BAR wrote:
Boater wrote:
BAR wrote:
Boater wrote:
Calif Bill wrote:
"Boater" wrote in message
...
CalifBill wrote:
"Boater" wrote in message
...
BAR wrote:
Boater wrote:
BAR wrote:

The perfect example of why Social Security is going to fail
and why we need to abandon it now. For some people it will be
unfair and it will hurt but that is too bad. Everyone younger
than 35 gets no Social Security but, they still fund it.
Corporations with defined pension programs should not be
allowed to "unfund" their pension liabilities.
That's why the unions should be the clearing house for their
members. Provide 100 workers at a rate of $50 per hour to meet
a quota of 500 cars a day. What the union does with the money
is between the union and the workers.

First rule: Get the money up front.
Well, that's similar to what the construction worker unions do.
sort of.

The construction unions negotiate a rate with the
contractors...the contractors pay the workers their hourly
paycheck rate and deduct and forward the required taxes to the
feds. The deductions for health and welfare go directly to the
jointly administered union-contractor health and welfare pension
and benefit fund offices. Anyone who has access to any of the
funds at the benefit is bonded. Typically, the trustees retain a
reputable trust funder "advisor" who helps the trustees invest
the funds in "safe" investments that pay a return higher than
the anticipated payout for pensions and other benefits. There
are no unfunded liabilities. The employer for whom the union
workers work has no access to the pension funds.

These are defined pensions, not 401k's. The employer may offer a
401k, but it isn't typically administered by the joint trustees.






Yup union pension funds. Like the teamsters, plumbers, Ullico,
etc. How many went to jail for those thefts.

D'oh. If any pension funds were stolen, the bonding insurance
companies made the funds good, and then insisted upon prosecution
and aided the prosecutors.

You don't seem to be able to understand the concept of union
officer/pension fund officer-trustee bonding. Either that or you
are suffering from short-term memory loss, because I have brought
this to your attention at least a half-dozen times.

I don't keep track of the teamsters or plumbers, since neither are
my union. There was no "theft" of pension funds at ULLICO, either.

Here...try reading this and see if you understand it:

Bonding Requirements

Section 502(a) of the Labor-Management Reporting and Disclosure
Act of 1959, as amended (LMRDA), and provisions of Section 7120 of
the Civil Service Reform Act of 1978 (CSRA) establish bonding
requirements for certain officers and employees of labor
organizations. Every union covered by the LMRDA or the CSRA is
subject to the bonding requirements except for unions whose
property and annual receipts do not exceed $5,000 in value.

The required bonds are a type of insurance agreement which
guarantees reimbursement to the union for any financial losses
caused by fraudulent or dishonest acts by officers or employees,
such as theft, embezzlement, or forgery. The bonding requirements
are not based on the idea that particular individuals or
organizations are inherently dishonest. Rather, bonding is
required because experience has shown that when people are
entrusted with the money or property of another, there will be
instances when individuals will cause a loss through fraud or
dishonesty. Bonding is therefore required to insure the union
against such a loss.

The law provides that any person who "handles" union funds or
property must be bonded for at least 10% of the funds handled
during the union's preceding fiscal year up to a maximum of
$500,000. An individual is considered to be "handling" union funds
if his/her duties or authority provide access to union funds
resulting in a significant risk of loss of funds if that person
engages in fraudulent or dishonest acts. For example, a person who
receives dues, fees, etc., from members is clearly "handling"
union funds and therefore must be bonded. Also, however, any
officer or employee who has authority to sign checks on the
union's account is "handling" union funds and must be bonded even
if he/she has no physical contact with the funds. Individuals who
typically must be bonded include union officers (both elected and
non-elected), employees such as business agents, trustees, key
administrative and professional staff, and clerical personnel.

On the reverse is a detailed worksheet designed to assist you in
computing the amount of bonding coverage required. A quick formula
for computing the approximate amount of bonding coverage required is:

Liquid Assets + Total Receipts x 10%=Amount of coverage required
per person

Liquid assets, for purposes of this formula, are those assets that
are quickly and easily negotiable. Cash on hand, deposits in any
type of financial institution, certificates of deposit, U.S.
Treasury securities, corporate stocks and bonds, and accounts and
loans receivable are common examples of liquid assets. Property of
a relatively permanent nature, such as land, buildings, furniture,
and fixtures is not a liquid asset.

