Recommended Posts
tcnelson 1
no, no, no gravitymaster!! you're thinking too far ahead again.
united should have gone to the magic money tree that grows in happy land where everyone can have as much of it as they want with no consequences...
united should have gone to the magic money tree that grows in happy land where everyone can have as much of it as they want with no consequences...
"Don't talk to me like that assface...I don't work for you yet." - Fletch
NBFT, Deseoso Rodriguez RB#1329
NBFT, Deseoso Rodriguez RB#1329
Quoteno, no, no gravitymaster!! you're thinking too far ahead again.
united should have gone to the magic money tree that grows in happy land where everyone can have as much of it as they want with no consequences...
Or maybe we can have the govt. take over and then bleed the tax payers to support these pensions.
Oh, wait, we tried this with Social Security. Bottom line is people better start taking care of themselves and stop depending on Govt. and Corp. to do it. Of course, thats only if you actually want to have money when you retire. If not you can whine on about the unfairness of it all and how you are always getting screwed by "The Man" like a narcissitic crybaby.
QuoteWould you prefer they just continue on and end up going bankrupt and everyone loses their pension?
Actually, I'm pretty sure that most unions would prefer to see United go the way of Eastern Airlines...
My wife is hotter than your wife.
tcnelson 1
speaking of unions, gm is probably going to be brought down by the uaw unions evetually. seems that most workers are too interested in their paycheck and not interested enough in the success of their source of income.
"Don't talk to me like that assface...I don't work for you yet." - Fletch
NBFT, Deseoso Rodriguez RB#1329
NBFT, Deseoso Rodriguez RB#1329
kallend 2,148
QuoteQuoteClicky
Something to do with waddling like it and quacking like it....
So please tell us what your solution would be. United is in bankruptcy and they need to shed some debt to continue to function. Would you prefer they just continue on and end up going bankrupt and everyone loses their pension? Would you feel the same way if they announced the only pensions being cut were for those "who don't need them?" A sort of means test for the wealthier retireees?
So what debt do they shed? Their obligations to their workers.
...
The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.
The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.
QuoteBottom line is people better start taking care of themselves
100% correct. My dad is a retired Delta Pilot. He got like a million lump sum and is getting like $6,000 a month now. That figure is going to turn into $2,000 a month pretty soon it looks like.
I work for a VERY profitable railroad and I don't pay Social Security because we have Railroad Retirement, which is actually overfunded. Also, my company is having no problem meeting it's pension obligations.
This was the same story with Delta 30 years ago. For me to think that Railroad Retirement will not be raped by the time I retire in 30 years would be stupid.
I just bumped my 401K up to 25%. If railroad retirement and the pension stays healthy for the next 30 years, I'll be really fat at retirement. If both go away, Ill be just OK on my own.
Mike
It never ceases to amaze me that someone would gamble their whole future on a ponzi scheme that someone else controls.
I remember the anger a decade back when companies like IBM started transitioning employees from a pension to a 401k, kicking and squealling. They were given a lump sum for the transition, but it was felt by many that they were losing in the deal.
But these days, I bet a lot of future pensioners would have been happier with a plan that had X dollars to their name. Short of theft, you can't lose that money. What's the good in an overgenerous pension benefit that can't be sustained?
But these days, I bet a lot of future pensioners would have been happier with a plan that had X dollars to their name. Short of theft, you can't lose that money. What's the good in an overgenerous pension benefit that can't be sustained?
kallend 2,148
Quotespeaking of unions, gm is probably going to be brought down by the uaw unions evetually. seems that most workers are too interested in their paycheck and not interested enough in the success of their source of income.
The union workers are not paid enough to manage the company. That's what management's paid the big bucks for. When a company fails, 100% of the blame rests with the management.
How did you feel about the last CEO of HP, and her severance package?money.cnn.com/2005/02/09/technology/hp_fiorina/
...
The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.
The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.
tcnelson 1
i'm talking about the outlandish benefits that unions usually demand. when the company takes a hit and the employees don't share the strain of it, something has to give.
