In this thread Koalabear and Rightfield will say stealing is okay

LJ_Reloaded

バクスター の
Joined
Apr 3, 2010
Posts
21,217
as long as corporations do it.

http://finance.yahoo.com/blogs/dail...undered-corporate-greed-author-131151510.html

It's pretty obvious times are tough for America's working class. The combination of a prolonged period of stagnant wages, high unemployment and shaky economy - including a decade of little or no returns (if you're lucky) on assets like stocks and real estate - make it harder to pay the bills. (See: As America's Middle Class Shrinks, P&G Adopts "Hourglass" Strategy)

Meanwhile, New York Times columnist and economist Paul Krugman, noted in a piece last week titled "The Social Contract," that while the middle gets squeezed, the rich keep getting richer in both real and relative terms.

"...the Congressional Budget Office — which only go up to 2005, but the basic picture surely hasn't changed —show that between 1979 and 2005 the inflation-adjusted income of families in the middle of the income distribution rose 21 percent. That's growth, but it's slow, especially compared with the 100 percent rise in median income over a generation after World War II. Meanwhile, over the same period, the income of the very rich, the top 100th of 1 percent of the income distribution, rose by 480 percent. No, that isn't a misprint. In 2005 dollars, the average annual income of that group rose from $4.2 million to $24.3 million."

If the average worker didn't have enough to worry about, Ellen Schultz - an award-winning Wall Street Journal reporter and author of Retirement Heist: How Companies Plunder and Profit from the Nest Eggs of American Workers -- says that in some instances the fat paychecks of the top paid executives are coming directly out of the pocket of average workers.

"As recently as a decade ago there was a trillion dollars, a quarter of a trillion in surplus assets," in corporate funds, Schultz tells The Daily Ticker's Aaron Task in the accompanying clip. "There was plenty of money in pension plans; there was plenty to pay the benefits but corporations went about taking the money away."

As the title of the book suggests, Schultz believes this was no accident, claiming corporations have been "exaggerating their retiree burdens" and plundering retirement plans in a variety of ways, including:

Siphon billions of dollars from their pension plans to finance downsizings and sell the assets in merger deals.
Overstate the burden of rank-and-file retiree obligations to justify benefits cuts, while simultaneously using the savings to inflate executive pay and pensions.
Hide growing executive pension liabilities, which at some companies now exceed the liabilities for the regular pension plans.
Purchase billions of dollars of life insurance on workers and use the policies as informal executive pension funds. When the insured workers and retirees die, the company collects tax-free death benefits.
Exclude millions of low-paid workers from 401(k)'s to make the plans more valuable to the top-paid.

According to Schultz, these and related measures have become commonplace among Fortune 500 companies, including AT&T, Bank of America, JP Morgan, IBM, Cigna, General Motors, GM, Comcast, UPS and the NFL, just to name a few.

U.S. corporate pension plans now face a $388 billion gap based on a recent report from Credit Suisse. That's a bigger hole than they faced at the height of the financial crisis. Companies claim it's a result of the 2008-09 stock market crash, higher costs and an aging workforce.

Schultz claims that's bogus. "It didn't have to happen," she says, noting executive compensation has risen dramatically over the same time frame. "As they've cut other people's benefits with pensions being frozen, they have increased the benefits of the executives both pay and pensions."

Unfortunately, there isn't much the average employee can do because what the corporations have done is legal and abetted by loopholes in accounting regulations. The only advice she offers is to be skeptical if you're offered a buyout. That means conferring with an actuary to guarantee the pay structure is as advertised.
 
When under the pretext of fraternity, the legal code imposes mutual sacrifices on the citizens, human nature is not thereby abrogated. Everyone will then direct his efforts toward contributing little to, and taking much from, the common fund of sacrifices. Now, is it the most unfortunate who gains from this struggle? Certainly not, but rather the most influential and calculating.
Frédéric Bastiat

You ignore the real plunderers such as yourself who support the politicians who drive the welfare state benefits for votes that drive up the cost of business that drive up the passed on costs to the middle class that stops at the house that Jack built...

You don't know Jack.
 
When under the pretext of fraternity, the legal code imposes mutual sacrifices on the citizens, human nature is not thereby abrogated. Everyone will then direct his efforts toward contributing little to, and taking much from, the common fund of sacrifices. Now, is it the most unfortunate who gains from this struggle? Certainly not, but rather the most influential and calculating.
Frédéric Bastiat

You ignore the real plunderers such as yourself who support the politicians who drive the welfare state benefits for votes that drive up the cost of business that drive up the passed on costs to the middle class that stops at the house that Jack built...