The required bond must be obtained from a company on the U.S.
Treasury Department list of approved bonding companies. The
companies know whether they are approved and your national or
international union may be able to assist you. You can also obtain
a copy of the list from the nearest OLMS office. In addition to
the requirement of placing the bond with a company on the Treasury
Department list, the law prohibits placing the bond through an
agent or broker or with a company in which any union or any
officer, agent, shop steward, or other union representative has
any direct or indirect interest.

It is possible for a bond to cover more than one union. For
example, many national or international unions obtain a bond
covering both their organization and their affiliated unions.
Contact your national or international union if you have any
questions about whether your union is covered by such a bond.

The following checklist will help you stay in compliance with the
bonding requirements:

* Refigure the amount of bonding coverage required for each
fiscal year immediately after the close of the last fiscal year.
(Figures required for the bonding computation must be compiled for
your union's annual financial report Form LM-2, LM-3, or LM-4 as
well.)
* If your union's bonding requirements have increased from the
last year's coverage, obtain amended coverage immediately.
* Make sure every person who "handles" funds is covered. (The
easiest way is to obtain standard "blanket" coverage for all
persons who handle funds.)
* Make sure the company issuing the bond is on the U.S.
Treasury Department list of approved companies.

If you have any questions about the bonding requirements or their
application to your organization, contact the nearest OLMS office.
Copies of an explanatory pamphlet, "Bonding Requirements Under the
LMRDA and the CSRA," and the LMRDA bonding regulations, 29 CFR
Part 453, are also available from the nearest OLMS office.

Additional Tips for International Unions

National and international unions that purchase bonding coverage
for their affiliates should examine the timetables established for
affiliates to report the funds handled during the fiscal year. The
amount of bonding coverage must be set at the start of each fiscal
year. This can be of particular importance if the amount of
bonding coverage must be increased because of an increase in the
amount of funds handled during the fiscal year. The LMRDA
prohibits any person who is inadequately bonded from receiving,
handling, disbursing, or otherwise exercising custody or control
of any of the labor organization's funds or property. Unless the
parent organization requires each affiliate to report the amount
of funds handled immediately after the close of the fiscal year
and then promptly arranges for adequate bonding coverage if an
increase is required, adequate coverage may lapse for several
months or longer, which is a violation of the LMRDA.


I know about bonding. I worked for a company where I had to be
bonded in my earlier years. But Ullico board members STOLE MONEY.
Issuing stock at a discount and then buying it back at more than
the current value is theft. They should have gone to jail. If the
union members money was not ripped off, where did the money come
from? Just because they beat a jail term, does not mean they did
not deserve to be charge with fraud.


There's just no point in trying to put this into terms you might
understand, because, well, it's too abstract for you. No pension
money was stolen. Got it?

Who owns Ullico stock? Is it traded on the open market?


Nope. No open market trading. Privately held corporation then and now.

Privately held by whom? Who owns the stock?



Well, I haven't been associated with the company in four plus years, and
I know the shareholder rules have changed some, but...when I was
associated, most of the shares were owned by the company's investors,
which consisted of labor unions and union pension funds, several union
pension consultant firms, and a very limited number of shares were owned
by members of the board of directors and senior execs above the vice
president level. I have a close friend who was on the board and who has
since retired who owned a few shares, and he was going to give me one as
gag gift, but I wasn't eligible to own the share. So he bought me lunch
at a good deli instead. The lunch was good.

I have no knowledge of the company these days, beyond what I see
occasionally in the financial press.

"Boater" wrote in message
...
Calif Bill wrote:
"Boater" wrote in message
...
CalifBill wrote:
"Boater" wrote in message
...
BAR wrote:
Boater wrote:
BAR wrote:

The perfect example of why Social Security is going to fail and why
we need to abandon it now. For some people it will be unfair and it
will hurt but that is too bad. Everyone younger than 35 gets no
Social Security but, they still fund it.
Corporations with defined pension programs should not be allowed to
"unfund" their pension liabilities.
That's why the unions should be the clearing house for their members.
Provide 100 workers at a rate of $50 per hour to meet a quota of 500
cars a day. What the union does with the money is between the union
and the workers.

First rule: Get the money up front.
Well, that's similar to what the construction worker unions do. sort
of.

