Any changes will have to be made with the
utmost tact and in the most gradual manner imaginable.
It's gonna take a lot more than 'huked on fonix werked fur me'
to unravel that mess. GWB has crashed and burned trying to do it.
jim rozen
>
>On 31 Oct 2005 13:06:51 -0800, "tillius" <tillman...@gmail.com>
>wrote:
>
>>You know what - I sure will give up ever cent of my social security
>>that exceeds the amount that I was forced to contribute at a
>><rediculously conservative> rate of 4% growth compounted annually.
>>Beyond that, I don't want a dime.
Hmm. I guess I wasn't the only one who found that snippet to
be well-nigh irresistible. Guido, consider yourself spanked
for not pasting the entire thing, from tillius maximus.
Jim
> While it is a moot question whether the origin of
> any kind of property is derived from Nature at all ...
> it is considered by those who have seriously considered
> the subject, that no one has, of natural right, a
> separate property in an acre of land ... Stable
> ownership is the gift of social law, and is given
> late in the progress of society.
> Thomas Jefferson
>
>
> Private property ... is a Creature of Society, and is
> subject to the Calls of that Society, whenever its
> Necessities shall require it, even to its last Farthing,
> its contributors therefore to the public Exigencies are
> not to be considered a Benefit on the Public, entitling
> the Contributors to the Distinctions of Honor and Power,
> but as the Return of an Obligation previously received,
> or as payment for a just Debt.
> Benjamin Franklin
>
Cliff
<gmcd...@mcduffee-associates.us> wrote:
>Cliff et al.
>
>It is not the Demopublicans or the Republocrats -- it is the
>system.
George,
I place the blame soundly at the door of specific parties.
Found those "WMDs" yet?
We very well know who the liars were and are.
Their supporters share the blame.
I see no accountability at all.
--
Cliff
Cliff
>I can't envision a better place for you...... you will have NO internet
>access there ! Yipeee !!!!
Found those"WMDs" yet?
--
Cliff
Cliff
wrote:
>You know - if YOU don't like the principles this country was founded
>on, GET OUT!!!
Found those "WMDs" yet?
--
Cliff
Cliff
>Tillman
>
>Two cheers to you. Somehow personal responsibility in this country has
>gone out the door.
Found those "WMDs" yet?
--
Cliff
Cliff
>You must have missed how perfect things were under the last
>administration <snicker>
Found those"WMDs" yet?
--
Cliff
Hawke
Yeah, you're safe. You have nothing to worry about in your "golden" years.
Famous last words. You are clearly not a bright man so the only way you can
learn anything is the hard way. The only thing we can hope for is that
someday you will eventually see the light. Unfortunately for you that's only
going to happen when you have a health crisis like a stroke or Alzheimer's
or the like that drains you of all your assets that you were counting on and
leaves you penniless. So for the sake of your learning we'll just have to
hope that you have a health situation that ruins you. Then you will finally
learn what everyone meant when they said things were going down the drain.
Hawke
Hawke
Boy are you right on but the personal responsibility guys sure sing a
different song when times change. I have an uncle that always said the same
thing and still does. The thing is that he's almost 70 now and he has Social
Security, gets medical care from the VA and Medicare, he has a device so he
can breathe when he sleeps that costs thousands of dollars, and he gets
discounted energy bills just to name a few of the freebies he takes in
handouts, all the while talking that same personal responsibility crap.
These bozos flapping their gums about personal responsibility change their
tune the minute life hands them a bad hand. Then they are right up at the
front of the line to claim their benefits. Those guys are full of crap.
Their word isn't worth a damn. They remind me of guys who tell you how brave
and tough they are but run like cowards the minute the shooting starts. You
know the type. They call themselves Republicans.
Hawke
Hawke
> >You know what - I sure will give up ever cent of my social security
> >that exceeds the amount that I was forced to contribute at a
> ><rediculously conservative> rate of 4% growth compounted annually.
> >Beyond that, I don't want a dime.
>
> No.
>
> Social security is a welfare program. You were taxed to
> provide welfare for old folks when you were working.
>
> Now that you're no longer working, it just happens they
> abolished that welfare program.
>
> You get NOTHING. Too bad. This is how republicans operate.
> Get over it.
>
> Jim
Not quite Jim but close. First, Republicans take over the program. Then they
run it into the ground by mismanagement causing it to go bankrupt. Then they
tell you that you get nothing because it's like Enron, we lost all your
money. Sorry.
Hawke
Cliff
wrote:
Gunner ran right off to the hospital when he could not pay
in advance, if ever at all .....
--
Cliff
Gunner Asch
>
>> You get NOTHING. Too bad. This is how republicans operate.
>> Get over it.
>
>
>> Jim
FDR was a Republican?????????
Gunner
"Pax Americana is a philosophy. Hardly an empire.
Making sure other people play nice and dont kill each other (and us)
off in job lots is hardly empire building, particularly when you give
them self determination under "play nice" rules.
Think of it as having your older brother knock the shit out of you
for torturing the cat." Gunner
Marc
lib-turds always a laugh a minute at the stupidity.
Marc
Marc
Marc
Cliff
Found those "WMDs" yet?
Guess who was stupid ..... and now declines any "personal
responsibility" for the stupidity & lies? Or the results .....
--
Cliff
tillius
handle so he wants to make sure big-daddy gov is there to take care of
things so he don't have to worry his little lib-tard head about it and
deal with real life.
I don't need the safety net as a way of life. I'm all in favor of
safety nets for those who do fall on bad times, just to get them
through. Private safety nets are a better idea than the govt. corrupted
ones.
I take exception with lumping VA benefits in with welfare. If a man
serves his country and is injured in that service, that's the least we
can do.
Tillman
tillius
> Unfortunately for you that's only
> going to happen when you have a health crisis like a stroke or Alzheimer's
> or the like that drains you of all your assets that you were counting on and
> leaves you penniless.
I dunno. Seems I plan for emergencies. It's called not spending every
friggin dime you have on fast food, worthless crap and credit card
debt. It's called catastrophic medical insurance. It's called long term
care insurance. It's called building an emergency fund.
It's called, if my neighbor has a problem and he wasn't prepared
enough, I'm stepping up to plate to help him out. In exchange for that
help, I expect my neighbor to prepare better for the future. If he
doesn't, my help next time will be more harm than help, because it
enables him to continue in foolish ways.
hawke, put down the crack pipe and let the fog clear. It's not that
difficult to understand.
> So for the sake of your learning we'll just have to
> hope that you have a health situation that ruins you.
Awww - such a nice expression of the kind hearted, compassionate,
caring lib-tards.
I, on the other hand, wish you well, good health, for goodness sake,
that your IQ someday climbs above 35 so you might have a chance a
grasping common sense concepts.
Tillman
SteveB
> lib-turds always a laugh a minute at the stupidity.
> Marc
I like that sig line that debating with liberals is like clubbing baby
seals. It's just too easy, and quickly becomes boring.
Or something like that.
But it IS descriptive of debating with liberals. And when they can't cite
any facts to back up their position, they say some ootsey cutesy one liner
or attack personally.
I just don't understand it. Everyone can pick their own political party.
The Democrats are so envious of the Republicans, yet they fail to grasp the
concept that they can actually BE a Republican. Just go out and get a job.
Risk all you own to start a business. Learn to play golf. Give up the
whining that when Republicans handle the budget, it is theft; but when the
Democrats overtax and give it to people who don't want to work, it's called
humanitarianism. Hell, rich Republicans contribute 85% or more of all
monies collected by the IRS anyway. AND, Democrats are eligible for all the
tax breaks that Republicans use, it is just that they won't take the time to
learn them. Or that they are jealous that saving 5% on taxes brings a
person with a million dollar a year income more than they will get with the
same deduction. So get off your duff and make a million and have all that
extra money. It's simple.
