SI
SI
discoversearch

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor.  We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community.  If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.
Strategies & Market Trends : John Pitera's Market Laboratory -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: ggersh who wrote (13500)1/18/2013 3:28:02 PM
From: Augustus Gloop3 Recommendations  Read Replies (2) | Respond to of 33421
 
I'm not saying they should have a guaranteed rate of return.

I was coming at it from the perspective that future payments were predicated on 7-8% returns so people working today are in danger of some of these massive pensions being all dried up.

Isn't the Illinois pension system in some trouble? That whole state is in bad shape which brings me back around to what Meredith Whitney was saying.

Major house of cards.....this is all to negative for me on a Friday



To: ggersh who wrote (13500)1/18/2013 10:32:17 PM
From: Elroy5 Recommendations  Read Replies (2) | Respond to of 33421
 
My point is that pensions shouldn't have a guaranteed return on
contribution.

Absolutely they should not. Regular workers don't get guaranteed returns on their retirement savings, why should government workers receive them? The idea that our current state and local taxes go to pay for retirees rather than schools and workers is appalling.

If a pension fund can't meet it's obligations, the obligations should be reduced.


HomeMailHotSubjectMarksPeopleMarksKeepersSettings
Terms Of UseContact UsCopyright/IP PolicyPrivacy PolicyAbout UsFAQAdvertise on SI
© 2025 Knight Sac Media.  Data provided by Twelve Data, Alpha Vantage, and CityFALCON News