Posted on 07/28/2013 5:30:55 AM PDT by SeekAndFind
So your dad worked from roughly 1948 til 1978 - and you’re basing your inane comments on that time frame.
SHEEEEEEEEEEEEESH!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
So your dad worked from roughly 1948 til 1978 - and you’re basing your inane comments on that time frame.
SHEEEEEEEEEEEEESH!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Then the state constitution is fatally flawed, much like detroit......
Illinois has a similar provision in its Constitution. A school teacher acquaintance of mine pointed that out to me one day. I replied “Well then when the State is completely broke you can take your copy of the Illinois Constitution down to the bank and try cashing it.”.
The look on her face was priceless. The real irony of the conversation? She’s a math teacher.
So Michigan can go bankrupt also it seems.
I’m not a math teacher, I don’t play one on TV, and I didn’t even stay at a Holiday Inn Express last night - but I’ve known for decades that this crap was not sustainable. There is no exucse for gullible union members - SORRY.
There will be more to follow. When the money’s gone, the union contract/pension/state constitution is worthless. Like some other writer said, the Michigan constitution has ruled reality unconstitutional. Good luck with that.
Thanks for saving me the trouble of posting that. :-)
HT, for your reading pleasure...
http://www.americanthinker.com/2013/07/schadenfreude_michigan_and_mitts_big_fumble.html
I think we all know the gist.
They will announce that everyone in Michigan will be covered and have to pay into the “system” that is really going to cover the Detroit pensioners.
Most or all large corporations that had defined benefit plans by law had to fully fund it every year or they’d be gone after by the feds. Plus there is/was a system in place that if the corporation went belly-up that the pensioners still got a portion of the money that had already been funded.
Too bad the government was EXEMPTED from having to fully fund their pensions like the private sector with the defined benefits had to do.
It's defined benefit plans not defined contribution plans that are the problem.
Kevin
you are right; I misread the quote. Mea culpa.
HOWEVER,
in that regard, I am not in favor of mere 401s of any kind;
they are not the only kind of defined contribution type plan, and they are not the best kind - in terms of the employers’ control (too much) and participation and for MOST people (who need to admit they cannot give bring enough knowledge, market analysis and financial analysis to make the best long term investment choices for a pension-savings account), there are better and still good-peforming defined constribution plan options that are possible.
“anything, but no more defined contribution plans period”
My earlier (”you are preaching to the choir”) comment, on your statement was incorrect. I misread your statement.
For me, it is “no difined BENEFIT plans period” that I am in agreement with.
Agreed, but folks may be stuck with whatever plan the employer offers, especially if the employer makes matching contributions.
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.