Should union pensions be cut? Friday, June 6, 2014

[Chex]

Friday, June 6, 2014. Congress is expected soon to consider the recommendations of a coalition of unions, pension administrators and employers supporting tough measures to save its pensions. The National Coordinating Committee on Multiemployer Plans, or NCCMP, offers several solutions to the problem of pension underfunding in its report, "Solutions not bailouts."

One of its solutions calls for drastic cuts to the benefits of current as well as future recipients.

"Find a better solution," says Karen Ferguson, director of the nonprofit Pension Rights Center. She calls the suggested cuts "draconianhttp://www.bankrate.com/financing/re...#ixzz34EaRQzIC
Follow us: @Bankrate on Twitter | Bankrate on Facebook

[walter]

Not that I will get a pension but I got this sent to me the other day and it fits in here.

: How many died Before Collecting Their CPP??

WHAT WE NEED IS A LAWYER THAT IS NOT A POLITICIAN AND IS HONEST , IS THAT AN OXYMORON?
WE COULD START A CLASS ACTION LAW SUIT AGAINST THE CANADIAN GOVERNMENT SHYSTERS.

A point to ponder.

THE ONLY THING WRONG WITH THE GOVERNMENT'S CALCULATION OF AVAILABLE CPP IS THAT THEY FORGOT TO FIGURE IN THE PEOPLE WHO DIED BEFORE THEY EVER COLLECTED A CPP CHEQUE!!!! WHERE DID OUR MONEY GO?

Remember, not only did you and I contribute to CPP but your employer did too. It totaled 15% of your income before taxes.
If you averaged only $30K over your working life, that's close to $220,500. Read that again.
Did you see where the Government paid in one single penny?

We are talking about the money you and your employer put in a Government bank to insure you and I that we would have a retirement cheque from the money we put in, not the Government. Now they are calling the money we put in an entitlement when we reach the age to take it back. If you calculate the future invested value of $4,500 per year (yours & your employer's contribution) at a simple 5% interest (less than what the govt. pays on the money that it borrows), after 49 years of working you'd have $892,919.98.

If you took out only 3% per year, you'd receive $26,787.60 per year and it would last better than 30 years (until you're 95 if you retire at age 65) and that's with no interest paid on that final amount on deposit! If you bought an annuity and it paid 4% per year, you'd have a lifetime income of $2,976.40 per month.

Another thing, I know someone who had two deceased husbands who died in their 50's, (one was 51 and the other one was 59 before one percent of their CPP could be drawn). She worked all her life and is drawing 100% from her own CPP so is receiving the maximum allowable payment per month.
Her two deceased husband's CPP money will never have one cent drawn from what they paid into the CPP plan all their lives.

THE FOLKS IN OTTAWA HAVE PULLED OFF A BIGGER PONZI SCHEME THAN BERNIE MADOFF EVER DID.

Entitlement my foot, I paid cash for my CPP! Just because they borrowed the money for other government spending, doesn't make my benefits some kind of charity or handout!!

Remember Senator's benefits? --- free healthcare, outrageous retirement packages, 67 paid holidays, three weeks paid vacation, unlimited paid sick days.
Now that's welfare, and they have the nerve to call my CPP retirement payments entitlements?

They call CPP an entitlement even though most of us have been paying for it all our working lives, and now, when it's time for us to collect, the government is running out of money. Why did the government borrow from it in the first place? It was supposed to be in a locked box, like in TRUST not part of the general fund.


WE HAVE BEEN HAD... And SHOULD BE MAD AS HELL, I AM. If you are 65 or older you should be Too.

[Chex]

We are talking about the money you and your employer put in a Government bank to insure you and I that we would have a retirement cheque from the money we put in, not the Government. Now they are calling the money we put in an entitlement when we reach the age to take it back. If you calculate the future invested value of $4,500 per year (yours & your employer's contribution) at a simple 5% interest (less than what the govt. pays on the money that it borrows), after 49 years of working you'd have $892,919.98.

Yea, you should try the social security calculator on Cato institute, you jaw would hit the floor.

