Home |
Search |
Today's Posts |
|
#1
![]()
posted to rec.boats
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
Eisboch wrote:
"Boater" wrote in message ... I do think Ford and GM would be better off, as would their workers, if good foreign management took over there, management from Japan or Korea. with buyouts for the current organized employees, and a new unionized deal for new hires, with a quality "national" health care plan so the employers aren't burdened with that. I have no faith in U.S. corporate management and its B-school mentality. Overall, I agree. I am not sure that fresh, innovative management cannot be found here in the US, but I won't argue the need to get away from traditional business and MBA concepts. I also believe in and respect the concept of a contract. The current organized employees need to be considered and fairly treated. However, contracts, by design, can be renegotiated, particularly in troubled times when absolute adherence to them puts the whole operation at risk. I couldn't agree more that businesses should not be the administrators of health plans. Eisboch I haven't seen the numbers, but I wonder what American corporations would have to do if they were required to fund their pension liabilities. My union's pension fund has *no* unfunded liabilities, and we intend to keep it that way, for moral and legal reasons. The hourly contributions go where they are supposed to go, and, even though we do not invest in stocks, we are still several percentage points ahead in earnings so that we can handle distributions. |
#2
![]()
posted to rec.boats
|
|||
|
|||
![]() "Boater" wrote in message ... Eisboch wrote: "Boater" wrote in message ... I do think Ford and GM would be better off, as would their workers, if good foreign management took over there, management from Japan or Korea. with buyouts for the current organized employees, and a new unionized deal for new hires, with a quality "national" health care plan so the employers aren't burdened with that. I have no faith in U.S. corporate management and its B-school mentality. Overall, I agree. I am not sure that fresh, innovative management cannot be found here in the US, but I won't argue the need to get away from traditional business and MBA concepts. I also believe in and respect the concept of a contract. The current organized employees need to be considered and fairly treated. However, contracts, by design, can be renegotiated, particularly in troubled times when absolute adherence to them puts the whole operation at risk. I couldn't agree more that businesses should not be the administrators of health plans. Eisboch I haven't seen the numbers, but I wonder what American corporations would have to do if they were required to fund their pension liabilities. I don't know because I am not very familiar with corporations with pension plans. Most small businesses (that employs the most people) typically don't have pension plans. They may have 401k's and/or similar and may make some form of matching contributions, along with matching contributions to SS benefits. That's about it, and that's how the majority of people plan for retirement. Eisboch |
#3
![]()
posted to rec.boats
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
Eisboch wrote:
"Boater" wrote in message ... Eisboch wrote: "Boater" wrote in message ... I do think Ford and GM would be better off, as would their workers, if good foreign management took over there, management from Japan or Korea. with buyouts for the current organized employees, and a new unionized deal for new hires, with a quality "national" health care plan so the employers aren't burdened with that. I have no faith in U.S. corporate management and its B-school mentality. Overall, I agree. I am not sure that fresh, innovative management cannot be found here in the US, but I won't argue the need to get away from traditional business and MBA concepts. I also believe in and respect the concept of a contract. The current organized employees need to be considered and fairly treated. However, contracts, by design, can be renegotiated, particularly in troubled times when absolute adherence to them puts the whole operation at risk. I couldn't agree more that businesses should not be the administrators of health plans. Eisboch I haven't seen the numbers, but I wonder what American corporations would have to do if they were required to fund their pension liabilities. I don't know because I am not very familiar with corporations with pension plans. Most small businesses (that employs the most people) typically don't have pension plans. They may have 401k's and/or similar and may make some form of matching contributions, along with matching contributions to SS benefits. That's about it, and that's how the majority of people plan for retirement. Eisboch Ahhh 401k's.... Too bad about those. |
#4
![]()
posted to rec.boats
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
Boater wrote:
