...Where did I say government employees can participate in 401ks? Oh wait, I didn't - you quoted yourself apparently...
You realize that Government employees are almost universally barred form participating in 401(k)s right? Yes how dare those employees not diversify into something that was not legally available to them! *outrage*
...
Says the person wanting to know why government employees don't participate in 401ks that they are barred from participating in.
I don't understand how this is possible.
First my fees on my 401k are 0.05%. Can a pension fund really beat that?
They weren't able to fund it because they were always running a deficit. If you have a 401k and the company can't fund it, you know that and can leave to find a company that can match.
I'm guessing you meant 0.5%. The average total annual fees (investment, bookkeeping, etc) for a 401(k) plan averages about 0.78%.
I thought this was an interesting post. The idea that all the financial advice the average person needs can be written on a notecard:
...Where did I say government employees can participate in 401ks? Oh wait, I didn't - you quoted yourself apparently...
I don't know why people always cry about employers not offering pensions and instead moving to 401k's... It's called diversification, and it very well could just save your fuckin' ass some day.
You said:
You did not specifically include government employees however your general statement of 'employers' does include the government as Governments are employers. Government employees cannot have a 401k. They do not have access to the diversification you say could save their fuckin' ass some day.
Therefore your statement of 'employers' and 'diversification' relating to '401ks' is incorrect
DING DING I never specified, hence quit singling it out as if I did. Holy shit for tossing words into my post. If we are going to toss words into posts, let me also state in my OP there are MANY ways to diversify other than a 401k :sneaky: Just consider that in my original post since you like playing games like that.
For months, attorneys representing Detroit’s 23,500 retirees have argued in court that a clause in Michigan’s constitution protecting pension benefits would insulate them from cuts.
But Rhodes said the Supremacy Clause of the U.S. Constitution trumps Michigan’s constitution in part because the state authorized Detroit’s bankruptcy.
The word “contract” Rhodes said, is important because federal bankruptcy code allows cities that are bankrupt to cancel contracts.
<~~Michigan's AG“I will continue to aggressively defend pensions ... as this case proceeds to the confirmation stage of the bankruptcy process, at which time we can thoroughly review any plans for potential legal action involving pensions,” Schuette said in a statement.
I have no doubt that will never happen, and even if it did, it would be voted down by a huge margin.I have no doubt that in the end there may be a special public vote on the whole state paying those pensions. I personally think it would pass.
I have no doubt that will never happen, and even if it did, it would be voted down by a huge margin.
It sucks. But it's the only way to have a chance to dig out of this hole.
Shifting Detroit's problems to the state of Michigan, just because they have a bigger checkbook, seems like a pretty bad idea. The state itself is in a bad enough financial situation anyways.Detroit has to get out of the hole, yes.
The state can step in to help out the pensioners. You know just as well as I do that things like this can end up on the ballot. I can't speak for everyone in the state, but everyone I have talked to has been in favor of paying some extra tax to help them out.
Shifting Detroit's problems to the state of Michigan, just because they have a bigger checkbook, seems like a pretty bad idea. The state itself is in a bad enough financial situation anyways.
Passing debt around is meaningless and will only serve to delay the issue and extend and deepen the recession.
I guess I just don't see a majority of the 10M Michigan citizens deciding that 21k Detroit retirees should be prioritized over themselves. Not even close.
I don't have an issue with voting on it. I just don't think the result would be any different.I'm just saying I would like a chance to vote on it.
The AG sounds like he isn't going to back down on this, so it should be interesting to see how it all pans out.
Merry Christmas!
Pension = Contract. Bankruptcy's purpose = impair contracts. That is not logic that I'd want to be arguing.More significant for the future of America's cities, Judge Rhodes also dismissed the union conceit that the language of Michigan's constitution protects public pensions as "contractual obligations" that cannot be "diminished or impaired." The express purpose of bankruptcy is to impair contracts, and Judge Rhodes emphasized that pension benefits are "not entitled to any heightened protection in bankruptcy."
If pension benefits are immune from bankruptcy, then unions would have even less incentive than they do now to consider the economic condition of a city when they press politicians for more benefits. They could drive cities toward bankruptcy knowing that bondholders would have to absorb nearly all the burden of restructuring. Cities would also have no recourse other than to raise taxes or cut more current services, neither of which helps urban renewal.
This is why a ponzi scheme dies. Once more people are taking than paying in, it all crumbles.
The first thing they should do is eliminate whatever pensions or benefits elected officials have, then we'll talk about people who actually work for a living.
If we can get enough people to come to grips with our situation, we could take some hard, painful steps that might bring us out on the other side in far better shape. But that doesn't fit the agenda. You can't get elected by telling the truth.I guess our modern government is just a giant Ponzi scheme.
We got more and more people not working each generation. Old, young in poor health, young in good health but scamming the system, and promises to all of them for free cash left and right.
Pension = Contract. Bankruptcy's purpose = impair contracts. That is not logic that I'd want to be arguing.
If we can get enough people to come to grips with our situation, we could take some hard, painful steps that might bring us out on the other side in far better shape. But that doesn't fit the agenda. You can't get elected by telling the truth.
There have been arguments put forth in Canada that pensions are deferred compensation, and compensation owed often takes priority in bankruptcy proceedings.
And there could be even deeper cuts in what the city is offering to pay banks and other investors holding the city's debt. A summary of the plan on the city's Web site said bondholders would get new securities worth 20% of amount they are still owed.
So pensions are cut by 34% but bondholders etc are cut by 80% and people are complaining about the pensions?
I wonder what affect the bond cuts will have on the city's future ability to float new bonds.
Fern
It's called C.O.D. or prepay.I wonder what affect the bond cuts will have on the city's future ability to float new bonds.
Fern
Justin Amash is proof of that.