The construction unions negotiate a rate with the contractors...the
contractors pay the workers their hourly paycheck rate and deduct and
forward the required taxes to the feds. The deductions for health and
welfare go directly to the jointly administered union-contractor
health and welfare pension and benefit fund offices. Anyone who has
access to any of the funds at the benefit is bonded. Typically, the
trustees retain a reputable trust funder "advisor" who helps the
trustees invest the funds in "safe" investments that pay a return
higher than the anticipated payout for pensions and other benefits.
There are no unfunded liabilities. The employer for whom the union
workers work has no access to the pension funds.

These are defined pensions, not 401k's. The employer may offer a 401k,
but it isn't typically administered by the joint trustees.






Yup union pension funds. Like the teamsters, plumbers, Ullico, etc.
How many went to jail for those thefts.

D'oh. If any pension funds were stolen, the bonding insurance companies
made the funds good, and then insisted upon prosecution and aided the
prosecutors.

You don't seem to be able to understand the concept of union
officer/pension fund officer-trustee bonding. Either that or you are
suffering from short-term memory loss, because I have brought this to
your attention at least a half-dozen times.

I don't keep track of the teamsters or plumbers, since neither are my
union. There was no "theft" of pension funds at ULLICO, either.

Here...try reading this and see if you understand it:

Bonding Requirements

Section 502(a) of the Labor-Management Reporting and Disclosure Act of
1959, as amended (LMRDA), and provisions of Section 7120 of the Civil
Service Reform Act of 1978 (CSRA) establish bonding requirements for
certain officers and employees of labor organizations. Every union
covered by the LMRDA or the CSRA is subject to the bonding requirements
except for unions whose property and annual receipts do not exceed
$5,000 in value.

The required bonds are a type of insurance agreement which guarantees
reimbursement to the union for any financial losses caused by fraudulent
or dishonest acts by officers or employees, such as theft, embezzlement,
or forgery. The bonding requirements are not based on the idea that
particular individuals or organizations are inherently dishonest.
Rather, bonding is required because experience has shown that when
people are entrusted with the money or property of another, there will
be instances when individuals will cause a loss through fraud or
dishonesty. Bonding is therefore required to insure the union against
such a loss.

The law provides that any person who "handles" union funds or property
must be bonded for at least 10% of the funds handled during the union's
preceding fiscal year up to a maximum of $500,000. An individual is
considered to be "handling" union funds if his/her duties or authority
provide access to union funds resulting in a significant risk of loss of
funds if that person engages in fraudulent or dishonest acts. For
example, a person who receives dues, fees, etc., from members is clearly
"handling" union funds and therefore must be bonded. Also, however, any
officer or employee who has authority to sign checks on the union's
account is "handling" union funds and must be bonded even if he/she has
no physical contact with the funds. Individuals who typically must be
bonded include union officers (both elected and non-elected), employees
such as business agents, trustees, key administrative and professional
staff, and clerical personnel.

On the reverse is a detailed worksheet designed to assist you in
computing the amount of bonding coverage required. A quick formula for
computing the approximate amount of bonding coverage required is:

Liquid Assets + Total Receipts x 10%=Amount of coverage required per
person

Liquid assets, for purposes of this formula, are those assets that are
quickly and easily negotiable. Cash on hand, deposits in any type of
financial institution, certificates of deposit, U.S. Treasury
securities, corporate stocks and bonds, and accounts and loans
receivable are common examples of liquid assets. Property of a
relatively permanent nature, such as land, buildings, furniture, and
fixtures is not a liquid asset.

The required bond must be obtained from a company on the U.S. Treasury
Department list of approved bonding companies. The companies know
whether they are approved and your national or international union may
be able to assist you. You can also obtain a copy of the list from the
nearest OLMS office. In addition to the requirement of placing the bond
with a company on the Treasury Department list, the law prohibits
placing the bond through an agent or broker or with a company in which
any union or any officer, agent, shop steward, or other union
representative has any direct or indirect interest.

It is possible for a bond to cover more than one union. For example,
many national or international unions obtain a bond covering both their
organization and their affiliated unions. Contact your national or
international union if you have any questions about whether your union
is covered by such a bond.

The following checklist will help you stay in compliance with the
bonding requirements:

* Refigure the amount of bonding coverage required for each fiscal
year immediately after the close of the last fiscal year. (Figures
required for the bonding computation must be compiled for your union's
annual financial report Form LM-2, LM-3, or LM-4 as well.)
* If your union's bonding requirements have increased from the last
year's coverage, obtain amended coverage immediately.
* Make sure every person who "handles" funds is covered. (The
easiest way is to obtain standard "blanket" coverage for all persons who
handle funds.)
* Make sure the company issuing the bond is on the U.S. Treasury
Department list of approved companies.