It's only the old 80/20 rule of society that goes back to when they used
rocks for money. At any time, 20% of the people have 80% of the money. If
you confiscate all money, and redistribute it evenly, in a very short time,
20% of the people will have 80% of the money.
Prostitution is not the oldest profession, as some people claim. Sales is.
And what is sales, but some energetic ambitious Republican getting money out
of some couch potato Democrat?
IT'S NOT FAIR! IT'S NOT FAIR! Well, no shit, Sherlock. So cope. You're
an adult. Get out there and get some for yourself. Griping about things in
America is like going to a free buffet, sitting there and not getting any
food, waiting to be served, and then leaving and complaining about how bad
it was.
Everyone has the right to be happy successful and secure. And the means are
located at the end of their own two arms. Not in any government who sells
them the idea that they will take care of them by taking money from the evil
rich people and giving it to the downtrodden.
I prefer nature. If you don't get out there and work for it every day, you
just don't eat. And I don't want to hear any sad stories of disabled
people. I am permanently totally disabled, and still work. I know blind
people and people in wheelchairs that work.
It's all in the attitude. Some want to do all they can. And some want to
sit and watch PPV WWF Wrestling, scream, "Where's mah checccck" and call
Meals on Wheels for free food AND delivery.
And then there's Cliff and his ilk that obviously want to do nothing but
screech all day. No time left to work. Why don't they at least get a job
writing for a newspaper or publication where they can share all their vast
intellect and solutions for the salvation of mankind? Because they're not
into solutions, but just like to hear their own screeching.
BTW, I get SS based on money I put in while working, and a union pension
from a job I chose as a career because I knew it had benefits. And I still
horsetrade for spending money. My golden years are going to be spent
enjoying what I make. Catastrophic illness can't wipe me out because I have
structured all my assets in trusts that can't be touched. Something anyone
can do. And when I did have a catastrophic illness, cabgx5 avr, insurance
covered all but $3,000 out of $230,000. And that was paid for by my paying
insurance premiums for 30 years. Something any Democrat or Republican can
do.
RANT OFF.
I feel better. Where's mah checcccck?
Steve
tillius
Tillman
jim rozen
says...
>... Seems I plan for emergencies. It's called not spending every
>friggin dime you have on fast food, worthless crap and credit card
>debt. It's called catastrophic medical insurance. It's called long term
>care insurance. It's called building an emergency fund.
That's a great plan. You're not gonna pay for much catastrophic
health care by skipping your daily mcD's trip.
Have you checked out what this stuff costs lately?
Home heathcare aid, maybe $100 per day.
Room in a nursing home, $300, maybe 350 per day.
Physical Therapy, about $100 bucks for a one-hour session.
Now as far as real hospitalization goes, the sky's the
limit. Folks really have no clue about how rapidly the
US heathcare system can gobble up cash. None of it's wasted
mind you, that's just HOW MUCH IT COSTS. And then folks
like you come along and say 'I don't need that, I'll manage
on my own.' Or the ever-popular, most often heard "I'm
not paying for that for everyone else."
Then they wind up in the thick of it. Tillius my buddy,
I hope you never have wound up in the thick of it, and I
hope you never do. But when you do, don't think too badly
of yourself if you change your tune and say, "damn, there's
gotta be a way to get somebody else to help out here, I'm
at the end of my checkbook rope."
Better folks than you have had that rude awakening.
Look at our resident neocon Gunner. His family's heathcare
costs would be crippling if they weren't covered by
government medical welfare programs. That's what they're
there for, to pay cripplingly huge medical bills.
What's your perfect world, you stop insurance programs like
that?
Jim
Marc
wait tweetie byrd already did that.
Marc
NRA Life Member & Proud Neocon
F. George McDuffee
what exactly are the people to do? In good faith, the employees
accepted management promises that if they would defer immediate
cash compensation for their labor, the money would be invested to
provide a pension with medical care after they retired. It is
not their fault that management either never invested the money
(i.e. stole it) or invested in it non-productive areas.
If the abrogation of defined benefit pensions by corporate
America though sham chapter 11 bankruptcys is allowed to proceed,
particularly when combined with an implosion of the domestic
real-estate sector caused by elimination of the mortgage interest
deduction, the effect on the stock/bond markets and financial
structure will be catastrophic.
It is only a short step from the disavowal of corporate pensions
to the abrogation of obligations under the Social Security act,
and then only a shot hop to the invalidation of U.S. bonds and a
currency recall. (The government appears to be ginning up
justification for this by the stories about North Korea's
counterfeiting of the 100$ bill.)
Is the next step to blame the people for keeping their retirement
funds in stocks, bonds, money market accounts and U.S. paper
money? Are the only people "worthy" of a comfortable retirement
those who bought and held gold? (If so they had better put some
of their retirement funds in guns and ammunition….)
America of 2005 is a very 'brittle" society/culture with little
flexibility or adaptability by most of its
residents/institutions. The large majority of the American
population lives in mega-urban areas, which as New Orleans
proved, are "death traps," if anything goes wrong (and it always
does - the question is "when" not "if").
We seem to have two groups here, both of which in my not so
humble opinion need to step back and carefully examine their
tacit assumptions about the typical individual within American
society, American cultural values, and the current and likely
short term future American economy/infrastructure.
It is wisely observed that there are only a very few things you
can do by yourself, one of which is to die. No matter how well
you prepare and no matter how much determination you have, at the
end of you life you will be dependent on others, if only for your
funeral/burial. At the other end of life, the young must depend
on one or more adults for food, shelter and clothing (and
hopefully education). Even during their best years as adults,
most people will find they must rely on others from time to time
for services such as medical care, emergency services (fire and
police) and common defense which they cannot provide for
themselves (in any meaningful way).
On the other hand there is the compulsion of increasing numbers
of people in positions of authority, as government and as
employers, to meddle in every aspect of life from the amount and
type foods people eat, what types of activities they engage in,
even to how tight they wear their shoes. In itself this is a
major PITA, but even more egregious is the rapidly increasing
trend of these people to micromanage every aspect of individual
activity while ignoring activities for which they are accountable
(i.e. activities for which they have both the capability and
responsibility to act on). A few of these are uncontrolled
immigration, de-industrialization, financial irregularities,
economic perturbations (such as the dot cons, derivatives,
currency speculation and the real-estate bubble) and
physical/social infrastructure deterioration.
The reality is that the days of the "rugged individualist" have
long been over, if they were ever here in the first place. On
careful examination of the historical record, it appears this
myth developed because of what we refer to in the trade as "file
drawer bias." That is of 1000 erstwhile "rugged
individualists," 999 died in the attempt, and the sole survivor
told their story. There is also the "the older I get, the better
I was" phenomena.
GmcD
tillius
individual cap - $6,000,000 family cap. family of 5 NS parents in
early-mid 40's - monthly cost $235.00
Long Term Care Insurance - my wife and myself - $162.00 / mo - $400/day
36 months maximum benefit (3 years for you lib-tards). Also have a home
health care rider - up to $250/day - 60 months covered.
Since I save and pay cash for my vehicles and other purchased goods,
the money most people waste in interest payments easily takes care of
my insurance needs.
I've been blessed not to have any catastrophic health issues, other
than my youngest son having a tortacollis and a vascular ring around
his esophagus. Physical therapy ran about $75.00 / week and his med
bills were $20,000ish. We paid the 5K out of our emergency fund. No
Problem. He's doing wonderful now, by the way.
We have had financial catastrophe hit - back in 98. Seems some
off-shore scam artist ran a big scam on me and I fell for it. Bought a
truck load of computers that didn't exist. Yep - sold a bunch of em
too.
Wiped me out. Had to sell house, cars, business inventory, everything
except our cloths and personal items (no monetary value) to clean the
mess up. Also suffered major reputation burn and was unable to continue
operating my consulting/sales business in the area. Had to start again
from scratch.
Did it tho - without debt, without welfare. We did accept a few bags of
groceries from our Church and they helped us out with 3 months of rent
on a small house until I could get working again. Then we went back to
tithing, so the resources would be there to help someone else out when
they NEED it, but not as a way of life.