Eisboch wrote: "Boater" wrote in message ... Eisboch wrote: "Boater" wrote in message ... I do think Ford and GM would be better off, as would their workers, if good foreign management took over there, management from Japan or Korea. with buyouts for the current organized employees, and a new unionized deal for new hires, with a quality "national" health care plan so the employers aren't burdened with that. I have no faith in U.S. corporate management and its B-school mentality. Overall, I agree. I am not sure that fresh, innovative management cannot be found here in the US, but I won't argue the need to get away from traditional business and MBA concepts. I also believe in and respect the concept of a contract. The current organized employees need to be considered and fairly treated. However, contracts, by design, can be renegotiated, particularly in troubled times when absolute adherence to them puts the whole operation at risk. I couldn't agree more that businesses should not be the administrators of health plans. Eisboch I haven't seen the numbers, but I wonder what American corporations would have to do if they were required to fund their pension liabilities. I don't know because I am not very familiar with corporations with pension plans. Most small businesses (that employs the most people) typically don't have pension plans. They may have 401k's and/or similar and may make some form of matching contributions, along with matching contributions to SS benefits. That's about it, and that's how the majority of people plan for retirement. Eisboch Ahhh 401k's.... Too bad about those. And that's about how we feel about bailing out union pensions. Too bad. So sad. |
#5
![]()
posted to rec.boats
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
On Mon, 08 Dec 2008 08:59:56 -0500, Jim wrote:
Boater wrote: Eisboch wrote: "Boater" wrote in message ... Eisboch wrote: "Boater" wrote in message ... I do think Ford and GM would be better off, as would their workers, if good foreign management took over there, management from Japan or Korea. with buyouts for the current organized employees, and a new unionized deal for new hires, with a quality "national" health care plan so the employers aren't burdened with that. I have no faith in U.S. corporate management and its B-school mentality. Overall, I agree. I am not sure that fresh, innovative management cannot be found here in the US, but I won't argue the need to get away from traditional business and MBA concepts. I also believe in and respect the concept of a contract. The current organized employees need to be considered and fairly treated. However, contracts, by design, can be renegotiated, particularly in troubled times when absolute adherence to them puts the whole operation at risk. I couldn't agree more that businesses should not be the administrators of health plans. Eisboch I haven't seen the numbers, but I wonder what American corporations would have to do if they were required to fund their pension liabilities. I don't know because I am not very familiar with corporations with pension plans. Most small businesses (that employs the most people) typically don't have pension plans. They may have 401k's and/or similar and may make some form of matching contributions, along with matching contributions to SS benefits. That's about it, and that's how the majority of people plan for retirement. Eisboch Ahhh 401k's.... Too bad about those. And that's about how we feel about bailing out union pensions. Too bad. So sad. The irony escapes him. -- John H. |
#6
![]()
posted to rec.boats
|
|||
|
|||
![]() "Boater" wrote in message ... Ahhh 401k's.... Too bad about those. That's one of the reasons why many people are having trouble being forced to ante up tax dollars to save GM and it's union in their current form and contractual relationships. The "majority" are watching their own retirement investments tank, and are concerned about their jobs, their families, their financial stability. |
#7
![]()
posted to rec.boats
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
Eisboch wrote:
"Boater" wrote in message ... Ahhh 401k's.... Too bad about those. That's one of the reasons why many people are having trouble being forced to ante up tax dollars to save GM and it's union in their current form and contractual relationships. The "majority" are watching their own retirement investments tank, and are concerned about their jobs, their families, their financial stability. If you are still employed where your 401k is located and operating, is there a mechanism to withdraw those funds without withholding or tax penalty, and put them into another sort of tax deferred account, some sort of IRA, where you have some say over where the funds are invested? I wouldn't trust "the market" with my retirement funds, but I might trust a federally insurance bank or banks. |
#8
![]()
posted to rec.boats
|
|||
|
|||
