Posted on 07/26/2005 12:00:33 PM PDT by summer
Employer 401k contributions are pre-tax, and very advantageous. One size does not fit all, but if your employees get relatively high compensation, employer contributions are a way of cutting out the tax man and both employer and employee win.
It's time for more folks to take more responsibility for their futures. My wife is taking advantage of the over age 50 catch-up provision for her 457 and is absolutely thrilled to have a few tens of thousands accumulated in a very short time. If she keeps up the pace and experiences some reasonable capital growth her savings will dwarf any pension she would receive. I'm self employed right now and using a SEP IRA vehicle. We won't be horribly rich when we retire in our 60s (unless a few speculations pan out) but we'll be just fine.
Big companies should get out of the pension business, defined or otherwise. Eventually, these pensions including health benefits become a huge burden affecting the companies' competitiveness. We need to delink pensions and health benefits from employment per se. Employees should be given the vehicles like 401Ks to save and plan for their own retirement. The recent problems at GM and United Airlines are just the tip of the iceberg.
Either that, or get the government out of guaranteeing corporate pension obligations. After shareholders take it in the pants once or twice, things will change.
I think it is good to use the 401K. If the company does any matching, the 401K is a self managed retirement program. I have rolled 401K into a self-directed IRA 3 times when I have changed employment. I am in complete control of my money.
Company managed pension funds can disappear, particualrly if there is Union involved.
then again, who's going to pay for all of that?.....of course, we the citizens...
as long as that part of the work force gets EVERYTHING FOREVER, then people in the prvate sector will always feel embittered.....
as conservatives, I would think most freepers know that a strong ecomony is based on the PRIVATE sector, with a smaller government, so why is it that there is so little concern for the welfare of the privately employed....
the employees of private companies are the backbone of this country and the economy, and when they take huge hits, the country and the economy will take hits as well....
and I predict, if they don't either start protecting the privately employed a little better, than they better be prepared to be hitting up the govt. workers and the govt retirees for big tax increases or pension reductions, because they will be the only ones with any money left....
Let's start today. End public sector pensions. Turn 'em into 401ks, so we know the price tag right now.
I wished I would have went to work in a government job years ago.
They have the most secure jobs, top pay, top benefits, and pensions we can only dream of.
I should have been a public servant.
Govt unions are the largest trade unions left. Over 20% of all govt workers are govt union members. It helped the air traffic controllers (sarcasm) when Reagan fired them all to bits for staging a walkout.
One good downturn deserves another - when GHWBush was in the white house there were more federal job layoffs, terminations, job reductions-in-force and job eliminations (in part due to the peace dividend??) than at any other period in the past 30 years. The addage that a govt job is safe is a misconception....
Our government is certainly the most generous employer in today's world.
It's not that I have a lack of concern for the privately employed. The point is that each individual is responsible for his/her own welfare. It is not incumbent upon employers to provide for employees. However, it is incombent upon every individual to provide for their own retirement. For every dollar earned, a minimum of 10% needs to be stowed away for this purpose. If you are living paycheck to paycheck, then you are living beyond your means. Just because you want a boat or a nice house, doesn't mean you can afford one. If you're unsatisfied with your lifestyle, then you need to develop your skills to a high level so you are rewarded for your contributions. If you want to test your real value, then start your own business and compete.
The most successful people do not have success handed to them - they work for it. The rich don't live paycheck to paycheck - they save a good percentage and invest it.
the employees of private companies are the backbone of this country and the economy, and when they take huge hits, the country and the economy will take hits as well....
You have this half right. The backbone of the economy is small business, which accounts for roughly 70% of all the jobs in America. When small businesses succeed, they are able to pay higher wages for better talent, and offer competitive retirement plans as an incentive to keep that talent.
1990-1993
Under George Herbert Walker Bush, the number of non-defense government employees increased from 1,162,000 to 1,256,000 for a gain of 94,000 employees.
Clinton 1993-2001
During the Clinton years the number of non-defense government employees fell from 1,256,000 to 1,151,000 for a decrease of 105,000 employees.
Conclusion
Under the 20 years of Republican administrations the number of non-defense government employees rose by 310,000.
Under the 20 years of Democratic administrations, the number of non-defense government employees rose by 59,000.
Of the 369,000 employees added between 1962 and 2001, 84% were added under Republican administrations and 16% were added under Democratic administrations.
Dollars per pounds, yes. They cost a lot less then Americans and for most CEOs THAT is all that matters.
I don't know about that. Some of them Injuns is perty skinny. Not much meat on dem bones.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.