If you have any questions about the bonding requirements or their
application to your organization, contact the nearest OLMS office.
Copies of an explanatory pamphlet, "Bonding Requirements Under the LMRDA
and the CSRA," and the LMRDA bonding regulations, 29 CFR Part 453, are
also available from the nearest OLMS office.

Additional Tips for International Unions

National and international unions that purchase bonding coverage for
their affiliates should examine the timetables established for
affiliates to report the funds handled during the fiscal year. The
amount of bonding coverage must be set at the start of each fiscal year.
This can be of particular importance if the amount of bonding coverage
must be increased because of an increase in the amount of funds handled
during the fiscal year. The LMRDA prohibits any person who is
inadequately bonded from receiving, handling, disbursing, or otherwise
exercising custody or control of any of the labor organization's funds
or property. Unless the parent organization requires each affiliate to
report the amount of funds handled immediately after the close of the
fiscal year and then promptly arranges for adequate bonding coverage if
an increase is required, adequate coverage may lapse for several months
or longer, which is a violation of the LMRDA.


I know about bonding. I worked for a company where I had to be bonded in
my earlier years. But Ullico board members STOLE MONEY. Issuing stock
at a discount and then buying it back at more than the current value is
theft. They should have gone to jail. If the union members money was not
ripped off, where did the money come from? Just because they beat a jail
term, does not mean they did not deserve to be charge with fraud.

There's just no point in trying to put this into terms you might
understand, because, well, it's too abstract for you. No pension money was
stolen. Got it?

They tried. Wherefore did the money your slimeballs tried to take with the
stock fraud come from? If not directly from the pension fund, from the
investment income of the pension fund. There is no other money coming in
other than pension or investment income. No matter how you spin it, your
buddies are thiefs.

CalifBill wrote:
"Boater" wrote in message
...
Calif Bill wrote:
"Boater" wrote in message
...
CalifBill wrote:
"Boater" wrote in message
...
BAR wrote:
Boater wrote:
BAR wrote:

The perfect example of why Social Security is going to fail and why
we need to abandon it now. For some people it will be unfair and it
will hurt but that is too bad. Everyone younger than 35 gets no
Social Security but, they still fund it.
Corporations with defined pension programs should not be allowed to
"unfund" their pension liabilities.
That's why the unions should be the clearing house for their members.
Provide 100 workers at a rate of $50 per hour to meet a quota of 500
cars a day. What the union does with the money is between the union
and the workers.

First rule: Get the money up front.
Well, that's similar to what the construction worker unions do. sort
of.

The construction unions negotiate a rate with the contractors...the
contractors pay the workers their hourly paycheck rate and deduct and
forward the required taxes to the feds. The deductions for health and
welfare go directly to the jointly administered union-contractor
health and welfare pension and benefit fund offices. Anyone who has
access to any of the funds at the benefit is bonded. Typically, the
trustees retain a reputable trust funder "advisor" who helps the
trustees invest the funds in "safe" investments that pay a return
higher than the anticipated payout for pensions and other benefits.
There are no unfunded liabilities. The employer for whom the union
workers work has no access to the pension funds.

These are defined pensions, not 401k's. The employer may offer a 401k,
but it isn't typically administered by the joint trustees.






Yup union pension funds. Like the teamsters, plumbers, Ullico, etc.
How many went to jail for those thefts.
D'oh. If any pension funds were stolen, the bonding insurance companies
made the funds good, and then insisted upon prosecution and aided the
prosecutors.

You don't seem to be able to understand the concept of union
officer/pension fund officer-trustee bonding. Either that or you are
suffering from short-term memory loss, because I have brought this to
your attention at least a half-dozen times.

I don't keep track of the teamsters or plumbers, since neither are my
union. There was no "theft" of pension funds at ULLICO, either.

Here...try reading this and see if you understand it:

Bonding Requirements

Section 502(a) of the Labor-Management Reporting and Disclosure Act of
1959, as amended (LMRDA), and provisions of Section 7120 of the Civil
Service Reform Act of 1978 (CSRA) establish bonding requirements for
certain officers and employees of labor organizations. Every union
covered by the LMRDA or the CSRA is subject to the bonding requirements
except for unions whose property and annual receipts do not exceed
$5,000 in value.