[Brian]

The first thing to understand when it comes to SSA is there is no fund. Very simply it is just another tax. Half of it falls on an employer for the activity of having people in their employ and is measured by wages. They will pay this tax no matter what form of "money" they pay out.
Now for the employee things get a little more murky. The half of the tax that falls on the employee is a "special income tax" that is also measured by wages. Unfortunately the supreme court never espoused what exactly made it "special".

I have come to the conclusion that this "special" aspect is being paid in money not issued directly by the congress (bank credit / federal reserve credit are not issued via congressional money powers). The presumption is created when you give your SSN number to an employer that you want to participate in the SSA program and hence your wages are treated as taxable whether or not you actually created a taxable event by being paid in money substitutes.

I would suggest reading these two cases for more understanding:
Veazie Bank v. Fenno, 75 U.S. 533
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/script...us/75/533.html

AND

Helvering v. Davis, 301 U.S. 619
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/script...s/301/619.html

[David Merrill]

The first thing to understand when it comes to SSA is there is no fund. Very simply it is just another tax. Half of it falls on an employer for the activity of having people in their employ and is measured by wages. They will pay this tax no matter what form of "money" they pay out.
Now for the employee things get a little more murky. The half of the tax that falls on the employee is a "special income tax" that is also measured by wages. Unfortunately the supreme court never espoused what exactly made it "special".

I have come to the conclusion that this "special" aspect is being paid in money not issued directly by the congress (bank credit / federal reserve credit are not issued via congressional money powers). The presumption is created when you give your SSN number to an employer that you want to participate in the SSA program and hence your wages are treated as taxable whether or not you actually created a taxable event by being paid in money substitutes.

I would suggest reading these two cases for more understanding:
Veazie Bank v. Fenno, 75 U.S. 533
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/script...us/75/533.html

AND

Helvering v. Davis, 301 U.S. 619
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/script...s/301/619.html

Exactly. Since I have already paid in 40 quarters I am now eligible for SSI benefits. Therefore I would not give any prospective employer a SSN.



Therefore I am unemployable because of social conditioning. [I treat SSI like insurance.]

[Brian]

Exactly. Since I have already paid in 40 quarters I am now eligible for SSI benefits. Therefore I would not give any prospective employer a SSN.



Therefore I am unemployable because of social conditioning. [I treat SSI like insurance.]

It does create an interesting twist to try and unwind. I think if one were to follow the path to remedy and get the IRS to recognize it you could work backwards and recoup the funds withheld for the employee SSA withholding. As far as getting an employer to not require a SSN...good luck.

This letter always amuses me. You don't need an SSN to live and work in the U.S.....
what don't they say?

http://www.supremelaw.org/ref/ss/letter.2004-05-26.gif

[Chex]

Social Security judges rubber-stamp disability (insurance) claims from the cash-strapped program facing its own long-term financial problems for a lifetime of benefits at taxpayer expense. http://finance.yahoo.com/news/report...142057018.html

[shikamaru]

Not that I will get a pension but I got this sent to me the other day and it fits in here.

: How many died Before Collecting Their CPP??

WHAT WE NEED IS A LAWYER THAT IS NOT A POLITICIAN AND IS HONEST , IS THAT AN OXYMORON?
WE COULD START A CLASS ACTION LAW SUIT AGAINST THE CANADIAN GOVERNMENT SHYSTERS.

A point to ponder.

THE ONLY THING WRONG WITH THE GOVERNMENT'S CALCULATION OF AVAILABLE CPP IS THAT THEY FORGOT TO FIGURE IN THE PEOPLE WHO DIED BEFORE THEY EVER COLLECTED A CPP CHEQUE!!!! WHERE DID OUR MONEY GO?

Remember, not only did you and I contribute to CPP but your employer did too. It totaled 15% of your income before taxes.
If you averaged only $30K over your working life, that's close to $220,500. Read that again.
Did you see where the Government paid in one single penny?

We are talking about the money you and your employer put in a Government bank to insure you and I that we would have a retirement cheque from the money we put in, not the Government. Now they are calling the money we put in an entitlement when we reach the age to take it back. If you calculate the future invested value of $4,500 per year (yours & your employer's contribution) at a simple 5% interest (less than what the govt. pays on the money that it borrows), after 49 years of working you'd have $892,919.98.

