Thursday, February 16, 2006

Benefits guarantee

"Current LANL retirees and those who retire before June 1st would receive their benefits from the new “cloned” plan. Pensions of active LANL workers would be transferred from the cloned plan to one run by the new contractor. UC administrators have said the split will make for a smoother transfer. "

Yeah of course. By doing so they will no longer be responsible for any current or future liabilities of those who have retired, will retire or their dependents.

By making this move the UC Regents has all of the employees at both LANL and LLNL shanking in their boots. Why? They want to retain you and don't want you to pull the plug before June 1st, 2006. So lets look at another scenario. Lets assume that the UC Regents succeeds for now with their ruling and no one applies for retirement. Then at a later date after this goes to court the UC Regents is required to reverse the decision, what will it matter? Those that stayed after June 1st 2006 will still not be able to retire under the UCRP because they did not apply before the new contractor took over. Whoops, that should frost a few peoples butts. All because they couldn't think outside the box.

It's oh so very clear.
Hey bro,

Long time no hear. I read your comment several times and it kinda makes sense. Scary. BTW, I wouldn't be putting any shanks in my boots; the guards kinda frown on that.

Anyway, I think your new scenario deserves consideration.
I am going inactive vested and expect to receive UCRP retirement benefits in the future, not some hybrid UCRP-LANL or LANS TCP1 plan. Have I or have I not worked for The University of California all these years? I took an oath 22 years ago that says I do. I feel I will prevail in remaining a inactive vested member of UCRP as it is today. Make sure you read all the fine print when you receive your so called offer letters. I agree with b-ohica on this one.
Do you have (employer paid) retiree healthcare available from another source?
No other source of Healthcare, however, I hopeful that the scenario I described might be remedied by NNSA/DOE. Over 50, 20+ years service I should still receive employer paid medical when I go inactive. Since it comes out of the LANL operating budget it should not matter which choice one makes. Costs LANS LLC the same. In some sense it feels like blackmail. I am willing to give up medical if necessary beause I will probably work until I am eligible for medicare. At that point medicare is the primary and all you need is a secondary insurance. Thats why current retirees that are collecting medicare do not pay a premium for LANL coverage. Anyway, I am hoping that this issue is rectified.
Consider me a disaffected generation W'er who is wondering how so many people could be sold on moonshine for so long. When I was in high school 15 years ago, I was looking at the numbers for Social Security, Medicare, and most Pension promises and said to my Economics teacher "This doesnt add up.. it is a Panzi scheme." and his reply was something like "Yeah, but as long as I die before it collapses.. what does it matter."

Well I think it is going to collapse soon. The number of people paying into the Panzi scheme of SS, MC, Pensions are getting smaller per year, and their wages are going down (per inflation). We have pushed our personal, state, and national debts to the point where China, OPEC, and similar countries own more of us via the banks than the nation can produce. This can not stand for ever.
It's called a Ponzi scheme, but, yes, it may be coming to an end.

The elites may know "the gig's just about up", but the public is
just now beginning to see this reality. Don't believe me? Then
take a gander at this insightful Op-Ed piece by Peggy Noonan in
the Oct '05 Wall Street Journal.

Peggy Noonan was Reagan's speech writer, and she's exceptional.
She was responsible for the great "Boys of Pointe du Hoc" speech
that the Gipper made on the 50th anniversary of D-Day at Normandy.
Every time I see a replay of that great Reagan speech, it never
fails to bring tears to my eyes.

Here's the link to Peggy's latest and greatest Op-Ed. You owe
it to yourself to read it and ponder over "that of which we
cannot speak"...


*** "A Separate Peace" -- Wall Street Journal, Oct 27, 2005 ***

"America is in trouble--and our elites are merely resigned."


Oh, and by the way, news like this....


*** Retirement age 'should reach 85' -- BBC News, Feb 17, 2005 ***


...will just help add more nails to the coffin to what was once
the Great American Dream. Yeah, Gruntled Guy, you probably got
it right back in your old High School days. It's looking more
and more like some giant Ponzi scheme -- except for those at
the very top of society. They "got their's".
Agree with you good2go and grunt.

To really get into the SS scheme though, you have to understand how benefits are calculated. Check it out sometime, and you will really come away realizing what a good scheme this is. As you might expect in a well-crafted game, many who pay in twice as much (along with their employers) do not get twice as much.

It might be interesting to perform the calculation for yourself. I suggest for the purposes of an exploratory calculation, assume person A has always made exactly 1/2 the SS wage base, and person B has always made the SS wage base. Assume both are 65, have been working since 25 and worked full-time until 65. Try to find the formula for calculating the benefit and do so. You will be pleased with the results I'm sure. As a bonus problem, estimate how much person B's benefit increased by working and contributing at the SS wage base from say 50 or 55 to 65.

When history is written, I suspect the ones who will likely have made out the best at the end of the day on SS are the parents of the baby-boomers.
Post a Comment

<< Home

This page is powered by Blogger. Isn't yours?