The required bonds are a type of insurance agreement which guarantees
reimbursement to the union for any financial losses caused by fraudulent
or dishonest acts by officers or employees, such as theft, embezzlement,
or forgery. The bonding requirements are not based on the idea that
particular individuals or organizations are inherently dishonest.
Rather, bonding is required because experience has shown that when
people are entrusted with the money or property of another, there will
be instances when individuals will cause a loss through fraud or
dishonesty. Bonding is therefore required to insure the union against
such a loss.

The law provides that any person who "handles" union funds or property
must be bonded for at least 10% of the funds handled during the union's
preceding fiscal year up to a maximum of $500,000. An individual is
considered to be "handling" union funds if his/her duties or authority
provide access to union funds resulting in a significant risk of loss of
funds if that person engages in fraudulent or dishonest acts. For
example, a person who receives dues, fees, etc., from members is clearly
"handling" union funds and therefore must be bonded. Also, however, any
officer or employee who has authority to sign checks on the union's
account is "handling" union funds and must be bonded even if he/she has
no physical contact with the funds. Individuals who typically must be
bonded include union officers (both elected and non-elected), employees
such as business agents, trustees, key administrative and professional
staff, and clerical personnel.

On the reverse is a detailed worksheet designed to assist you in
computing the amount of bonding coverage required. A quick formula for
computing the approximate amount of bonding coverage required is:

Liquid Assets + Total Receipts x 10%=Amount of coverage required per
person

Liquid assets, for purposes of this formula, are those assets that are
quickly and easily negotiable. Cash on hand, deposits in any type of
financial institution, certificates of deposit, U.S. Treasury
securities, corporate stocks and bonds, and accounts and loans
receivable are common examples of liquid assets. Property of a
relatively permanent nature, such as land, buildings, furniture, and
fixtures is not a liquid asset.

The required bond must be obtained from a company on the U.S. Treasury
Department list of approved bonding companies. The companies know
whether they are approved and your national or international union may
be able to assist you. You can also obtain a copy of the list from the
nearest OLMS office. In addition to the requirement of placing the bond
with a company on the Treasury Department list, the law prohibits
placing the bond through an agent or broker or with a company in which
any union or any officer, agent, shop steward, or other union
representative has any direct or indirect interest.

It is possible for a bond to cover more than one union. For example,
many national or international unions obtain a bond covering both their
organization and their affiliated unions. Contact your national or
international union if you have any questions about whether your union
is covered by such a bond.

The following checklist will help you stay in compliance with the
bonding requirements:

* Refigure the amount of bonding coverage required for each fiscal
year immediately after the close of the last fiscal year. (Figures
required for the bonding computation must be compiled for your union's
annual financial report Form LM-2, LM-3, or LM-4 as well.)
* If your union's bonding requirements have increased from the last
year's coverage, obtain amended coverage immediately.
* Make sure every person who "handles" funds is covered. (The
easiest way is to obtain standard "blanket" coverage for all persons who
handle funds.)
* Make sure the company issuing the bond is on the U.S. Treasury
Department list of approved companies.

If you have any questions about the bonding requirements or their
application to your organization, contact the nearest OLMS office.
Copies of an explanatory pamphlet, "Bonding Requirements Under the LMRDA
and the CSRA," and the LMRDA bonding regulations, 29 CFR Part 453, are
also available from the nearest OLMS office.

Additional Tips for International Unions

National and international unions that purchase bonding coverage for
their affiliates should examine the timetables established for
affiliates to report the funds handled during the fiscal year. The
amount of bonding coverage must be set at the start of each fiscal year.
This can be of particular importance if the amount of bonding coverage
must be increased because of an increase in the amount of funds handled
during the fiscal year. The LMRDA prohibits any person who is
inadequately bonded from receiving, handling, disbursing, or otherwise
exercising custody or control of any of the labor organization's funds
or property. Unless the parent organization requires each affiliate to
report the amount of funds handled immediately after the close of the
fiscal year and then promptly arranges for adequate bonding coverage if
an increase is required, adequate coverage may lapse for several months
or longer, which is a violation of the LMRDA.

