Re-Pube-lickins Vote Against Workers .... Again

[jaF0]

In a 50-49 vote, the U.S. Senate repealed Labor Department rules from the Obama administration that would have made it easier for states to offer retirement plans to private-sector employees who don't have those benefits at work.

Trade groups from the financial services industry supported the measure while consumer advocates worried that it will be harder to help the roughly 55 million employees who don't have access to a workplace retirement plan.

"Striking down this rule will have a chilling effect on states that are establishing their own retirement savings programs, which in turn will harm small businesses and their employees," John Arensmeyer, founder and CEO of Small Business Majority, an advocacy group for small business owners, said in a statement.

The financial services industry had opposed the Obama-era rules because they feared that state-run retirement plans would have unfair advantages when competing with plans from the private sector.

http://www.cnbc.com/2017/05/03/sena...states-offer-retirement-plans-to-workers.html

 

[4est_4est_Gump]

Fake News


Anyone can start a retirement plan, even if their private-sector employer (probably a mom-and-pop) does not offer a plan.

A state-run plan is just a triple redundancy.

 

[adrina]

Such cavalier treatment of nearly a third of the US labor force.

Interesting. But not surprising.

 

[4est_4est_Gump]

Such hatred of the private financial sector is also on display...





I guess those jobs are no longer needed?

 

[jaF0]

The rural rednecks that voted for these buffoons are the ones who will be harmed the most.

 

[4est_4est_Gump]

The rural rednecks that voted for these buffoons are the ones who will be harmed the most.

No they won't.

Most of the ones you hate the most don't have the wherewithal to start a 401K.

That's why they turned to Trump; government efforts to make their lives better served only to kill their jobs.

 

[water505]

The rural rednecks that voted for these buffoons are the ones who will be harmed the most.

Bigoted much?

 

[RobDownSouth]

No they won't.

Most of the ones you hate the most don't have the wherewithal to start a 401K.

That's why they turned to Trump; government efforts to make their lives better served only to kill their jobs.

Individuals can start an IRA, with a whopping max contribution of $6K a year.
Corporations start 401Ks, which have a max contribution limit of $18K a year.

 

[Chelz789]

lets just all love each other

 

[adrina]

lets just all love each other

Good luck with that when so many mistake volume for accuracy.

 

[BotanyBoy]

http://www.cnbc.com/2017/05/03/sena...states-offer-retirement-plans-to-workers.html

Oh my god, you mean people will be responsible for their own retirements instead of the states setting up some scam to pretend they are helping those who are retiring??

OH NOEZ!! What ever will I do if the state doesn't take ALL my money from me jaF0!!

The rural rednecks that voted for these buffoons are the ones who will be harmed the most.

Not at all, the only real problem is that it wont be filling elitist pockets and (D)'s wont get to scam the working class for even more money.....how sad for you.

 

[OldJourno]

A lot of states are drowning in red ink over retirement policies in place for government employees. You just don't hear much about it because right now it's not a problem, but crisis looms in a number of states - and cities.
Yet somehow these states can competently handle the retirement needs of the private sector. Somehow I'm skeptical.

 

[Libsam]

Yep, I'd rather the government not hold my pension funds. They'd just use it to bail out "Too Big To Fail" institutions. You know... like what happened in the US in 2010.

Or another example, just a few days ago Canada bailed out fraudulent home loans with healthcare workers pensions.

 

[Hard_Rom]

Yep, I'd rather the government not hold my pension funds. They'd just use it to bail out "Too Big To Fail" institutions. You know... like what happened in the US in 2010.

Or another example, just a few days ago Canada bailed out fraudulent home loans with healthcare workers pensions.

That pension fund is an institutional lender. The 2 billion they lent out is at 20% interest on the first 1 billion. The borrower in question has only a .3% delinquency rate on mortgages. What mortgages they do hold are solid assets that any lender would love to get their hands on should they go under.

The Canadian government did not lend out health care workers pensions. Health care workers are not government employees. It is a private pension fund.

 

[4est_4est_Gump]

A lot of states are drowning in red ink over retirement policies in place for government employees. You just don't hear much about it because right now it's not a problem, but crisis looms in a number of states - and cities.
Yet somehow these states can competently handle the retirement needs of the private sector. Somehow I'm skeptical.

Yep, I'd rather the government not hold my pension funds. They'd just use it to bail out "Too Big To Fail" institutions. You know... like what happened in the US in 2010.

Or another example, just a few days ago Canada bailed out fraudulent home loans with healthcare workers pensions.

The only pension funds the government holds are in SS and we see how efficiently it is run...

 

[jaF0]

The only pension funds the government holds are in SS and we see how efficiently it is run...

But we're talking about State level. I'm not sure if all State employee pensions funds are State held/managed or not.

The issue is about allowing States to offer pensions to private sector workers who are not eligible/covered by employer programs.

 

[4est_4est_Gump]

But we're talking about State level. I'm not sure if all State employee pensions funds are State held/managed or not.

The issue is about allowing States to offer pensions to private sector workers who are not eligible/covered by employer programs.

You should go to my thread about the minimum wage and read the link I posted on or about the last page about the management of the California Public Sector salaries and pensions...

As I pointed out above, you do not need an employer to start up your retirement account; there are people whom have gone to school and studied finances and whose career is based on investment, for example, as soon as we are vested in any employer plan, we move all of our assets to our accounts with Edward Jones. The main reason that people like to establish their accounts with employers is that many large employers contribute a matching (up to a limit, usually 5-10%) contribution to your account. Otherwise, there is no reason to have your employer undertake your responsibility for you and the same logic then follows for the state.

Now, Edward Jones has a vested interest in offering the best investment products possible for your retirement options and giving you the best advice humanly possible to give. Is there any argument to be made that the state feels in anyway compelled to make a maximum effort on the behalf of your retirement for you? Who knows, ten, 20 years down the line, the State may decide to use some or all of the pension funds that it holds to help provide benefits to the disabled while handing your retirement account an IOU, and keep in mind, the state can do that legislatively, but they cannot print money when you try to cash in your IOU, all they can do is add taxes to those still working...