Don't confuse the two.
tillman wrote:
> It's called, if my neighbor has a problem and he wasn't prepared
> enough, I'm stepping up to plate to help him out. In exchange for that
> help, I expect my neighbor to prepare better for the future. If he
> doesn't, my help next time will be more harm than help, because it
> enables him to continue in foolish ways.
Tillman
Gunner Asch
Bill
> On 30 Oct 2005 12:58:42 -0800, "Artie" <rtwo...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> >The End of Pensions
> >By ROGER LOWENSTEIN
> >Published: October 30, 2005
> >I. THE LATEST FINANCIAL DEBACLE
> Real big snip...
Pensions.... come on! I would like to see a show of hands here to
anyone who has been in one company for 30 years. Those days are over.
Given that scenario, a fully company funded pention plan is pretty
lame. I'm a big fan of the 401k (even though thru a special
circumstance a previous employer was able to steal some). The beauty is
the employer matches some money and you take it when you go.
I worked for one employer who had a company pension plan that when you
were terminated (or layed off), the money was redistributed to the
remaining employees fund. That was great for the "inner circle" of
employees (and owners) who never left. They as most small to mid shops,
had a high turn over. $$$
Just let me pay my own way. Btw, I almost choked when I read the
autoworkers are whining because they were going to be forced to pay
almost 15% of their healthcare costs. ROFLMAO! Here in LA, most of us
pay 60-75% of the monthly healthcare costs. Myself and spouse, no kids
= >$600 a month for a PPO. My employer paid only $175.It's 40% cheaper
though if you go to an HMO. I prefer plan where the doctors names have
a couple vowels.
--
Bill
tillius
> anyone who has been in one company for 30 years. Those days are over.
Yeah. It's a shame though. It would probably be a different story if
most Americans weren't entitlement minded fast-food-fattys and actually
took pride in what they did and expected to earn their pay.
Kind of difficult for an employer to 'share the wealth' when 80% of
their employee's are barely being 30% productive and are looking for an
excuse to put the blame on anyone but themselves so they can light up a
lawsuite.
And you're right, let me pay my own way. That way, I'll have plenty to
help out my brother who needs a helping hand getting back on his feet
if he stumbles and falls. He certainly deserves better than being
turned into an entitlement slave.
Just my $0.02!
jim rozen
says...
>Because the Federal Government, regardless of whether it's run by
>Repulicans or lib-tards, will do a much worse job than the average
>responsible American will at using it constructively.
This is actually untrue. Medicare has the lowest overhead
rate of any insurance program.
What you *really* mean to be saying is, it will do a much worse
job because they will be giving a lot of *your* money to somebody
else.
You talk a good line but what happens when your three years of
long-term care gets used up?
You'll be clamoring and blubbering to get your entitelments,
that's what.
FWIW three years isn't 'long term.' Granted it's better than
nothing, that's for sure. Nursing homes don't *quite* roll the
broke folks out into the road in their wheelchairs. But
almost.
jim rozen
says...
>
>In the specific case of the defined benefit corporate pensions,
>what exactly are the people to do? In good faith, the employees
>accepted management promises that if they would defer immediate
>cash compensation for their labor, the money would be invested to
>provide a pension with medical care after they retired.
Well, one thing they can do is get certified as a class,
and start a class action lawsuit against their employer.
Then once they win, they have it on record that yanking
somebody's defined benefit plan and replacing it with
a cash balance substitute is called "age descrimination."
Spank spank. They get their benefits back.
Cliff
wrote:
>Poor scared little hawke. Scared life will get too difficult for him to
>handle so he wants to make sure big-daddy gov is there to take care of
>things so he don't have to worry his little lib-tard head about it and
>deal with real life.
You area bit of an idiot. It shows quite clearly.
>I don't need the safety net as a way of life.
You say that now. What about the next day? You never
know .... you might have a brain far* again and it would
leak out your ears.
>I'm all in favor of
>safety nets for those who do fall on bad times,
You just contradicted yourself.
>just to get them
>through. Private safety nets are a better idea than the govt. corrupted
>ones.
And you are going to have those that need them personally
pay for them after the fact exactly how?
Where's the profit in it & for whom, exactly?
>I take exception with lumping VA benefits in with welfare.
Why? It's welfare too.
>If a man
>serves his country and is injured in that service, that's the least we
>can do.
HUH? But it's his own lookout ...... don't you want people taking
personal responsability for the outcome of their own decisions?
>Tillman
That's just a simple anagram for"Mall Nit".
HTH
--
Clif
Cliff
wrote:
>hawke's lib-tarded dribble:
>
>> Unfortunately for you that's only
>> going to happen when you have a health crisis like a stroke or Alzheimer's
>> or the like that drains you of all your assets that you were counting on and
>> leaves you penniless.
>
>I dunno. Seems I plan for emergencies. It's called not spending every
>friggin dime you have on fast food, worthless crap and credit card
>debt. It's called catastrophic medical insurance.
Which will terminate the day after you cannot afford or miss
a premium, such as being very ill.
>It's called long term
>care insurance.
Which will terminate the day after you cannot afford or miss
a premium, such as being very ill.
And your copays & deductables are what?
Add it all up ....
>It's called building an emergency fund.
Which is always nice to have but always quite finite.
Have you checked costs lately? Nothing has been
done to contain them by the neocons .... quite the
opposite ..... just another hidden tax hike.
--
Cliff
Cliff
wrote:
>But it IS descriptive of debating with liberals.
You probably cannot "debate" without stolen blogs.
>And when they can't cite
>any facts to back up their position, they say some ootsey cutesy one liner
>or attack personally.
Hammers get your attention if they are large enough.
Reason & facts clearly do not.
Found those"WMDs" yet?
<snicker>
--
Cliff
Cliff
wrote:
>>BTW, I get SS based on money I put in while working, and a union pension
>>from a job I chose as a career because I knew it had benefits.
>Bravo!!
Sounds like he's on welfare too.
--
Cliff
tillius
> rate of any insurance program.
No. I said "average responsible American".
> What you *really* mean to be saying is, it will do a much worse
> job because they will be giving a lot of *your* money to somebody
> else.
No. I said "average responsible American".
> You talk a good line but what happens when your three years of
> long-term care gets used up?
See Below.
> You'll be clamoring and blubbering to get your entitelments,
> that's what.
No. See Below
> FWIW three years isn't 'long term.' Granted it's better than
> nothing, that's for sure. Nursing homes don't *quite* roll the
> broke folks out into the road in their wheelchairs. But
> almost.
Ever bother doing a little research on LTC?
Let me help you out:
50% of people will never need long term care
30% of people will need long term care at home provided solely by
family and friends
15% of people will need long term care in an assisted living facility
10% of people will need long term care in a skilled nursing facility
(nursing home)
Avg. cost of LTC care in home by skilled nursing caregiver $32,000/Yr
(2005)
Avg. Cost of LTC in assisted living facility $36,000 (2005)
Avg. cost of LTC in nursing home $72,000 (2005)
70% of persons needing long term care will need less than 3 months
The average length of LTC is 2.5 years (home, assisted living facilty,
and Nursing Home combined)
What do I do when the insurance runs out?
I've earned and saved a sufficient amount that I could purchase an
annuity product annuitized over my life and structured to adjust for
inflation that would pay any LTC costs (including nursing home) that
were needed over my 3 years coverage.
