|
T O P I C R E V I E W
|
TheMoMan
Member # 1659
|
 posted January 10, 2006 10:54
Hi to all, the question is how well is your employer handling your pension?
http://moneycentral.msn.com/content/P119362.asp
Now Where I worked Fifty cents per hour was deducted and put into the pension plan, now after mismanageing the plan, the company (management) wants out of funding it for us that have already retired.
Quote from TheMoMan's Nephew
"I vote for showing up at their homes in large angry mobs with torches and
pitchforks...
It always bugs me that when people in public companies get promoted to
overhead positions, they instantly start making tons of money for making
simple decisions."
|
garlicguy
Member # 3166
|
posted January 10, 2006 11:17
Of the three that I'm still considered enrolled in, one has gone bankrupt and is now run by the US Federal PBG Corp, who has informed me that there will likely be insufficient assets to pay me anything when I reach retirement age; the other two are looking pretty suspicious. We're drawing them down to finance our other projects. Why wait only to find there's nothing left down the road?
So much for government protections.
|
Serenak
Member # 2950
|
posted January 10, 2006 12:29
The UK politicians are now waking up to the fact that govt pension allocations won't cover future requirements (due to previous squandering/misuse in part and the demographics for the rest).
They sting us for "National Insurance" which is a sort of tax that was designed to provide for the welfare state... healthcare, pensions etc. but now they are talking about raising the state retirement age and some are calling for "people to be forced to save for their retirements" fscking hipocrisy or what... that is what National Insurance already is.... or do you think the voters are too stupid to remember that?
A chunk of my National Insurance is paid into a private pension because 20 years ago the Govt encouraged everyone under 50 to sign up to this "fantastic opportunity to improve retirement benefits" this pension is worth only the Govt guaranteed minimum because like many pension schemes their rubbish investments have pathetically failed to grow - mine in fact has lost a considerable amount of "value" over the last few years.
But as I can't see there being any decent pension for me (if I make it that far - probably at least 70 by then) and short of winning the lottery no way of my suddenly having money to provide for my old age I am basically screwed - live now and worry later seems my only option right now...
![[Frown]](frown.gif)
|
Metasquares
Member # 4441
|
posted January 10, 2006 13:12
I work for the government. 'Nuff said ![[Smile]](smile.gif)
Not for long, though. It's nice to have options
|
Stereo
Member # 748
|
posted January 10, 2006 13:34
Well, that problem has been identified many years ago in Canada; that's why there are so many incitatives for people to have their own retirement plans*. So, I have about 40% of my pension funds in my name (counting the money I "borrowed" from my retirement plan to buy my condo). The remaining 60% comes from my employer. And if life goes the way I want it, I will have an "equivalent" of my employer's part transferred to a personnal fund. This way, when I retire, I should be able to live on the interests of a CDN$1M - now, what it will be worth in 30 years is unknown. (C'mon, Bank of Canada, better make sure you'll keep that inflation in check!)
Note to self: better set some money aside, so when the next real estate crunch happens, I'll be in position to buy.
But I'm always sorry whenever I learn that people who put money aside all their lives will spend their last years (or decades, let's be positive - or would it be negative?) in a no better position than those who spent it all away, thanks to mismanagement, inconpentence, interest conflicts, downright misappropriation or a mix of all that.
*Unfortunately, as RRSPs are usually managed by other people, they can suffer from the same ailments than company- or government-run funds. Just a few weeks ago, it came to light that a personnal fiscal councillor who's start-up company was financed by a fund management company had his clients regroup their investments in said management company funds. And said management company took the money out of the funds for the managers' personnal benefit. Small investors lost almost all of their money. Conclusion: get educated on how to manage your money, and don't follow every advices; no one has your interest closer to their heart than yourself.
|
drunkennewfiemidget
Member # 2814
|
posted January 11, 2006 06:19
quote:
Originally posted by Stereo:
(C'mon, Bank of Canada, better make sure you'll keep that inflation in check!)
And hope that Gilles Duceppe and any incumbent seperatist doesn't successfully convince Quebecers to vote yes in the referendum, because that would be one helluva can of worms to open up as far as CPP and interest rates in Canada and Quebec go.
|
Stereo
Member # 748
|
posted January 11, 2006 07:37
quote:
Originally posted by drunkennewfiemidget:
quote:
Originally posted by Stereo:
(C'mon, Bank of Canada, better make sure you'll keep that inflation in check!)
And hope that Gilles Duceppe and any incumbent seperatist doesn't successfully convince Quebecers to vote yes in the referendum, because that would be one helluva can of worms to open up as far as CPP and interest rates in Canada and Quebec go.
You know what? My opinion about the actual position of (most) Quebec separatists is similar to a youg adult saying they want to leave the home, but aren't ready to do the cooking, cleaning, and all that stuff by himself. It's just too comfortable at mom's/pop's place to get the urge to go a reality. (Oh, and I'm a separatist, for social and economical reasons, but I'm too realist not to see the truth behind the words.)
And while on the point of Duceppe, federal election and separation, as ironical as it may seem, I believe that the Bloc's presence at the federal level is the best security for federalism. As long as Quebecers feel their voice heard in Canada, they won't leave. And the Bloc does just that: carry Quebec's voice to the federal level, better than any country-wide party could. So I think separation won't happen for a decade or two (if it ever happens). And if things are too rough when it happens (hypothetically speaking, of course), I'm working on getting some highly exportable skills, so I could, say, "explore the world" until it calms down a bit... ![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif) (Yeah, I know, I'm not as idealist as I used to be... Guess I've grown up a bit!)
|
Cap'n Vic
Member # 1477
|
posted January 11, 2006 09:52
I'm pretty sure we well see the 'oui' win in the next referendum.....as long as the question is clearly worded and there is no interference from the Feds.
If %50 + 1 vote happens it will no doubt plunge both countries into a recession albeit for a short term. In the end I think (french) Quebecers and English Canadians will be glad to have this chapter of history behind us. We have pissed away too much time, money and energy in this issue the past 25 years.
No hard feeling afterwards either.
|
|