"Don't talk to me like that assface...I don't work for you yet." - Fletch
NBFT, Deseoso Rodriguez RB#1329
NBFT, Deseoso Rodriguez RB#1329
Quotei'm talking about the outlandish benefits that unions usually demand. when the company takes a hit and the employees don't share the strain of it, something has to give.
Thats because in the back of their minds they think the Govt. will protect them and everything will be O.K.
Sort of a "Magic Thinking" that permeates our society I'm afraid.
Alias 0
Killer deal you got there with the railroad retirement - I thought the max for 401K contributions was 10% or the annual contribution limit is $14,000 for 2005
Maybe I'm incorrect
Carpe Diem
Maybe I'm incorrect
Carpe Diem
I can put up to 50% in mine
dorbie 0
Nobody can exceed the 401k federal limits set at $14k this year (+ catchup for anyone >50 yrs old). Employer matching contribs don't count towards this total. You're getting tax deferred on those contributions, they're not going to let you contribute whatever you like :-)
The % limit is plan to plan but I've been in plans with flexible % limits month to month but with an annual cap of 10%, upping your % would only reduce your employer matching payments capped on a monthly or quarterly basis.
The % limit is plan to plan but I've been in plans with flexible % limits month to month but with an annual cap of 10%, upping your % would only reduce your employer matching payments capped on a monthly or quarterly basis.
rehmwa 2
He's probably confusing a very nice retriement plan at his company and just calling it 401K.
It's most important to maximize your employer match by putting in the exact percentage of your income to ensure the $14k yearly total.
I also believe there is a percentage of income upper limit for those that don't make a lot. But I could be wrong on that one.
...
Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants
It's most important to maximize your employer match by putting in the exact percentage of your income to ensure the $14k yearly total.
I also believe there is a percentage of income upper limit for those that don't make a lot. But I could be wrong on that one.
...
Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants
Shit,...you guys are right...I just called Vanguard andf they told me to lower my % because I would hit the max before the end of the year.....
I am lowering it back down to 15% and investing the rest in company stock. (they say it will hit $90 within a year)
Thanks!
--
I am lowering it back down to 15% and investing the rest in company stock. (they say it will hit $90 within a year)
Thanks!
--
JohnRich 4
How do you figure this equates to "fascism"?
Definition: fas·cism
1: a political philosophy, movement, or regime that exalts nation and often race above the individual and that stands for a centralized autocratic government headed by a dictatorial leader, severe economic and social regimentation, and forcible suppression of opposition.
Definition: fas·cism
1: a political philosophy, movement, or regime that exalts nation and often race above the individual and that stands for a centralized autocratic government headed by a dictatorial leader, severe economic and social regimentation, and forcible suppression of opposition.
EBSB52 0
Quote***Gotta go, they're running out of US flags at Walmart....
There is always more where those came from.....China.
Bahahahahaa..good one
EBSB52 0
QuoteQuoteWould you prefer they just continue on and end up going bankrupt and everyone loses their pension?
Actually, I'm pretty sure that most unions would prefer to see United go the way of Eastern Airlines...
And most rich elites see United go the way of Continental, busting unions, lowering wages, being a POS airline to work for. Where is that Fascist Reagan to help bust United as he did for Continental and the Air Traffic Controllers when you need him?
The sides are obvious and defined, I don't think we need to reestablish them for everyone.
Republicans/rich/elite - for - union busting and cheap labor
Democrats/ACLU/poor - for - labor unions and worker rights, for the working people
EBSB52 0
Quotespeaking of unions, gm is probably going to be brought down by the uaw unions evetually. seems that most workers are too interested in their paycheck and not interested enough in the success of their source of income.
And CEO's are still demanding huge bomuses and pay while bitching about worker's benefits.
So please tell us what your solution would be. United is in bankruptcy and they need to shed some debt to continue to function. Would you prefer they just continue on and end up going bankrupt and everyone loses their pension? Would you feel the same way if they announced the only pensions being cut were for those "who don't need them?" A sort of means test for the wealthier retireees?
Share this post
Link to post
Share on other sites