View Single Post
Old 02-08-2011, 03:40 PM   #69
Jim in CT
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 20,429
Quote:
Originally Posted by The Dad Fisherman View Post
Because you, yourself, would never insult anybody in the context of a thread









I'll answer your question...




I would keep the pensions in place for those who were hired under that plan. These were the benefits packages that were offered them when they accepted the job, so they need to be honored. Going forward w/ new hires I would go to a 401k scenario.

Does that answer your question? You can throw out more questions or find flaws in this but I really don't care....you're not changing my view on this. You can't renege' on benefits offered...sorry that's just me.
Dad, after all that, and it turns out our positions are almost identical. The only difference is, I would require that younger workers (say under 35) hired under a pension, be forced to switch to a 401(k), of course keeping the portion of the benefit that they have earned. That's what the private sector did in the mid 1990s.

Yes, that answers my question. That was a direct answer, and I only needed to ask you 300 times to get it out of you.
Jim in CT is offline