I understand many school districts fund their own retirement programs, in lieu of SS. In my area, I believe Galveston is one of these, but I heard sometime ago that they might be in trouble.
Just goes to show, self reliance is always the best policy, never trust politicians with your future.
The unions demand contracts that are unsustainable.
Eventually they run out of people to take money from.
BigBear wrote:
The unions demand contracts that are unsustainable.
Eventually they run out of people to take money from.
This wasn't a union issue. It was a state government decision.
Please do a little research before you slam someone.
Frank T wrote:
This wasn't a union issue. It was a state government decision.
Please do a little research before you slam someone.
So in other words, the union they have been forced to pay dues to most of their career was f'n useless in regards to protecting them. Big surprise.......
Best thing I ever did for my wallet was to quit the two Locals I was a member of.
Wow. I had no idea. That isn't right.
Now think about this. No Social Security means also no Medicare, means if you get sick you are SOL unless you obtain secondary insurance. You have to pay like $800.00 a year to have Medicare part B Pay another $200.00 a month for supplemental insurance and about $20.00 a month for RX drug coverage plus deductibles on medications and there goes 3/4 of your monthly pension. Also when it comes tax time you get hit big time because the pension plan does not take out enough for Federal Income Taxes. But the good news is you dont pay State income tax.. Whoopie
BigBear wrote:
The unions demand contracts that are unsustainable.
Eventually they run out of people to take money from.
Exactly, as in the Liberal city of Chicago.
Dennis
Frank T wrote:
This wasn't a union issue. It was a state government decision.
Please do a little research before you slam someone.
Like it or not Frank, he was correct. Many unions keep demanding more and more for their workers. It all sounds great until the workers retire and find out there is not enough money to go for their retirement. Pay attention to other than your little pitiful Liberal world.
Dennis
Teachers' unions, whether at the local, state, or national levels, have long insisted on fixed benefits pensions, similar to those which were typical in private industry. However, in most instances, private firms managed to off-load those pension obligations to either insurance companies as annuities, or converted retirements to 401k-type funds.
And a real part of the problem is the way money was invested to fund those pensions. For instance, the California teachers pension fund has been managed so poorly, that they can't meet future obligations, and the only way will be to raise taxes; except that the tax increase would be unbearable. They have hundreds of people in pension fund management, and the investments are badly done, resulting in huge losses. In one article I read, the fund could have passively invested in the S&P, and managed an average 10% ROI, over the long term.
Ironically, the 401-k is not always a good alternative. Federal law requires that nearly all fees in 401-k's be revealed to the investor. However, some of the funds are so complicated, that fees can't always be easily identified. As a result, a lot of companies don't even offer the 401-k, since doing so, opens them up to legal liability if the fees aren't completely shown.
dennis2146 wrote:
Like it or not Frank, he was correct. Many unions keep demanding more and more for their workers. It all sounds great until the workers retire and find out there is not enough money to go for their retirement. Pay attention to other than your little pitiful Liberal world.
Dennis
Dennis, I understand that you guys don't like unions and that's fine. However, this was not then and is not now a union issue. It was the State governments who opted them out of Social Security because they didn't want to pay the fees and signed on for the alternative which said that the State must give them benefits, equal to exceeding that of Social Security. It is the state that mismanaged the plans and now find themselves in a position where the funding will be exhausted.
Maybe it is past time that government entities go to defined contribution rather than defined benefit.
Frank T wrote:
Dennis, I understand that you guys don't like unions and that's fine. However, this was not then and is not now a union issue. It was the State governments who opted them out of Social Security because they didn't want to pay the fees and signed on for the alternative which said that the State must give them benefits, equal to exceeding that of Social Security. It is the state that mismanaged the plans and now find themselves in a position where the funding will be exhausted.
So you're admitting, their unions were absolutely worthless.
If you want to reply, then
register here. Registration is free and your account is created instantly, so you can post right away.