Here, let me be a good neighbor and provide you sources for my stats:
http://www.aahsa.org/
http://www.aoa.dhhs.gov/
http://consumerlawpage.com/article/insure.shtml
http://elderweb.com/
http://www.heller.brandeis.edu/national/ltcr499.htm
http://www.hhp.umd.edu/
http://www.longtermcarelink.net/frames/lm_research.html
http://www.ltciguide.com/LongTermCare/Facts.html
http://membership.hiaa.org/pdfs/policy/030130LTCExecutiveStudy.pdf
http://www.metlife.com/Applications/Corporate/WPS/CDA/PageGenerator/0,1674,P1856,00.html
http://www.milbank.org/0008stone/
http://www.pueblo.gsa.gov/cic_text/health/
http://www.seacoastonline.com/news/10092005/business/67173.htm
http://www.tdi.state.tx.us/consumer/hicap/hicapltc05.html
http://thyroid.about.com/b/a/087073.htm
Tillman
tillius
> You say that now. What about the next day? You never
> know .... you might have a brain far* again and it would
> leak out your ears.
see my earlier response to the other lib-tard:
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.crafts.metalworking/msg/7799f3e698d5e5f3?hl=en&
> You just contradicted yourself.
wrong, you're just too feeble minded to get it
> And you are going to have those that need them personally
> pay for them after the fact exactly how?
> Where's the profit in it & for whom, exactly?
it's not about profit, it's about REAL compassion, something lib-tards
just cant grasp
>>I take exception with lumping VA benefits in with welfare.
> Why? It's welfare too.
>>If a man
>>serves his country and is injured in that service, that's the least we
>>can do.
> HUH? But it's his own lookout ...... don't you want people taking
> personal responsability for the outcome of their own decisions?
Again, a lib-tard who just can't grasp duty, compassion and personal
responsibility.
Tillman
tillius
> Which will terminate the day after you cannot afford or miss
> a premium, such as being very ill.
> Which will terminate the day after you cannot afford or miss
> a premium, such as being very ill.
> And your copays & deductables are what?
Actually - no.
Or course, if I didn't plan for emergencies, I wouldn't have a minimum
of 6 months expenses in my liquid emergency fund and that might be a
concern, but I find it far wiser not to waste my resources on
frivolities you lib-tards are so fond of so I can protect my family and
future.
and my copays and deductables are within my budget :)
I'm gonna have to fix this kill file timing - getting tired of giving
you the old <pinko>
Tillman
jim rozen
says...
>30% of people will need long term care at home provided solely by
>family and friends
This is when you really find out who your friends are.
They tend to evaporate when the crunch happens. Sometimes
family too.
Are you counting on them? Consider that by relying on them,
you *are* putting a substantial burden on them. My approach:
off to the ice floe with me.
carl mciver
"SteveB" <desertt...@cox.net> wrote in message
news:UpL9f.43287$fE5.14350@fed1read06...
| > Cliffie, get a life, or at least find a new one line answer.
| > lib-turds always a laugh a minute at the stupidity.
| > Marc
|
| I like that sig line that debating with liberals is like clubbing baby
| seals. It's just too easy, and quickly becomes boring.
|
| Or something like that.
|
| But it IS descriptive of debating with liberals. And when they can't cite
| any facts to back up their position, they say some ootsey cutesy one liner
| or attack personally.
| RANT OFF.
|
| I feel better. Where's mah checcccck?
|
| Steve
Your check is in the mail......
I apologize for the crack I made at you awhile back on some forgotten
subject. You have obviously pondered and planned your past and future well
and I commend you not just for your nice piece of the American pie, but an
awesome rant as well!
tillius
addresses that. Of course, if it comes down to it, my kids can decide
if they want to spend the big-ole-chunk-o-cash on the annuity for the
assisted living, nursing home, or in home care if my insurance were to
run out, or if they'd rather be more involved in care for old dad or
mom out and keep more of what we're leaving to them or if they'd rather
focus on their own health and raising the grandkids. I've been blessed
so there's enough either way, and it's all set up in the living will
and will.
Personally, since Dad's already gone and mom doesn't have substantial
resources, if she needed what we could provide here at home, I'd just
as soon have her around here and get some help in so me and the wife
can still take care of our selves and the kids.
Tillman
tillius
appear to be showing signs of not being the 'tard' part.
> Are you counting on them? Consider that by relying on them,
> you *are* putting a substantial burden on them. My approach:
> off to the ice floe with me.
actually seems pretty responsible.
Tillman
Dave
> >http://www.nytimes.com/2005/10/30/magazine/30pensions.html?ei=5090&en=c2ff69df888a2169&ex=1288324800&partner=rssuserland&emc=rss&pagewanted=all
Hey, why don't we just pass a law that everyone will be rich and happy?
F. George McDuffee
wrote:
>In article <lt1fm19qrtgr9tl41...@4ax.com>, F. George McDuffee
>says...
>>
>>In the specific case of the defined benefit corporate pensions,
>>what exactly are the people to do? In good faith, the employees
>>accepted management promises that if they would defer immediate
>>cash compensation for their labor, the money would be invested to
>>provide a pension with medical care after they retired.
>
>Well, one thing they can do is get certified as a class,
>and start a class action lawsuit against their employer.
>
>Then once they win, they have it on record that yanking
>somebody's defined benefit plan and replacing it with
>a cash balance substitute is called "age descrimination."
>
>Spank spank. They get their benefits back.
>
>Jim
==========
An excellent Civics 101 response, however…
Unfortunatly, even if you win a class action lawsuit you won't
get any money if the defendant doesn't have any assets, i.e. you
can't get blood out of a turnip. Only slightly in jest,
"Corporation" is a Latin word meaning "ain't nobody here but us
chickens, ain't nobody here at all."
Through a variety of dodges and devices, almost all of the real
assets of most U. S. corporations have been dissipated or
converted, leaving at best a husk and in the main a huge pile of
[worthless] debt.
Under normal circumstances the stockholders, officers and
directors of a corporation cannot be held liable for the debts of
a corporation. The most that they can lose is the value of stock
they own [which is the reason for the corporate form of
organization]. One of a very few exceptions is a criminal and/or
civil action brought under the RICO [Racketeering Influenced and
Corrupt Organizations] Act, that allows the total recapture of
all profits generated from anyone that received them, even the
defense attorneys, if they were paid from the proceeds of the
criminal activities of the organization.
A catch-22 is that many of the corporations currently preparing
to give their employees a huge Christmas goose, such as the
airlines, are largely owned [but not controlled] by their
employees under a so-called ESOP [Employee Stock Ownership
Program]. This was the "hook" used in the previous rounds of
wage and benefit cuts, whereby much of the labor costs were paid
for in worthless paper [stock] rather than "coin of the realm."
In these circumstances, the employees and retirees are
operationally suing themselves.
It is the height of irony that one of the few known fully solvent
pension funds is the Teamster's Central States Pension Fund,
widely assumed to have been controlled by the Mafia until it was
"rescued" by the U. S. government. I am led to the conclusion
that it is safer to do business on a handshake with the Mafia
than with U.S. corporate management, even with "due diligence"
contracts, outside auditors and bonding.
Even with the establishment of the three "predicate felonies"
required to initiate a civil or criminal RICO suit, I feel it is
highly doubtful any such suits will be sustained in court as too
many of the politicians, including the judges, have the "tainted"
money in their pockets.
F. George McDuffee
You mean the "no investor left behind act" of 2005?
SteveB
"carl mciver" <cmc...@mindspring.com> wrote in message
news:WqU9f.337$uD5...@newsread3.news.pas.earthlink.net...
You're welcome. One thing about Usenet I like is its short memory span. A
guy can be a perfect prick one week, and then, change and redeem himself.
Kind of like life. Everyone's a prick at least once in their life. It's
just whether or not they choose to stay that way or grow out of it that is
the important part.
I've done a lot I don't care to talk about or even at times remember. What
the hell was I thinking?
And it all brings me to today.
Life is good.
We all have the chance to grow and change.
Take a chance.
Steve
Tim May
<omeg...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Mon, 31 Oct 2005 07:41:06 -0500, Cliff <Clhu...@aol.com> wrote:
>
> |On 30 Oct 2005 12:58:42 -0800, "Artie" <rtwo...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> Cliff old boy, how about we just get rid off all corporations? And also make
> everyone work for either the government or small businesses? And you get to
> make one choice for a company which you have to work for all your life. That
> way your pension is guaranteed. But then our GNP would be more like India.
