Preview of the US without pensions

[Amethyst]

If the employees paid a portion of their salary into a pension fund and got nothing back, not even their paid-in portion, I certainly would consider that to be stealing from them. A fact of life is that companies can and do fail. Creditors get whatever's left. If the employees had paid into a pension fund, that ought to be a top "creditor."

If the employee wasn't paying anything, however, then any future pension payments were always riding on the company's health. In that scenario, to believe that the company will always be there for you would constitute fairy-tale thinking.

Quote:

Originally Posted by pb4uski WADR, that is clear, unadulterated BS. Nobody stole anything from anyone. The short story is that many companies just decided that they no longer wanted to accept the investment risk associated with sponsoring a defined benefit plan so they stopped doing it. There is nothing written in stone anywhere that an employer has to offer a DB plan and where companies did make changes they gave fair notice. The problem was that many short-sighted employees decided not to save and are now paying the price. Those of us who listened and took their advice to save are doing fine, proving that the change was fair as long as you adjusted your habits. They had the same opportunities that we had and they squandered them.

[Danmar]

Quote:

Originally Posted by jim584672 Having or not having a pension would make no difference to me. I still would have done the same amount of saving.

Same here. Never counted on the pension. In the end though, due to very good luck on my part, the pension ended up being very large. In addition, having a considerable part of our spending covered by a pension allowed for a more equity weighted AA which has worked out exceptionally well.

Not a day goes by that I don’t think “how lucky I am”. Merry Christmas.

[Midpack]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Amethyst If the employees paid a portion of their salary into a pension fund and got nothing back, not even their paid-in portion, I certainly would consider that to be stealing from them. A fact of life is that companies can and do fail. Creditors get whatever's left. If the employees had paid into a pension fund, that ought to be a top "creditor." If the employee wasn't paying anything, however, then any future pension payments were always riding on the company's health. In that scenario, to believe that the company will always be there for you would constitute fairy-tale thinking.

It’s not bulletproof by any means, but I think ERISA and PBGC do provide some protection of employee retirement assets whether the employees contributed directly or not.

Quote:

The law includes specific requirements on how pensions funds are held, which becomes especially important when a company declares bankruptcy. Pension funds should not be at risk when a company goes bankrupt because ERISA requires that (1) pension plans be properly funded to meet promised benefits and (2) pension money be kept separate from the company's business assets and held in trust or in some other separate means. Holding the pension separately should protect it from creditors in a bankruptcy proceeding. While ERISA sets minimum standards for pension plans, many of the important provisions such as the level of benefits and what happens in case of a bankruptcy are left up to the employer and are detailed in the pension summary plan description, a document ERISA requires to be distributed to all employees and plan participants. ERISA also requires the employer to uphold any plan obligations stated in the summary plan description. U. S. DOL advises plan participants, especially in bankruptcy cases, to become familiar with their summary plan descriptions.

I became familiar with my megacorps summary plan document, one of several reasons I took a lump sum the minute I was eligible. However, my long frozen pension wasn’t that significant, an easier choice than someone relying heavily on a pension.

[Colreb1962]

Pensions are deferred compensation. The employee
traded labor and time for the pension. A company who
doesn’t fully fund the pension or knowingly used overly
optimistic return assumptions is guilty of theft.
Bait and switch. In most cases it wasn’t an inability
to fund the pension plan but a desire to loot the pension
plan that caused failure.

[43210]

Here's a relevant article.
https://www.investors.com/politics/e...on-nightmares/

However people need to stop calling these "under-funded" because what they actually are is "over-promised".

Pension funds are causing huge social and economic damage by sucking in vast quantities of money out of their surroundings. This needs to stop. They should make do with the funds they have now. However, first they should return the funds they have taken from people who are not party to the pension. I have personally been harmed by a six-figure amount, and that should certainly be returned to me, and everyone else in my situation.