I know about bonding. I worked for a company where I had to be bonded in
my earlier years. But Ullico board members STOLE MONEY. Issuing stock
at a discount and then buying it back at more than the current value is
theft. They should have gone to jail. If the union members money was not
ripped off, where did the money come from? Just because they beat a jail
term, does not mean they did not deserve to be charge with fraud.
There's just no point in trying to put this into terms you might
understand, because, well, it's too abstract for you. No pension money was
stolen. Got it?

They tried.

No, Bilious, they didn't.

On Tue, 16 Dec 2008 18:09:26 -0700, "Canuck57"
wrote:

Did Enron's company pension survive? NorTel? Failed banks? Is GM,
Chrysler solvent? For that mater CPP/OAS in Canada or Social Security in
the US?

Government guaranteeing it? I think I read somewhere if the US government
completely shut down 100% of it's expendatures it would still run short of
cash in 202x or some year like that. Canada is much sooner.
Unquestionaably they will downsize the payments and put harsh means tests in
place. Have $15,000 a year, you have too mucha nd claw it back. Canada
already does this at $55K Canadians (about 40K US), it is called the CPP/OAS
claw back.

Now if you are fool enough to put it all in one company, any one company you
are nuts.

Your point?

Hell, it's pretty obvious. Equities have tanked. Overall.
Sorry to break the news.
Who's going to be the "financial planner" for SS? You?
Go ahead and invest your own money however you want.
You ain't touching mine.
Tell you what.
You're welcome to run for office with all your plans.
Might get some votes.
About as many as all the other "investment experts" out there.

--Vic

On Tue, 16 Dec 2008 17:17:12 -0800, "Calif Bill"
wrote:




You expect people to not riot if they have contributed a
couple hundred thousand dollars over their working career for no return?

That's exactly why SS won't die.
Even the ones who only contributed 10 grand in their lifetime will
join in on the
"The 50 Great Million Geezer March on Washington."

Especially if they also saved and lived within their means. Not buying 2
luxury cars and going on big time vacations when their income supports 2
Kia's and a trip to the national park campground.

That's what I meant about "personal accounts" bringing a dose of
reality. Might get people to start saving more for their retirement.
Then beyond all the politically-sensitive/rich-poor/class warfare,
accounting, etc, etc issues, there's plain old fraud.
What I never get is how the gov fails to hire an adequate number of
investigators to nip disability and medicare fraud.
I bet that's a huge chunk of money, and the investigators would be
profit centers, not overhead.
Works for insurance companies.

--Vic

"Vic Smith" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 16 Dec 2008 18:09:26 -0700, "Canuck57"
wrote:

Did Enron's company pension survive? NorTel? Failed banks? Is GM,
Chrysler solvent? For that mater CPP/OAS in Canada or Social Security in
the US?

Government guaranteeing it? I think I read somewhere if the US government
completely shut down 100% of it's expendatures it would still run short of
cash in 202x or some year like that. Canada is much sooner.
Unquestionaably they will downsize the payments and put harsh means tests
in
place. Have $15,000 a year, you have too mucha nd claw it back. Canada
already does this at $55K Canadians (about 40K US), it is called the
CPP/OAS
claw back.

Now if you are fool enough to put it all in one company, any one company
you
are nuts.

Your point?

Hell, it's pretty obvious. Equities have tanked. Overall.
Sorry to break the news.
Who's going to be the "financial planner" for SS? You?
Go ahead and invest your own money however you want.
You ain't touching mine.
Tell you what.
You're welcome to run for office with all your plans.
Might get some votes.
About as many as all the other "investment experts" out there.

--Vic

I wasn't trying to run for government. Sooner run for 1st mate on the
Titanic.

My main point being, this is one hell of a lot worse than a simple 12-16
month recession and you can't count on pensions not specifically in your
name for much.

"BAR" wrote in message
...
Canuck57 wrote:
"BAR" wrote in message
...

I don't expect my state, Maryland, to send the state income taxes that
they collect to New Mexico.

Lots is going towards Michigan, Illiois and NY.

Sucks but it is true.

Federal income tax but not state income tax.

I think the closed down a mini van plant in Baltimore or are going to
close one down soon.

I think GM is taking 5 weeks off in January, February. Knowing GM, mostly
with pay.

"Vic Smith" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 16 Dec 2008 17:17:12 -0800, "Calif Bill"
wrote:




You expect people to not riot if they have contributed a
couple hundred thousand dollars over their working career for no return?