>
> Of course we could have a government pension, like Social Security. Ever
> notice
> that when the Democrats ran Congress that they raped Social Security for funds
> so that they could have pork barrel projects with which to bribe the voters?
And Congress exempted itself from Socialist Insecurity: they have their
own _actual_ pension plan, totally independent from the Ponzi Scheme
that SS is.
The rest of us are not allowed to opt out, and face felony charges if
we don't "contribute" to this pyramid scheme.
--Tim May
tillius
> during Vietnam....
Well Said!
Tillman
tillius
> own _actual_ pension plan, totally independent from the Ponzi Scheme
> that SS is.
> The rest of us are not allowed to opt out, and face felony charges if
> we don't "contribute" to this pyramid scheme.
Well, there is one way to opt out. You can go out and get yourself
ordained, then opt out for reasons of faith.
I won't do it. It would be a mockery of my faith to become ordained for
that purpose.
If I was called to the ministry, I'd opt out for that reason. If the
law permitted it without the ordainment, I'd opt out.
I know a lib-tard locally who is an 'ordained minister of spirituality'
who opted out. He worships himself.
Tillman
Tim May
tillius <tillman...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > And Congress exempted itself from Socialist Insecurity: they have their
> > own _actual_ pension plan, totally independent from the Ponzi Scheme
> > that SS is.
>
> > The rest of us are not allowed to opt out, and face felony charges if
> > we don't "contribute" to this pyramid scheme.
>
>
> Well, there is one way to opt out. You can go out and get yourself
> ordained, then opt out for reasons of faith.
Nonsense. I looked at this very carefully in 1975. Yes, 1975. A bunch
of books had come out, sold at my local "Liberty" bookstore, in
Mountain View, CA. The idea was to escape SS and income taxes by taking
one of the various "vows of poverty" or the like.
Well, it doesn't work that way. A bunch of IRS cases have put a bunch
of "ordained priests" in prison.
(Do I support this? No. But consult the court records.)
> I won't do it. It would be a mockery of my faith to become ordained for
> that purpose.
It wouldn't make no nevermind to me, as I don't believe in fairies and
elves and goddesses and virgin marys and jesuses and all that tommyrot,
but it just doesn't work as simply as you describe.
--Tim May
TDKozan
<snip>
>
> And Congress exempted itself from Socialist Insecurity: they have their
> own _actual_ pension plan, totally independent from the Ponzi Scheme
> that SS is.
>
Not exactly and not lately:
http://www.snopes.com/politics/taxes/pensions.asp Unless I'm missing
something again and not for the first time.
TK
--
Cogito ergo bibo
SteveB
"Tim May" <tim...@removethis.got.net> wrote
>
> The rest of us are not allowed to opt out, and face felony charges if
> we don't "contribute" to this pyramid scheme.
>
>
> --Tim May
So, what keeps you from starting your own retirement program? One that you
control. Direct. Monitor. Supervise. Steer.
You can't opt out of SS, but you can sure do a lot with your own money.
Or is it more important that you buy beer and cigarettes?
Steve
Tim May
wrote:
"
Do Members of Congress Pay Social Security Taxes?
Lawmakers do pay 8 percent of their salaries into their pension system,
although this only compensates for about 1/5 of the typical lifetime
benefit. We cover the rest as taxpayers.
Member of Congress began to pay into Social Security in 1983, as part
of a government-wide pension overhaul.
In addition, Members of Congress DO NOT draw the łsame pension˛ as
their pay in the last year of office as suggested in a rumor
circulating on the Internet; only federal judges do that under the term
łretirement pay.˛ Still, the formula is quite generous, and, with 20-25
years, a Member of Congress could retire with up to 80 percent of his
or her salary replaced. Of course, the only cap on how fast their
benefits rise is the rate of increase in CPI. For this reason,
Congressional pensions can and frequently do exceed a Memberąs final
salary, but only after a few years in retirement, when COLAS begin to
kick in.
In the final analysis, Congressional pension benefits are 2-3 times
more generous than what a similarly-salaried executive could expect to
receive upon retiring from the private sector. That ought to be enough
to concern any taxpayer.
"
--Tim May
Tim May
<desertt...@cox.net> wrote:
Idiot. I invested my own money beginning in 1970 and retired in 1986,
when I was 34. (But I was also forced to pay into a SS plan that I had
no desire whatsoever to pay into.)
So I would guess that I have right now more money than any 20 of your
kind will see in his entire life.
My point about Social Security is that is nonvoluntary, takes money
from even those who have no desire to particiapate, is a Ponzi scheme
of the worst kind, and that Congress has essentially exempted itself
from this plan for most of its existence.
Most liberals who support SS need a trip to the showers and then a
conversion into smoke.
--Tim May
Hawke
"tillius" <tillman...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1130854273....@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
> Poor scared little hawke. Scared life will get too difficult for him to
> handle so he wants to make sure big-daddy gov is there to take care of
> things so he don't have to worry his little lib-tard head about it and
> deal with real life.
>
> safety nets for those who do fall on bad times, just to get them
> through. Private safety nets are a better idea than the govt. corrupted
> ones.
>
> serves his country and is injured in that service, that's the least we
> can do.
>
Yeah, but the VA is a government run safety net isn't it? So that means you
wouldn't be for it. Why not ask private interests to take care of our
disabled soldiers? I'm sure they would be glad to help and would do a much
better job than the government, don't you think? I think they could make a
lot of money at it.
Hawke
SteveB
"Tim May" <tim...@removethis.got.net> wrote
>
> Idiot. I invested my own money beginning in 1970 and retired in 1986,
> when I was 34. (But I was also forced to pay into a SS plan that I had
> no desire whatsoever to pay into.)
If you made so much money, why are you complaining about the small amount
you would have paid into SS in only 16 years of work? Please explain that
math. If you paid THAT much in, you didn't have a competent tax advisor,
bookeeper, or financial advisor who could have netted you a lot more. But
then, you probably were so smart you did all that yourself, and didn't trust
anyone anyway. Right?
>
> So I would guess that I have right now more money than any 20 of your
> kind will see in his entire life.
In addition to being a genius, you are also clairvoyant. My kind? Please
tell me what "my kind" means.
>
> My point about Social Security is that is nonvoluntary, takes money
> from even those who have no desire to particiapate, is a Ponzi scheme
> of the worst kind, and that Congress has essentially exempted itself
> from this plan for most of its existence.
If you are so secure, what are you so angry about? A man of your wealth and
security should not worry himself about such trivial matters.
>
> Most liberals who support SS need a trip to the showers and then a
> conversion into smoke.
I'm sorry. I do not understand that sentence.
>
> --Tim May
Cliff
<gmcd...@mcduffee-associates.us> wrote:
>In the specific case of the defined benefit corporate pensions,
>what exactly are the people to do? In good faith, the employees
>accepted management promises that if they would defer immediate
>cash compensation for their labor, the money would be invested to
>provide a pension with medical care after they retired. It is
>not their fault that management either never invested the money
>(i.e. stole it) or invested in it non-productive areas.
>
>If the abrogation of defined benefit pensions by corporate
>America though sham chapter 11 bankruptcys is allowed to proceed,
>particularly when combined with an implosion of the domestic
>real-estate sector caused by elimination of the mortgage interest
>deduction, the effect on the stock/bond markets and financial
>structure will be catastrophic.
>
>It is only a short step from the disavowal of corporate pensions
>to the abrogation of obligations under the Social Security act,
>and then only a shot hop to the invalidation of U.S. bonds and a
>currency recall. (The government appears to be ginning up
>justification for this by the stories about North Korea's
>counterfeiting of the 100$ bill.)
>
>Is the next step to blame the people for keeping their retirement
>funds in stocks, bonds, money market accounts and U.S. paper
>money? Are the only people "worthy" of a comfortable retirement
>those who bought and held gold? (If so they had better put some
>of their retirement funds in guns and ammunition….)