You don't know Jack.
Name one civilized nation that doesn't have a welfare state. I can name you several uncivilized ones.

The problem with your argument is that when you remove the welfare state you get bigger problems than when you had it: you get a nation of uncivilized savages and people routinely killing each other over basic needs.

In short, you get a jungle. Do you like living in the jungle?
 
No you don't.

See Plymouth Colony.

Founded as a Communism, a welfare state.

It nearly killed them, so they switched to Laissez-faire Capitalism and thrived.
__________________
I'm Hungary for some French-fried €PIIGS!
A_J, the Incredulous
 
No you don't.

See Plymouth Colony.

Founded as a Communism, a welfare state.

It nearly killed them, so they switched to Laissez-faire Capitalism and thrived.
__________________
I'm Hungary for some French-fried €PIIGS!
A_J, the Incredulous
You are a liar now. They didn't switch to Laissez-Faire capitalism.
 
Furthermore you are running away, no doubt in terror, from the actual topic:

Corporations who steal from employee pension funds to pay their CEOs.

Are you too scared to address that? Or is this where you disappear for good?
 
You are a liar now. They didn't switch to Laissez-Faire capitalism.

Yes, they did. They divided the property and kept the proceeds individually instead of putting them into the communal store. They then allocated by sale and barter.
 
Yes, they did. They divided the property and kept the proceeds individually instead of putting them into the communal store. They then allocated by sale and barter.
Factually untrue. Their anti-communist actions included wage and price controls. That's not laissez-faire.

http://tofindtheprinciples.blogspot.com/2010/12/13-december-1621-fortune-sails-from.html
It would seem as it nothing was beyond the concern of the courts—elections, weights and measures, land grants, permits for ordinaries, excuses from military service, public and private purchases and other transactions, the levying of taxes and troops, fines for absence from church meetings, the recording of apprentice and servant indentures, divorce, regulation of prices and wages, the laying out of streets, the reaction against Quakers, and of course criminal trials.


But we are talking about corporations stealing from their employee pension funds. If you cannot discuss this directly then I will continue to force the discussion back on topic.

Trust me, I am much more tenacious than you. This discussion will stay about corporations stealing from their employees. There's no "or else" about it.
 
LOL, 4est gump decided to give up rather than try to be an obstructionist.
 
Factually untrue. Their anti-communist actions included wage and price controls. That's not laissez-faire.

http://tofindtheprinciples.blogspot.com/2010/12/13-december-1621-fortune-sails-from.html
It would seem as it nothing was beyond the concern of the courts—elections, weights and measures, land grants, permits for ordinaries, excuses from military service, public and private purchases and other transactions, the levying of taxes and troops, fines for absence from church meetings, the recording of apprentice and servant indentures, divorce, regulation of prices and wages, the laying out of streets, the reaction against Quakers, and of course criminal trials.


But we are talking about corporations stealing from their employee pension funds. If you cannot discuss this directly then I will continue to force the discussion back on topic.

Trust me, I am much more tenacious than you. This discussion will stay about corporations stealing from their employees. There's no "or else" about it.

That's bullshit. The Puritans had no military. You're taking something from a later period and trying to apply it retroactively.

If you cannot be truthful on this issue, then why even try to discuss the other issue with you? This behavior which so outrages you has been going on since the late 60s. What's even worse is that with our current government and its pension plan for us, it's been going on just as long if not longer, but that never bothers you because you are a Statist and probably a Marxist to boot, they're doing the same damned thing.
 
Now that 4est gump has STFU about his Plymouth laissez-faire delusions...

LOL Right Wingers are scared to death of this subject so they have to evade and distract. After 8 damned years they still have no idea just how relentless I am.

http://www.npr.org/2011/09/29/140344871/retirement-heist-how-firms-trimmed-pensions

'Retirement Heist': How Firms Trimmed Pensions
by NPR STAFF

September 29, 2011

As companies have been moving away from traditional pension plans, they have been shifting employees to new retirement plans, such as 401(k)s, that transfer the cost — and the risk — to workers.

Companies have claimed for years that old-style pensions were unsustainable. Author Ellen Schultz tells Morning Edition host Steve Inskeep that there's another explanation.