That's exactly why SS won't die.
Even the ones who only contributed 10 grand in their lifetime will
join in on the
"The 50 Great Million Geezer March on Washington."

Especially if they also saved and lived within their means. Not buying 2
luxury cars and going on big time vacations when their income supports 2
Kia's and a trip to the national park campground.

That's what I meant about "personal accounts" bringing a dose of
reality. Might get people to start saving more for their retirement.
Then beyond all the politically-sensitive/rich-poor/class warfare,
accounting, etc, etc issues, there's plain old fraud.
What I never get is how the gov fails to hire an adequate number of
investigators to nip disability and medicare fraud.
I bet that's a huge chunk of money, and the investigators would be
profit centers, not overhead.
Works for insurance companies.

--Vic

There are not going to be enough workers to pay for SS. So those 50 million
geezers are goign to be out of luck and money. France is trying to address
this now. One of the major reasons for public service union strikes. They
want the 90% pay at 30 years. Unfortunately in about 12 years, there will
be only 2 workers for every retiree. We have about 25 years if I remember
the numbers correctly.

"Calif Bill" wrote in message
m...

"Vic Smith" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 16 Dec 2008 17:17:12 -0800, "Calif Bill"
wrote:




You expect people to not riot if they have contributed a
couple hundred thousand dollars over their working career for no return?

That's exactly why SS won't die.
Even the ones who only contributed 10 grand in their lifetime will
join in on the
"The 50 Great Million Geezer March on Washington."

Especially if they also saved and lived within their means. Not buying 2
luxury cars and going on big time vacations when their income supports 2
Kia's and a trip to the national park campground.

That's what I meant about "personal accounts" bringing a dose of
reality. Might get people to start saving more for their retirement.
Then beyond all the politically-sensitive/rich-poor/class warfare,
accounting, etc, etc issues, there's plain old fraud.
What I never get is how the gov fails to hire an adequate number of
investigators to nip disability and medicare fraud.
I bet that's a huge chunk of money, and the investigators would be
profit centers, not overhead.
Works for insurance companies.

--Vic

There are not going to be enough workers to pay for SS. So those 50
million geezers are goign to be out of luck and money. France is trying
to address this now. One of the major reasons for public service union
strikes. They want the 90% pay at 30 years. Unfortunately in about 12
years, there will be only 2 workers for every retiree. We have about 25
years if I remember the numbers correctly.

And they will be angry when they don't get paid. Many a retired and soon to
retire have never saved for it depending very much on this.

This recession could in fact get very ugly, riots over food, jobs and
retirement benefits.

Canuck57 wrote:
"Calif Bill" wrote in message
m...
"Vic Smith" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 16 Dec 2008 17:17:12 -0800, "Calif Bill"
wrote:

You expect people to not riot if they have contributed a
couple hundred thousand dollars over their working career for no return?
That's exactly why SS won't die.
Even the ones who only contributed 10 grand in their lifetime will
join in on the
"The 50 Great Million Geezer March on Washington."

Especially if they also saved and lived within their means. Not buying 2
luxury cars and going on big time vacations when their income supports 2
Kia's and a trip to the national park campground.
That's what I meant about "personal accounts" bringing a dose of
reality. Might get people to start saving more for their retirement.
Then beyond all the politically-sensitive/rich-poor/class warfare,
accounting, etc, etc issues, there's plain old fraud.
What I never get is how the gov fails to hire an adequate number of
investigators to nip disability and medicare fraud.
I bet that's a huge chunk of money, and the investigators would be
profit centers, not overhead.
Works for insurance companies.

--Vic
There are not going to be enough workers to pay for SS. So those 50
million geezers are goign to be out of luck and money. France is trying
to address this now. One of the major reasons for public service union
strikes. They want the 90% pay at 30 years. Unfortunately in about 12
years, there will be only 2 workers for every retiree. We have about 25
years if I remember the numbers correctly.

And they will be angry when they don't get paid. Many a retired and soon to
retire have never saved for it depending very much on this.

I hope they like eating rice and beans for three meals a day and living
in a trailer in some dumpy trailer park in Florida. Some of these people
are not going to be getting more than a $1000 a month from SS for two
people to live on. Try going from $40K or $50K a year down to $12K
without any other sources of income.

If you were stupid enough to think the government was going to take care
of you when you retired then you deserve to live in poverty.

This recession could in fact get very ugly, riots over food, jobs and
retirement benefits.

Thank you FDR and LBJ.