Will we start seeing pension funds dry up in the next 2-3 years?

1.3K

•

Take NYC or California: a mass exodus of people leaving, and increase in existing rates on the remainder of the people. So where does the money come from for pensions when it dries up? Per social security guidelines, they don't even have to pay out, it's merely a request that can be accepted or denied (virtually no one knows this small issue), and the pension can always use many tricks to not pay out: using outrageous demands to fire your ass (IBM), liquidating the pensions early for pennies on the dollar (Prudential), using placeholder IOUs that will never get paid (Illinois), hyper inflating the currency to oblivion (Weimar, Rome). Which one will it be?

[–] • 3 pts

State Pension funds are one of the main scams on how they funnel tax money to their mega undieing corps. State Pension funds "invest" tax payer money into corps and startups, then just get bailed out if those companies go bad etc.

link

[–] [deleted] • 1 pt

Pensions are only used in government at this point but they always came off as a crooked deal

The pension guarantees a certain rate and contributions are added and matched to a large extent. However, if the contribution obligations don't match what's on paper, who is paying the difference? It would be the fed banks and the taxpayer. How do the pensions get funded then? They would need to increase the taxes to make up the contribution difference. Or in the case of NYCERS or CALPERS, they will need a full on bailout to make ends meet, on top of increasing taxable rates. Even if they phased out pensions tomorrow, they would still be on the hook for TRILLIONS in pension liabilities.
Pensions are NOT state locked which makes them ripe for abuse. Too often you hear people cashing out pensions and leaving to a low cost of living state, whilst still holding the original state on its obligation. If the pensioner has no obligation to its own state, why should the state? Not saying the state is perfect in any way, but the imbalance is a very clear problem, as this mechanism is what causes capital flight from states. This imbalance also comes off as a great way for (((them))) to nationalize the retirement system by claiming liquidity problems are caused by the pensioners, and not the pension system.
Pension tenure laws are way too lenient. Most pensions will pay out after 20 years of service. What this means is a 38 year old can retire if he commits to service at 18. This is NOT sustainable, as the pension needs to payout for 50+ years of this person's life, for having worked half those years in total. The rules are changing slightly, so the yearly tenure amount is going up, however, even working for 30 years and retiring skews the ratio to an almost 1:1 ratio on years worked vs retirement.
Pension rules use top 3, which means if you max out overtime you're retirement will be based on the three highest earning years of your tenure. Why this is allowed is just beyond me, and it must have been baked in due to unions, blatant embezzlement, and fraud. However, this again skews the window of the pension system, as a 45,000/yr job can end up with a pension for a 100,000/yr job just because of OT rules and laws. I think this may have changed more recently, but not sure

Pensions are only used in government at this point but they always came off as a crooked deal * The pension guarantees a certain rate and contributions are added and matched to a large extent. However, if the contribution obligations don't match what's on paper, who is paying the difference? It would be the fed banks and the taxpayer. How do the pensions get funded then? They would need to increase the taxes to make up the contribution difference. Or in the case of NYCERS or CALPERS, they will need a full on bailout to make ends meet, on top of increasing taxable rates. Even if they phased out pensions tomorrow, they would still be on the hook for TRILLIONS in pension liabilities. * Pensions are NOT state locked which makes them ripe for abuse. Too often you hear people cashing out pensions and leaving to a low cost of living state, whilst still holding the original state on its obligation. If the pensioner has no obligation to its own state, why should the state? Not saying the state is perfect in any way, but the imbalance is a very clear problem, as this mechanism is what causes capital flight from states. This imbalance also comes off as a great way for (((them))) to nationalize the retirement system by claiming liquidity problems are caused by the pensioners, and not the pension system. * Pension tenure laws are way too lenient. Most pensions will pay out after 20 years of service. What this means is a 38 year old can retire if he commits to service at 18. This is NOT sustainable, as the pension needs to payout for 50+ years of this person's life, for having worked half those years in total. The rules are changing slightly, so the yearly tenure amount is going up, however, even working for 30 years and retiring skews the ratio to an almost 1:1 ratio on years worked vs retirement. * Pension rules use top 3, which means if you max out overtime you're retirement will be based on the three highest earning years of your tenure. Why this is allowed is just beyond me, and it must have been baked in due to unions, blatant embezzlement, and fraud. However, this again skews the window of the pension system, as a 45,000/yr job can end up with a pension for a 100,000/yr job just because of OT rules and laws. I think this may have changed more recently, but not sure

parent
link

[+] [deleted] • 0 pt

[–] • 2 pts

Another possibility is that inflation gets so bad, you still get your $1000 a month or whatever, but all you can get for your $1000 is a bottle of Coke or item of similar value.

link

[–] • 1 pt

most likely

parent
link

[–] • 2 pts

At some point in the future, the state of California will have 1 employee. Their job will be to ensure that the pension checks get processed.

50% of the state's budget goes to education. >50% of that goes to salaries, pensions and benefits. And it is only growing.

link

[–] • 2 pts

All of the above. Anyone relying upon pensions is a fool.

link

[–] • 1 pt

We’re going to basic income and crypto currency.
It’s all part of the plan for new world order.
Get into the habit of looking at insects as food.
Also get into the habit of being monitored on a minute by minute basis.

link

[–] • 1 pt

Universal basic income (i.e. slave pay) and a central bank digital currency. It's not crypto. It's all about controlling you with a social credit score. There are cryptocurrencies that seek to be perfect alternatives to somewhat-physical currencies. Really a lot of money creation is just numbers inside a computer. Someone gets a loan for a million dollar house, and it doesn't require $1,000,000 in bank notes to be printed. This increase in the total amount of currency in existence. Bit Coin limits the amount available, but there are privacy issues. Who the coins belong to are part of the public record. Imagine being able to identify that the $100 bill you have was used for various drug deals. So perhaps it came to you in a legal manner. I often take home $100 bills from work after collecting smaller ones over time. The hundreds often come from Mexicans (probably illegals getting paid in cash). There is at least one new coin that seeks to solve the privacy problem with the other wonderful features of Bit Coin. We just need to get to where you can go buy your general life stuff with one of these types of currency. I believe there's a country in South or Central America that made Bit Coin their official currency.