If you took out only 3% per year, you'd receive $26,787.60 per year and it would last better than 30 years (until you're 95 if you retire at age 65) and that's with no interest paid on that final amount on deposit! If you bought an annuity and it paid 4% per year, you'd have a lifetime income of $2,976.40 per month.

Another thing, I know someone who had two deceased husbands who died in their 50's, (one was 51 and the other one was 59 before one percent of their CPP could be drawn). She worked all her life and is drawing 100% from her own CPP so is receiving the maximum allowable payment per month.
Her two deceased husband's CPP money will never have one cent drawn from what they paid into the CPP plan all their lives.

THE FOLKS IN OTTAWA HAVE PULLED OFF A BIGGER PONZI SCHEME THAN BERNIE MADOFF EVER DID.

Entitlement my foot, I paid cash for my CPP! Just because they borrowed the money for other government spending, doesn't make my benefits some kind of charity or handout!!

Remember Senator's benefits? --- free healthcare, outrageous retirement packages, 67 paid holidays, three weeks paid vacation, unlimited paid sick days.
Now that's welfare, and they have the nerve to call my CPP retirement payments entitlements?

They call CPP an entitlement even though most of us have been paying for it all our working lives, and now, when it's time for us to collect, the government is running out of money. Why did the government borrow from it in the first place? It was supposed to be in a locked box, like in TRUST not part of the general fund.


WE HAVE BEEN HAD... And SHOULD BE MAD AS HELL, I AM. If you are 65 or older you should be Too.

This is called a tontine scheme.

[Chex]

http://news.yahoo.com/boehner-v-obam...-politics.html

The cause and effect of the doctrine of emergency is the subject of this Report. In 1973, in Senate Report 93-549 the first sentence reads:

"Since March the 9th, 1933, the United States has been in a state of declared national emergency."

Disputes over the constitutionality or legality of the exercise of emergency powers are judicially reviewable. Indeed, both the judiciary and Congress, as co-equal branches, can restrain the executive regarding emergency powers. So can public opinion. Furthermore, since 1976, the President has been subject to certain procedural formalities in utilizing some statutorily delegated emergency authority.

The National Emergencies Act (50 U.S.C. 1601-1651http://fpc.state.gov/documents/organization/6216.pdf

[LearnTheLaw]

No emergency justifies a violation of ANY Constitutional provision. 16 Am Jur 2d "Constitutional Law', Section 70 & 82. Coercion has been continually utilized by the corporators of The Fund and The Bank, and their sister organizations, corporations, associations, combinations and AGENTS within each of the several States of the Union - occupying offices and positions of Public Trust, Honor and Profit - to ensure that the Offices do no function within Constitutional import, in order to implement their pollicies and programs, and their agents and representatives have continually used threat, coercion, misrepresentation, fraud, usurpation, oppression and tyrannical means and modes against the Citizens of the several States of the Union, and against the several States themselves.



Congress cannot by any definition it may adopt conclude the matter, since it cannot by legislation alter the Constitution, from which alone it derives its power to legislate, and within whose limitations alone that power can be lawfully exercised.
[Mark Eisner v. Myrtle H. Macomber, 252 U.S. 189]

[Chex]

No emergency justifies a violation of ANY Constitutional provision. 16 Am Jur 2d "Constitutional Law', Section 70 & 82. Coercion has been continually utilized by the corporators of The Fund and The Bank, and their sister organizations, corporations, associations, combinations and AGENTS within each of the several States of the Union - occupying offices and positions of Public Trust, Honor and Profit - to ensure that the Offices do no function within Constitutional import, in order to implement their pollicies and programs, and their agents and representatives have continually used threat, coercion, misrepresentation, fraud, usurpation, oppression and tyrannical means and modes against the Citizens of the several States of the Union, and against the several States themselves.

Understood LearnTheLaw

partisans.

Then, in a 9-0 decision Thursday, the high court ruled that at least in one case Obama had gone too far. http://news.yahoo.com/court-ruling-c...-politics.html

http://news.yahoo.com/court-ruling-c...-politics.html

We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America. http://www.lawandliberty.org/genwel.htm

[loveunderlaw]

There should be no public unions period ! Private ones can do what they want to, but public unions have no place in government\official posts.