>
>America of 2005 is a very 'brittle" society/culture with little
>flexibility or adaptability by most of its
>residents/institutions. The large majority of the American
>population lives in mega-urban areas, which as New Orleans
>proved, are "death traps," if anything goes wrong (and it always
>does - the question is "when" not "if").
>
>We seem to have two groups here, both of which in my not so
>humble opinion need to step back and carefully examine their
>tacit assumptions about the typical individual within American
>society, American cultural values, and the current and likely
>short term future American economy/infrastructure.
>
>It is wisely observed that there are only a very few things you
>can do by yourself, one of which is to die. No matter how well
>you prepare and no matter how much determination you have, at the
>end of you life you will be dependent on others, if only for your
>funeral/burial. At the other end of life, the young must depend
>on one or more adults for food, shelter and clothing (and
>hopefully education). Even during their best years as adults,
>most people will find they must rely on others from time to time
>for services such as medical care, emergency services (fire and
>police) and common defense which they cannot provide for
>themselves (in any meaningful way).
>
>On the other hand there is the compulsion of increasing numbers
>of people in positions of authority, as government and as
>employers, to meddle in every aspect of life from the amount and
>type foods people eat, what types of activities they engage in,
>even to how tight they wear their shoes. In itself this is a
>major PITA, but even more egregious is the rapidly increasing
>trend of these people to micromanage every aspect of individual
>activity while ignoring activities for which they are accountable
>(i.e. activities for which they have both the capability and
>responsibility to act on). A few of these are uncontrolled
>immigration, de-industrialization, financial irregularities,
>economic perturbations (such as the dot cons, derivatives,
>currency speculation and the real-estate bubble) and
>physical/social infrastructure deterioration.
>
>The reality is that the days of the "rugged individualist" have
>long been over, if they were ever here in the first place. On
>careful examination of the historical record, it appears this
>myth developed because of what we refer to in the trade as "file
>drawer bias." That is of 1000 erstwhile "rugged
>individualists," 999 died in the attempt, and the sole survivor
>told their story. There is also the "the older I get, the better
>I was" phenomena.
>
>GmcD
Crossposted to the boring folks in alt.aol.tricks <G>.
--
Cliff
Cliff
<gmcd...@mcduffee-associates.us> wrote:
>In the specific case of the defined benefit corporate pensions,
>what exactly are the people to do? In good faith, the employees
>accepted management promises that if they would defer immediate
>cash compensation for their labor, the money would be invested to
>provide a pension with medical care after they retired. It is
>not their fault that management either never invested the money
>(i.e. stole it) or invested in it non-productive areas.
>
>If the abrogation of defined benefit pensions by corporate
>America though sham chapter 11 bankruptcys is allowed to proceed,
>particularly when combined with an implosion of the domestic
>real-estate sector caused by elimination of the mortgage interest
>deduction, the effect on the stock/bond markets and financial
>structure will be catastrophic.
In effect and on a macro scale such defaults are
just another hidden tax on the employee -- look
at the net cash flows over time. This tax just strikes
employees at what sometimes looks like random
times to random employees.
The very wealthy continue to get even more wealthy.
It's not very likely that many of the CEOs,
board members, insiders or investment bankers took a
huge loss either.
--
Cliff
Gunner Asch
Jim Meyers
Wednesday, Nov. 2, 2005
A new book by a top investigative journalist exposes the blatant
hypocrisy of liberals who loudly espouse principles they disregard in
their own personal lives.
In "Do As I Say (Not As I Do): Profiles in Liberal Hypocrisy," Hoover
Fellow Peter Schweizer reveals the glaring contradictions between the
public stances and real-life behavior of prominent liberals including
Michael Moore, Ted Kennedy, Al Franken, Hillary Clinton, Nancy Pelosi
and Ralph Nader – among others.
"Hypocrisy has proved to be a wonderful weapon for liberals in their
war against conservatives," Schweizer writes in the November issue of
NewsMax Magazine.
"Yet for all the talk about conservative hypocrisy, there has been
very little investigation into the prevalence of hypocrisy on the
left."
After two years of research into liberal hypocrisy, Schweizer said,
"what I discovered was just stunning."
Schweizer's well-annotated book, published by Doubleday, has just been
released and its sure to turn several well-known liberals red with
anger.
Among the eye-opening revelations of "Do As I Say":
# Filmmaker Michael Moore insists that corporations are evil and
claims he doesn't invest in the stock market due to moral principle.
But Moore's IRS forms, viewed by Schweizer, show that over the past
five years he has owned shares in such corporate giants as
Halliburton, Merck, Pfizer, Sunoco, Tenet Healthcare, Ford, General
Electric and McDonald's.
# Staunch union supporter Rep. Nancy Pelosi (Calif.) has received the
Cesar Chavez Award from the United Farmworkers Union. But the $25
million Northern California vineyard she and her husband own is a
non-union shop.
The hypocrisy doesn't end there. Pelosi has received more money from
the Hotel Employees and Restaurant Employees union than any other
member of Congress in recent election cycles.
But the Pelosis own a large stake in an exclusive hotel in Rutherford,
Calif. It has more than 250 employees. But none of them are in a
union, according to Schweizer, author of "The Bushes: Portrait of a
Dynasty" and a regular contributor to the New York Times, Wall Street
Journal and other periodicals.
The Pelosis are also partners in a restaurant chain called Piatti,
which has 900 employees. The chain is – that's right, a non-union
shop.
# Ralph Nader is another liberal who claims that unions are essential
to protect worker rights. But when an editor of one of his
publications tried to form a union to ameliorate miserable working
conditions, the editor was fired and the locks changed on the office
door.
# Self-described socialist Noam Chomsky has described the Pentagon as
"the most vile institution on the face of the earth" and lashed out
against tax havens and trusts that benefit only the rich.
But Chomsky has been paid millions of dollars by the Pentagon over the
last 40 years, and he used a venerable law firm to set up his
irrevocable trust to shield his assets from the IRS.
# Air America radio host Al Franken says conservatives are racist
because they lack diversity and oppose affirmative action. But fewer
than 1 percent of the people he has hired over the past 15 years have
been African-American.
# Ted Kennedy has fought for the estate tax and spoken out against tax
shelters. But he has repeatedly benefited from an intricate web of
trusts and private foundations that have shielded most of his family's
fortune from the IRS.
One Kennedy family trust wasn't even set up in the U.S., but in Fiji.
Another family member, environmentalist Robert Kennedy Jr., has said
that it is not moral to profit from natural resources. But he receives
an annual check from the family's large holdings in the oil industry.
# Barbra Streisand has talked about the necessity of unions to protect
a "living wage." But she prefers to do her filming and postproduction
work in Canada, where she can pay less than American union wages.
# Bill and Hillary Clinton have spoken in favor of the estate tax, and
in 2000 Bill vetoed a bill seeking to end it. But the Clintons have
set up a contract trust that allows them to substantially reduce the
amount of inheritance tax their estate will pay when they die.
Hillary, for her part, has written and spoken extensively about the
right of children to make major decisions regarding their own lives.
But she barred 13-year-old daughter Chelsea from getting her ears
pierced and forbid the teen from watching MTV or HBO.
# Billionaire Bush-basher George Soros says the wealthy should pay
higher, more progressive tax rates. But he holds the bulk of his money
in tax-free overseas accounts in Curacao, Bermuda and the Cayman
Islands.
Schweizer writes: "Liberals claim to support affirmative action but
don't practice it. They support higher taxes but set up complicated
tax shelters to avoid paying them. They claim to be ardent
environmentalists but abandon their cause when it impinges on their
own property rights.
"The reality is that liberals like to preach in moral platitudes. They
like to condemn ordinary Americans and Republicans for a whole host of
things - racism, lack of concern for the poor, polluting the
environment, and greed.