"The main narrative is that [companies] are struggling to pay both their pensions and these unexpectedly high health care costs for the retirees," Schultz says. "What isn't known is that companies were well-prepared for this phenomenon. The plans were in fact significantly overfunded. They had more than enough to pay every dime for every person currently employed and already retired."

Schultz investigated the changes in pension plans as a reporter for The Wall Street Journal and has written a book called Retirement Heist.

In the early 1990s, Schultz says, companies were looking for new ways to push out workers, especially older, more expensive ones. She says the expensive way would have been to pay severance, "but the cost-effective way was to instead promise them a bit more pension money in lieu of severance." In the end, "you've just laid off somebody who's expensive and it has cost you nothing."

Schultz cites this example of one well-known company whose pension fund has dropped significantly since the early 1990s. General Electric announced it was closing its pension plan to be more competitive. She says the company's financial filings show that GE has not put a cent into its pension plans since the mid-1980s. Over the years, GE, like most large companies, used assets in the plans to pay for other things.

Morning Edition reached out to several companies for this story, but none would talk in detail about changes to their pension plans.

Don Fuerst, a senior fellow at the American Academy of Actuaries, says companies can offer retirees the opportunity to take a lump sum distribution rather than a lifetime of pension income, which can be beneficial to the company but detrimental to the individual.

"But it's always a choice," he says.

David Certner, a policy director at the AARP, says that "corporations weren't always so transparent and clear about what they were doing."

Schultz says there was a massive transfer of wealth over the past two decades, from a multitude of retirees to a small number of executives. But while she calls her book Retirement Heist, she concedes that nothing that happened was illegal.

"When you have a properly funded plan, it doesn't matter how many retirees you have or how long they live," Schultz says. "It's not the fact that you have a lot of retirees; it's the fact that you have abused the pension plan."
 
LOL got the Conservatives running in fear now.

Guess you can't come up with any real defense for corporations stealing from employee pensions, can you?
 
Liberals take note of how fast I can silence the entire Republican faction. :D
 
Yes, they did. They divided the property and kept the proceeds individually instead of putting them into the communal store. They then allocated by sale and barter.

Economy

For its first two-and-a-half years, the economy of Plymouth Plantation took the form of a communal system. There was neither private property nor division of labor. Food was grown for the town and distributed equally. According to William Bradford in Of Plymouth Plantation:





The experience that was had in this common course and condition, tried sundry years and that amongst godly and sober men, may well evince the vanity of that conceit of Plato's and other ancients applauded by some of later times; that the taking away of property and bringing in community into a commonwealth would make them happy and flourishing; as if they were wiser than God. For this community (so far as it was) was found to breed much confusion and discontent and retard much employment that would have been to their benefit and comfort.[151]




By 1623, facing starvation Plymouth Plantation's leaders took another course. Upon allotting private land plots it is evident that productivity increased. Again, according to William Bradford in his account:





So they began to think how they might raise as much corn as they could, and obtain a better crop than they had done, that they might not still thus languish in misery. At length, after much debate of things, the Governor (with the advise of the chiefest among them) gave way that they should set corn every man for his own particular, and in that regard trust to themselves; in all other things to go in the general way as before. And so assigned to every family a parcel of land, according to the proportion of the number, for that end, only for present use (but made no division for inheritance) and ranged all boys and youth under some family. This had very good success, for it made all hands industrious, so as much more corn was planted than otherwise would have been by any means the Governor or any other could use, and saved him a great deal of trouble, and gave far better content. The women now went willingly into the field, and took their little ones with them to set corn; which before would allege weakness and inability; whom to have compelled would have been thought great tyranny and oppression.[151]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plymouth_Colony
 
Economy

For its first two-and-a-half years, the economy of Plymouth Plantation took the form of a communal system. There was neither private property nor division of labor. Food was grown for the town and distributed equally. According to William Bradford in Of Plymouth Plantation:
4est Gump is too scared to address the issue of corporations stealing employees' pensions and violating their agreed upon contracts. His arguments are meant to do little more than distract readers from the topic at hand.

4est is a coward and he knows it... which is why he fled.
 
Run, Republicans, run away. But I'm still gonna keep bumping this just to humiliate you.
 
Aw, what's the matter, con-tards?

I'm not letting you hide from this.
 
Back
Top