Pension Agency Reports $22.8B Shortfall

AP via Yahoo! ^ | November 15, 2005 | Marcy Gordon

[tortoise]

Putting aside the question if an average worker can predict the future or be an expert on economy, are you suggesting that the employers KNOWINGLY made false promises?

The unions strong-armed them into making promises that were dubious but which would push the problem way out into the future. It was a short-term win for both the unions and the companies but an obvious long-term disaster to anyone with economic sense -- an easy win for both the union bosses and the companies, but a loser for future employees. Neither the unions nor the companies can complain about this situation, as they were both party to creating it. As for the individual employees, if you lie with dogs you may get fleas. This is no different than politicians promising "free" entitlements.

[A. Pole]

So you answer is yes? (that the employers KNOWINGLY made false promises)

[tortoise]

So you answer is yes? (that the employers KNOWINGLY made false promises)

Plausible deniability because no one can predict the future, though both the unions and company could have predicted this as the likely outcome. This is almost exactly like Social Security, writ small. There were no innocents in the crafting of this deal on any side of the table. If the companies are criminal, then so were the unions.

[A. Pole]

This is almost exactly like Social Security, writ small. There were no innocents in the crafting of this deal on any side of the table. If the companies are criminal, then so were the unions.

I see. So the private pension plans, accounts and investments will be gone too?

[Brilliant]

Why does it say "The PBGC's $22.8 billion deficit for fiscal 2005" then?

[Tymesup]

"The Pension Benefit Guaranty Corp. disclosed in its annual financial report that as of Sept. 30, it had $56.5 billion in assets to cover $79.2 billion in pension liabilities. "

I worked on one of the plans now under PBGC control. Back then, the plan could not determine how many participants it had to the nearest thousand. If they can't do that, it's kind of difficult to calculate the liabilities.

[Kozak]

Yet, is the operative word. The Rat's like Jesse Jackson have already proposed a " one time" 20% tax on retirement accounts. I'm sure they have lots of other creative ideas to steal the money. All of course in the name of "fairness".

[old and tired]

That's what I thought. Since these people did not put any of their own money in, the reason for any government involvement is nonexistent. Shame on them if they chose not to invest in IRA's or 401k's. Even if it were their own money (like in an IRA or 401k), if folks choose to invest it poorly, the government also has no reason to be involved.

I don't mean to sound harsh, but the purpose of social security is to prevent folks from being pushed out into the streets. I'm not crazy about SS, but at least I can agree that no one too old to work should be out on the street. But I don't see any reason why the government owes seniors a middle class or better existence.