Posted on 05/20/2016 5:05:57 PM PDT by bkopto
The Central States Pension Fund has no new plan to avoid insolvency, fund director Thomas Nyhan said this week. Without government funding, the fund will run out of money in 10 years, he said.
At that time, pension benefits for about 407,000 people could be reduced to "virtually nothing," he told workers and retirees in a letter sent Friday.
In a last-ditch effort, the Central States Pension Plan sought government approval to partially reduce the pensions of 115,000 retirees and the future benefits for 155,000 current workers.
The proposed cuts were steep, as much as 60% for some, but it wasn't enough. Earlier this month, the Treasury Department rejected the plan because it found that it would not actually head off insolvency.
(Excerpt) Read more at money.cnn.com ...
If you read the fine print, they already own it. None of that money is really yours until you pay all taxes due on it. Contributing is like throwing your money over a high fence and hoping the government will throw it back to you some day, a little at a time, plus interest.
All they have to do now is claim the public is too ignorant to manage its own money and that all private retirement account balances will be converted to Federal Savings Bonds, redeemable at age 67 and paying "reasonable" rates of interest. Coupled with an Obamacare-like media campaign claiming that only the "greedy" would try to punish our most vulnerable citizens in their time of need by keeping control of their own money when they already have too much, and they are done - trillions of new dollars appear to buy votes with until the next crisis comes.
They can't do it under a President Trump, though. They needed Jeb's help, and he didn't follow through... :)
Informative but depressing comments.
I really don’t give a ****. If they take it from me, I am taking it back, even if I have to knock off a federal reserve bank. Bet on it.
Pension are no more or less than another liabilities a company must pay. It’s prioritize of or claim on profits is only the security given the obligation. If the unions or workers do not ask for a higher level of security they will not get it. But the unions knew that going in. They chose higher pay and benefits in the here and now and said mere promises are good enough for later pensions. They could have secured the pensions but the companies would have lowered pay elsewhere.
There is nothing sacred about pensions. If I lone a company money and insist it is secured by the accounts recievable why should I not be replaced as per the agreement? If a union agrees to have the pension obligation (which means the worker has in essence become a lender) funded by future earnings then they should live wth their agreement.
Bank accounts for security are not WISE!
Checking for auto-pay and monthly deposit are the only uses for banks now, for me.
Strictly cash shopping now.
Pretty easy to do when you are an insider in the government.
You government stooge you.
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.