Pension deficit at $34 Billion

Started Nov 17, 2012 | Discussions thread
Don_Campbell
Contributing MemberPosts: 952
Like?
Re: Pension deficit at $34 Billion
In reply to Bill Randall, Nov 19, 2012

Bill Randall wrote:

Don_Campbell wrote:

ljfinger wrote:

Bill Randall wrote:

LeRentier wrote:

Bill Randall wrote:

Chato wrote:

Bill Randall wrote:

Disgusting.

http://www.boston.com/business/personal-finance/living-longer/2012/11/16/pension-insurer-runs-record-deficit/KqAVWSO7Fejg2gaG2bBkPN/story.html

This is another example of welfare for the rich (and one I didn't know about). Essentiually, letting the taxpayers pick up on the obligations of Corporations.

Dave

Very true. And another example of both parties, Democrats and Republicans, allowing it.

Pension Benefit Guaranty Corp. is a government agency. Since this deficit has been going on for some time, I have to ask who is overseeing this agency? Fire them!

Tax payers should not have to subsidize this agency. I propose that instead of tax payers bailing them out, our Congressmen and Senators be obligated to cover the deficit.

I also propose that we give everyone in Washington a cut in pay and benefits.

My understanding is that this agency picks up the tab when the private funds fail so why would anyone expect them not to go down and broke ?

The agency insures retirement programs of various companies.

But it's NOT funded by government dollars.

-- hide signature --

Lee Jay
(see profile for equipment)

You're asking them to look deeper into this than they are capable of looking. Knee jerk whining about government.

Don

Well that explains everything. I wish all posts were as helpful as yours - not. If you know so much I would appreciate it if you would explain it to me because I don't know. I have made several assumptions which may be false. Information is much better than sarcasm.

Bill,

I don't frequent this forum as much as some of you so I missed your annoyed reply until a few minutes ago.

I guess from reading your reply that you didn't notice that my post was not to you. It was a reply to Lee Jay expressing my opinion that the folks he was posting responses to were unlikely to understand. I said that because the average 6th grader can do a google search and find some answers.  Such a concept. Instead, you thought it was my duty to educate you. I notice that since your post Lee Jay has tried to help you though this apparently challenging cognitive thicket. I'll add one thing.

With a google search on the name of the outfit, you could have virtually instantly found the site of the Pension Benefit Guaranty Corp. On that site there a many FAQs. It might have taken you a few seconds to find the information but then you would have to read this:

"PBGC receives no funds from general tax revenues. Operations are financed by insurance premiums set by Congress and paid by sponsors of defined benefit plans, investment income, assets from pension plans trusteed by PBGC, and recoveries from the companies formerly responsible for the plans."

About assumptions: I appreciate that you felt it possible that you had made some assumptions that might have been wrong. That's a good start, but by itself it doesn't get you far. Arguing based on those assumptions seems like the second step. The first step is to investigate those assumptions. It is clear that you are an Internet user. I would have thought that instead of being angry with me you might have looked into your assumptions.

I've accepted the statement of the PBGC that they don't get government tax revenues. I accepted that after I looked and did not find anything about them ever being bailed out from general revenue funds. I might have missed it in my searching. Correct me if you find out that is wrong.

Don

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Post (hide subjects)Posted by
Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum PPrevious NNext WNext unread UUpvote SSubscribe RReply QQuote BBookmark post MMy threads
Color scheme? Blue / Yellow