![]() "Boater" wrote in message ... Eisboch wrote: "Boater" wrote in message ... Ahhh 401k's.... Too bad about those. That's one of the reasons why many people are having trouble being forced to ante up tax dollars to save GM and it's union in their current form and contractual relationships. The "majority" are watching their own retirement investments tank, and are concerned about their jobs, their families, their financial stability. If you are still employed where your 401k is located and operating, is there a mechanism to withdraw those funds without withholding or tax penalty, and put them into another sort of tax deferred account, some sort of IRA, where you have some say over where the funds are invested? I wouldn't trust "the market" with my retirement funds, but I might trust a federally insurance bank or banks. I don't know. I don't have a 401K. I know that they may be "rolled over" when you change employment, but I don't know how it all works. But that's not the current problem. The problem is that those *with* 401K type plans who have been faithfully contributing for their retirement nest egg have seen the values of their portfolios drop by 20,30 or even 40 percent in the past few months. Many can no longer afford to retire, let alone help bail out GM and a union member's generous employment benefits. Again, this represents the vast *majority* of people, typically working for small businesses. Eisboch |
#9
![]()
posted to rec.boats
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
Eisboch wrote:
"Boater" wrote in message ... Eisboch wrote: "Boater" wrote in message ... Ahhh 401k's.... Too bad about those. That's one of the reasons why many people are having trouble being forced to ante up tax dollars to save GM and it's union in their current form and contractual relationships. The "majority" are watching their own retirement investments tank, and are concerned about their jobs, their families, their financial stability. If you are still employed where your 401k is located and operating, is there a mechanism to withdraw those funds without withholding or tax penalty, and put them into another sort of tax deferred account, some sort of IRA, where you have some say over where the funds are invested? I wouldn't trust "the market" with my retirement funds, but I might trust a federally insurance bank or banks. I don't know. I don't have a 401K. I know that they may be "rolled over" when you change employment, but I don't know how it all works. But that's not the current problem. The problem is that those *with* 401K type plans who have been faithfully contributing for their retirement nest egg have seen the values of their portfolios drop by 20,30 or even 40 percent in the past few months. Many can no longer afford to retire, let alone help bail out GM and a union member's generous employment benefits. Again, this represents the vast *majority* of people, typically working for small businesses. Eisboch I understand *that* problem...I'm wondering what *those people* who no longer believe in "the market" can do to prevent further losses in their 401k portfolios. I would want to withdraw the funds and put them into something with more integrity than the stock market. |
#10
![]()
posted to rec.boats
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
On Mon, 08 Dec 2008 09:10:55 -0500, Boater
wrote: Eisboch wrote: "Boater" wrote in message ... Ahhh 401k's.... Too bad about those. That's one of the reasons why many people are having trouble being forced to ante up tax dollars to save GM and it's union in their current form and contractual relationships. The "majority" are watching their own retirement investments tank, and are concerned about their jobs, their families, their financial stability. If you are still employed where your 401k is located and operating, is there a mechanism to withdraw those funds without withholding or tax penalty, and put them into another sort of tax deferred account, some sort of IRA, where you have some say over where the funds are invested? I wouldn't trust "the market" with my retirement funds, but I might trust a federally insurance bank or banks. Some 401k plans allow for a portion to be rolled out into a qualified plan - which means no taxes/penalties - after certain age/employment requirements are met. They vary widely, but I'd venture to say most require you leave employment. This is how the stock market got so inflated - you lock in as many of the Ponzi captives as you can. Any equity trading IRA will have no guarantees, but there are FDIC insured IRA CD's. That's what I put my retirement money in when I got a portion out before retirement, then all after retirement. I immediately tripled my returns in the free market. In the captive 401k my only "safe" option was the money market fund which offered littler return. BTW, one of the first financial bailout actions by the feds was to guarantee 401k money market funds at 1.00 par value. Money markets can go negative. If they did there would be no safe haven in 401k's and that would have been a *real* disaster. I think Obama's team - maybe Clinton's - mentioned allowing non-penalized withdrawals from 401k's as an option for those facing mortgage foreclosure, and Wall Street had a **** fit at the suggestion. --Vic |
Reply |
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
Display Modes | |
|
|
![]() |
||||
Thread | Forum | |||
Can I get a boat loan? | General | |||
A View From London Bridge - HMS Belfast and Tower Bridge | Tall Ship Photos | |||
A View From London Bridge - Tower bridge and Dutch Master | Tall Ship Photos | |||
student loan | General | |||
Yacht Loan and Insurance | General |