Employer groups protest budget deal increase in fees for companies that offer pensions

  • Article by: SAM HANANEL , Associated Press
  • Updated: December 18, 2013 - 4:20 PM

WASHINGTON — For the second time in two years, Congress is targeting employers that still offer traditional pensions for a hefty increase in their insurance premiums to help finance a budget deal.

  • 12
  • Comments

  • Results per page:
theagonybhoDec. 18, 13 8:06 AM

Too bad freebies are always the first target.

0
5
dogmanDec. 18, 13 9:10 AM

Maybe what Congress should concentrate on is to make sure employers stay current on their pension fund obligations. They seemed to have no problem forcing the post office pay 75 years in advance. Is it too much to ask a profitable corporation to at least stay current, even if that means reducing compensation and golden parachutes to overpriced executives?

7
1
theagonybhoDec. 18, 13 9:58 AM

dogman, im glad the USPS pension is funded for 75 years, there are rearly 5 trillion in unfunded pensions in the country were on the hook for. You cant put 200 dallars a check in your pension and retire at 60 and get 40,000 a year until you die, the numbers dont work. I have 2 relatives, married work for the postal service for 35 years, both retired at 60 thier monthly pension with SS is 9000 a month, 100 grand a year for life, not bad for putting a letter in a slot.

2
6
dogmanDec. 18, 1311:00 AM

"im glad the USPS pension is funded for 75 years, there are rearly 5 trillion in unfunded pensions in the country were on the hook for" -- so then you agree that corporations should pre-fund their retirement obligations for 75 years? Or at least stay current on their obligations? __ "You cant put 200 dallars a check in your pension and retire at 60 and get 40,000 a year until you die, the numbers dont work. I have 2 relatives, married work for the postal service for 35 years, both retired at 60 thier monthly pension with SS is 9000 a month, 100 grand a year for life, not bad for putting a letter in a slot." -- that's what most people view as the American dream... work for a few decades.. invest for retirement... pay into Social Security so you can enjoy your retirement years feeling financially secure... apparently you believe that's a bad thing.

3
3
tooty123Dec. 18, 1312:39 PM

This has been the worst financial trend for employees that employers have dropped their pension funds for 40l's. They have convinced young people that the 40l's will be better for their retirement than a dedicated pension fund. What they don't tell employees is that it will not cover you if you live longer than the amount in the 40l account. Then, when the stock market drops considerably like in 2007, your 40l decreases also. Some had to continue working because of this. Pension or a 40l? Pension is far better but they are hard to come by for employment. I still fear that in 30 to 40 years when the younger people are ready for retirement what will be their finances for retirement. They will have a 40l, but will it be enough for the length of life. What happens then?

4
1
theagonybhoDec. 18, 1312:42 PM

dogman, i knew i would have to expalin it to you, the 2 of them maybe paid combined 200,000 into thier reitrements that will be exhausted by the time thier 70, the next 20 years they drain they system.

2
6
rtwall59Dec. 18, 13 1:48 PM

It's about time that people start taking care of their own needs instead of relying on PBGC and the taxpayer to backstop these outdated programs. What is so ironic is that the unions have the big pension systems and the Democrats just kicked sand in their face!! lol!!

1
4
flatstanleyDec. 18, 13 1:49 PM

theagonybho, isn't the whole idea of the pension is that employees in cooperation with their employee are investing a portion of their paycheck into a larger fund, that if managed well allows the retirees to live off of the profits generated by that pension fund? People who invest their money anticipate a return on that investment, they aren't just given the exact same amount of money they invested. An investor expects a reasonable rate of return. So why shouldn't a person who is investing their money into their pension not expect the same?

5
1
flatstanleyDec. 18, 13 2:07 PM

Correction, meant to say "isn't the whole idea of the pension is that employees in cooperation with their EMPLOYER (not employee) are investing a portion of their paycheck into a larger fund."

4
0
dogmanDec. 18, 13 5:56 PM

"dogman, i knew i would have to expalin it to you, the 2 of them maybe paid combined 200,000 into thier reitrements that will be exhausted by the time thier 70, the next 20 years they drain they system." -- maybe you could explain your math? You said they paid in $200 per paycheck, yet only paid a total of $200k towards their pension. Depending on whether they were paid weekly or bi-weekly, 35 years would total either $370k or $720k paid in... not the $200k you claimed. And if the $200k you claimed they contributed lasted 10 years... that would be $20k per year... yet you claimed they were making $100k per year between pension and SS...

4
0

Comment on this story   |  

ADVERTISEMENT

Connect with twitterConnect with facebookConnect with Google+Connect with PinterestConnect with PinterestConnect with RssfeedConnect with email newsletters

ADVERTISEMENT

ADVERTISEMENT

ADVERTISEMENT

ADVERTISEMENT

ADVERTISEMENT

ADVERTISEMENT