"But when it comes to applying those same standards to themselves,
liberals are found to be shockingly guilty of hypocrisy.
"The media and the American people need to hold them accountable."
"Pax Americana is a philosophy. Hardly an empire.
Making sure other people play nice and dont kill each other (and us)
off in job lots is hardly empire building, particularly when you give
them self determination under "play nice" rules.
Think of it as having your older brother knock the shit out of you
for torturing the cat." Gunner
tillius
> wouldn't be for it. Why not ask private interests to take care of our
> disabled soldiers? I'm sure they would be glad to help and would do a much
> better job than the government, don't you think? I think they could make a
> lot of money at it.
I don't have a problem with an employer providing benefits to their
employees.
I also don't have a problem with government employees receiving
pensions and health care from their govt. employer.
Vet's were employee's of the govt. operated military. If they had been
a private militia, then the govt. would have not place in it.
Not really a contflict of interest at all.
Tillman
Cliff
wrote:
>more lib-tard dribble:
>
>> Which will terminate the day after you cannot afford or miss
>> a premium, such as being very ill.
>> Which will terminate the day after you cannot afford or miss
>> a premium, such as being very ill.
>> And your copays & deductables are what?
>
>Actually - no.
>
>Or course, if I didn't plan for emergencies, I wouldn't have a minimum
>of 6 months expenses in my liquid emergency fund and that might be a
>concern, but I find it far wiser not to waste my resources on
>frivolities you lib-tards are so fond of so I can protect my family and
>future.
<snicker>
Only a six month emergency fund?
That's quite silly. Not even counting real disasters
or health problems.
Expecting the government or welfare to bail you out?
>and my copays and deductables are within my budget :)
How would you know til disaster strikes?
You might well be very shocked. Assuming that you
could even keep up the premiums, which I now doubt.
>I'm gonna have to fix this kill file timing - getting tired of giving
>you the old <pinko>
Found those "WMDs" yet?
>Tillman
And now we know ...
--
Cliff
Cliff
wrote:
>Cliff the lib-tard dribbled:
>
>> You say that now. What about the next day? You never
>> know .... you might have a brain far* again and it would
>> leak out your ears.
>
>see my earlier response to the other lib-tard:
>http://groups.google.com/group/rec.crafts.metalworking/msg/7799f3e698d5e5f3?hl=en&
>
>> You just contradicted yourself.
>
>wrong, you're just too feeble minded to get it
IOW You cannot even read your own posts.
What a hooter !!
>> And you are going to have those that need them personally
>> pay for them after the fact exactly how?
>> Where's the profit in it & for whom, exactly?
>
>it's not about profit,
Then nobody is going to take your money, now are they?
>it's about REAL compassion, something lib-tards
>just cant grasp
Oops ... the ranter's loose in the woodpile again.
>>>I take exception with lumping VA benefits in with welfare.
>
>> Why? It's welfare too.
How odd ... dead silence.
>>>If a man
>>>serves his country and is injured in that service, that's the least we
>>>can do.
>
>> HUH? But it's his own lookout ...... don't you want people taking
>> personal responsability for the outcome of their own decisions?
>
>Again, a lib-tard who just can't grasp duty, compassion and personal
>responsibility.
Don't you want people taking personal responsability for the
outcome of their own decisions?
>Tillman
What were you called before?
--
Cliff
Cliff
>Of course we could have a government pension, like Social Security.
Actually, an *optional* payroll deduction into an *optional*
higher-valued "SS-like plan" might not be a bad idea. Assuming it's
really zero sum on an annual basis and no politicos go dipping.
--
Cliff
jim rozen
says...
>>Well, one thing they can do is get certified as a class,
>>and start a class action lawsuit against their employer.
>Unfortunatly, even if you win a class action lawsuit ...
You need to bone up on current events my friend. This
has already happened and damages have already be awarded.
It is left to the reader to identifiy the large company
that got spanked this way.
Do you have any idea how *hard* it is to be certified
as a class for a class-action lawsuit nowadays??
Jim
--
==================================================
please reply to:
JRR(zero) at pkmfgvm4 (dot) vnet (dot) ibm (dot) com
==================================================
tillius
> Nonsense. I looked at this very carefully in 1975. Yes, 1975. A bunch
> of books had come out, sold at my local "Liberty" bookstore, in
> Mountain View, CA. The idea was to escape SS and income taxes by taking
> one of the various "vows of poverty" or the like.
>
> Well, it doesn't work that way. A bunch of IRS cases have put a bunch
> of "ordained priests" in prison.
Really?
Cites?
Here - try this:
/Excerpt from IRS Publication 517/
The sevices you perform in the exercise of your ministry are
covered by social
security and Medicare under SECA.
Your earnings for these services are subject to self-employment
tax (SE tax)
unless one of the following applies.
- You are a member of a religious order who has taken a vow of
poverty
- You ask the Internal Revenu Service (IRS) for an exemption from
SE tax for
your services and the IRS approves your request. See Exemption
from Self-
Employment (SE) tax later.
- You are subject only to social security laws of a foreign county
under the
provisions of a social secruity agreement between the United
States and
that country.
Your earnings that are not from the exercise of your ministry may
be subject
to social security tax under FICA or SECA according to the rules
that apply
to taxpayers in general.
Ministers
---------
If you are a minister of a church, your earnings for the services
your perform
in your capacity as a minister are subject to SE tax unless you
have requested
and received an exemption.
Exemption From Self-Employment (SE) Tax
---------------------------------------
You can request an exemption from SE tax if you are one of the
following.
- A minister.
- A member of a religious order who has not taken a vow of
poverty.
- A Christian Science practitioner
- A member of a recognized religious sect.
/End of Excerpt From IRS Publication 517/
Reference URL:
http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-pdf/p517.pdf
Tillman
tillius
Tillman
Cliff
wrote:
>I got carried away.
Nets & white coats again?
--
Cliff
Cliff
wrote:
>> Have the democrats ever found their balls? You know, the ones that they lost
>> during Vietnam....
>
>Well Said!
You found those "WMDs" yet?
BTW, The lies about the"Gulf of Tonkin Incident" are about to
be broken open ... expecting any of the ususal suspects?
[
an in-house article that remains secret, in part because agency
officials feared its release might prompt uncomfortable comparisons
with the flawed intelligence used to justify the war in Iraq
]
[
mid-level agency officials discovered the error almost immediately,
but covered it up and doctored documents so that they appeared to
provide evidence of an attack.
"Rather than come clean about their mistake, they helped launch the
United States into a bloody war that would last for 10 years,"
]
--
Cliff
Dave Lyon
>
> If you made so much money, why are you complaining about the small amount
> you would have paid into SS in only 16 years of work? Please explain that
> math. If you paid THAT much in, you didn't have a competent tax advisor,
> bookeeper, or financial advisor who could have netted you a lot more. But
> then, you probably were so smart you did all that yourself, and didn't
trust
> anyone anyway. Right?
>
Please explain to me how you're tax adviser saves you money on SS tax. The
rest of the world wants to know.
Robert Sturgeon
<desertt...@cox.net> wrote:
>
>"Tim May" <tim...@removethis.got.net> wrote
>
>>
>> Idiot. I invested my own money beginning in 1970 and retired in 1986,
>> when I was 34. (But I was also forced to pay into a SS plan that I had
>> no desire whatsoever to pay into.)
>
>If you made so much money, why are you complaining about the small amount
>you would have paid into SS in only 16 years of work?
I would guess - for the same reason you would object to
being forced to pay money, even a little bit of money, for
something you don't want.
>Please explain that
>math.
It isn't math, it's theft.
(rest snipped)
--
Robert Sturgeon
Summum ius summa inuria.
http://www.vistech.net/users/rsturge/
SteveB
"Dave Lyon" <lct.pr...@mchsi.com> wrote in message
news:EB4af.534057$xm3.4887@attbi_s21...
I am going to type slow, so try to keep up. The amount any person is taxed
is based on income. There are hundreds of creative ways to lessen the
income you show on paper. Things you normally would pay for are bought by
your corporation, LLC, or trust, and therefore your taxable income is
reduced.
Of course, you knew that. Right? See your own tax adviser for ways you can
do it.
Steve
tillius
> >you would have paid into SS in only 16 years of work?
> I would guess - for the same reason you would object to
> being forced to pay money, even a little bit of money, for
> something you don't want.
Yeah - maybe we should have an 2nd amendment tax, so that everyone is
taxed equally and the funds are used to provide free guns to every
American who doesn't have one, because it's their second amendment
RIGHT to bear arms.
Bet the lib-tards would just LOVE that bit of redistribution of wealth
and power.
Tillman
tillius
> is based on income. There are hundreds of creative ways to lessen the
> income you show on paper. Things you normally would pay for are bought by
> your corporation, LLC, or trust, and therefore your taxable income is
> reduced.
Actually, FICA is collected on your GROSS EARNED INCOME. The only way
to reduce that is to earn less, or find a creative way to move your
earnings into instruments that pay you as a dividend or interest income
instead of as earned income. Most of the methods that accomplish that
result in other taxes which are more burdonsom than FICA, and the ones
that don't are 'gray areas' of the IRS code, highly subject to
disallowment in the likely event of an audit (if you are being
'creative' with your taxes).
Of course, you knew that. Right? See your own tax advisors for ways
you can go to jail.
Tillman
SteveB
Hold your phone calls, folks. We have a winner!
However, most people find the term "interest income" to be an unfathomable
inconceivable concept.
Steve
Dave Lyon
>
> I am going to type slow, so try to keep up. The amount any person is
taxed
> is based on income. There are hundreds of creative ways to lessen the
> income you show on paper.
Creative? is that another word for illegal? You were aware that cheating on
taxes is illegal. Right?
>Things you normally would pay for are bought by
> your corporation, LLC, or trust, and therefore your taxable income is
> reduced.
That's great, if you're talking about INCOME tax. We were talking about SS
tax. It's pulled out of your paycheck, and you don't get a refund regardless
of you tax deductions. Of course, you knew that. Right?
BTW, I'm a "C" corp. My personal wages are taxed at a lower rate than
company income.
Antipodean Bucket Farmer
<011120052012544921%tim...@removethis.got.net>,
tim...@removethis.got.net says...
> In article <1130903811.4...@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>,
> tillius <tillman...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > And Congress exempted itself from Socialist Insecurity: they have their
> > > own _actual_ pension plan, totally independent from the Ponzi Scheme
> > > that SS is.
> >
> > > we don't "contribute" to this pyramid scheme.
> >
> >
> > ordained, then opt out for reasons of faith.
>
> Nonsense. I looked at this very carefully in 1975. Yes, 1975. A bunch
> of books had come out, sold at my local "Liberty" bookstore, in
> Mountain View, CA. The idea was to escape SS and income taxes by taking
> one of the various "vows of poverty" or the like.
>
> Well, it doesn't work that way. A bunch of IRS cases have put a bunch
> of "ordained priests" in prison.
>
>
> > I won't do it. It would be a mockery of my faith to become ordained for
> > that purpose.
>
> It wouldn't make no nevermind to me, as I don't believe in fairies and
> elves and goddesses and virgin marys and jesuses and all that tommyrot,
> but it just doesn't work as simply as you describe.
Perhaps you should join the Church Of Scientology.
Then can become legitimately impoverished by giving
them all your money. They won't have pay taxes on it,
since they are an officially registered religion. And
you can work for them, paid only in room, board, and
"Auditing Sessions," thus having zero taxable income
for the IRS to target.
Doesn't that sound like fun?
--
Get Credit Where Credit Is Due
http://www.cardreport.com/
Credit Tools, Reference, and Forum
The Watcher
>Cliff wrote:
>> >http://www.nytimes.com/2005/10/30/magazine/30pensions.html?ei=5090&en=c2ff69df888a2169&ex=1288324800&partner=rssuserland&emc=rss&pagewanted=all
>
>Hey, why don't we just pass a law that everyone will be rich and happy?
Addressing the subject line, if that were true, then that would mean that little
Cliffie has failed yet again. All he's managed to do is make himself look
stupid. ;)
mariposas rand mair fheal greykitten tomys des anges
there is already a federal institution to ensure most people are kept poor
frb is raising interest rates again
to increase unemployment
arf meow arf - dogs and cats living together
if you meet buddha on the usenet
killfile him
tillius
> tax. It's pulled out of your paycheck, and you don't get a refund regardless
> of you tax deductions. Of course, you knew that. Right?
SS tax is only pulled out of your paycheck if you're an employee. If
you're self employed, you pay self employment tax on your earned income
after expenses.
And, if you structure legal entities the right way, it's possible to
take a small but reasonable wage (which is subject to SS tax) while
reaping the profits of your activities (or the legal entities
activities) in the form of interest or divident income (not subject to
SS tax).
This is legal if done properly and you don't CHEAT.
Tillman
Cliff
wrote:
I just love uninformed wingers ... they are just so funny ...
Academic Information Service, Inc.
"The 2005 Tax and Financial Guide for
Engineers & Architects" just as one example ... or
actually get all the possible tax forms & instructions
and (shock !!) actually read them each year.
Better yet by far: both.
It's too late for 2005 but ... PLAN AHEAD !!
--
Cliff
Cliff
wrote:
>That's great, if you're talking about INCOME tax. We were talking about SS
>tax. It's pulled out of your paycheck, and you don't get a refund regardless
>of you tax deductions.
You indeed can.
Example: multiple W2 employers and have more
than the maximum witheld in total.
Sadly, the employers cannot get their excess payments
back but you can get your share of the execss SS witholdings
back.
Try to get as many employer paid bennies as possible that
you would otherwise be paying for. No income tax or SS tax
on such for the most part ... take a lower wage in exchange.
Adds a bit of paperwork cost to the employer though.
>Of course, you knew that. Right?
--
Cliff
SteveB
>
>>
>> I am going to type slow, so try to keep up. The amount any person is
> taxed
>> is based on income. There are hundreds of creative ways to lessen the
>> income you show on paper.
>
> Creative? is that another word for illegal? You were aware that cheating
> on
> taxes is illegal. Right?
Cheating on taxes is illegal. Only morons and sheep who follow tax evaders
believe otherwise. But, working within the laws is totally legal. Right?
>
>>Things you normally would pay for are bought by
>> your corporation, LLC, or trust, and therefore your taxable income is
>> reduced.
>
>
> That's great, if you're talking about INCOME tax. We were talking about SS
> tax. It's pulled out of your paycheck, and you don't get a refund
> regardless
> of you tax deductions. Of course, you knew that. Right?
What if you don't get a "paycheck"? And SS is based on gross INCOME. There
are lots of ways to adjust net income.
>
> BTW, I'm a "C" corp. My personal wages are taxed at a lower rate than
> company income.
>
Great! You are learning "creative" ways to lessen your tax burden. Or is
that illegal? Now, I'm confused. You decry "illegal" activity, but then
tout that you legally creatively lessened your own tax liability.
STeve ;-)
SteveB
Holy shit, Batman! I believe I have finally actually found an intelligent
person on usenet!
Kudos, Tillman!
Steve
SteveB
"Antipodean Bucket Farmer" <usene...@THE-DOMAIN-IN.SIG> wrote
>
>
> Perhaps you should join the Church Of Scientology.
> Then can become legitimately impoverished by giving
> them all your money. They won't have pay taxes on it,
> since they are an officially registered religion. And
> you can work for them, paid only in room, board, and
> "Auditing Sessions," thus having zero taxable income
> for the IRS to target.
>
> Doesn't that sound like fun?
I hear they already have several blogs on payroll doing nothing but being a
royal PITA to Usenet newsgroups. I won't mention any names to protect the
innocent, but ..............
Steve