Why no contract from the Association?

[Kev3188]

Kev say you had no Pension at all and no Social Security coming to you either when you retire. If you had neither do you trust that you would have been able to save enough in your 401k even if you had started saving at the junior age of 18 all the way through whatever age it was you planned to retire when you were a young pup?

Did you start a family when you were young? Did children and the costs associated with raising those children factor into your thoughts for retirement savings when you were 18? Are you going to pay or assist those children in continuing education after they get out of High School?

How many times did your 401k take a hit during economic declines over the years?

Yes I like having a 401k but I'd feel like a completely exposed schmuck if it was the only vehicle I had/chose for my future Golden years that I would like to enjoy some day.

None of my financial planning "models" include SSI or either of my pension(s).

 

[Traymark]

A number of things to go through here, stick with me...

"I don't care about anything, I don't want that damn IAMPF anywhere near me"

Basically cutting off any possibilities for even a decent conversation of an option of choice.

I'm all about that conversation. Go summon P.Rez and Charlie Brown and anyone else on the negotiating committee and the questions I want answered simply are:

~If the IAMPF is offered as a choice for those not already in it, will that then affect the amount our match in the 401K could be increased by?
~Will it make the match less?
~Will it prevent it from becoming a Contribution? (This should be the ASK btw)
~If it does reduce the match/contribution, by how much?

Everyone is jumping up and down and throwing themselves on the floor saying "it should be a choice".
What I want Answered is = What does that "choice" cost those who don't want it?

Don't believe anyone, not one person, is advocating or defending being forced either into the IAMNPP or a 401K. Most want a choice...there can be no negativity with a choice.

NYer, you are assuming there is no negativity, I want to hear it from those at the table, I believe we have the right to know before that language is installed.

NYer: "Yes and no. Although the 401K has the option of where to put your money the choice of the company that holds our account, Fidelity, was made by the airline and the funds available to park the money in that account was chosen or put together by that outside company and the airline."

~Fidelity is where the money is parked, well known name in the business. The money in the account is
100% Controlled by each individual!
In Contrast, please see the post above highlighting the Board for the IAMPF.
Not a one of them is multi degreed in Finance, in fact, most of them don't have any degrees, nor did I see ANY experience with a major firm that does this stuff for a living, like Fidelity.
Those are the folks making the decisions on your money for you ~ I'll pass.


NYer: "Control? Yes and no".

Wrong NYer, there is 100% control of your money in a 401K.
There is 0% control of your money in the IAMPF.

NYer: "Point being, some people would rather have the 401K as it stands and others would want to have the IAMNPP.

Nothing wrong with having a choice."

If by having a choice, my company match stays at 5.5% or is only raised to 7 or 8%, when without a choice it becomes a 10% Contribution, then there is plenty wrong with having a choice.
We have the right to know.

 

[WeAAsles]

None of my financial planning "models" include SSI or either of my pension(s).

Well I'm very happy to know with all of these dramatic medical advancements that have happened in the last 30 years that if they cure cancer and you live to 108 you have enough saved not counting SSI or your Pension to live a long and economically fruitful life (Not counting inflation of course)

Most of us mere mortals aren't quite as superlative though.

 

[NYer]

NYer, you are assuming there is no negativity, I want to hear it from those at the table, I believe we have the right to know before that language is installed.

If by having a choice, my company match stays at 5.5% or is only raised to 7 or 8%, when without a choice it becomes a 10% Contribution, then there is plenty wrong with having a choice.
We have the right to know.

My point is there is no negativity of having a choice.

There may be negativities within the choices, but that would be up to the individual to decide.

 

[swamt]

I

I'm actually to lazy to read your whole post (By the way I'm not defending the IAMPF) you are overstating what a new fleet worker makes. I was hired when I was 18 and at that age I was spending money on what 18 year old' s spend money on, if I didn't have a defined plan I doubt I would have saved anything those first years. A new fleet agent probably makes $13 or $14 and most start part time with the pension it's about $2400 a year 5% is about $1400 as far as me waking up I'm 58 I have a bout 5 or 6 legs on my stool 2 with the government in question and the IAMPF plus I'll probably die on my way to cashing my first SS check

Wow. Really? The example of pay you post is still better than the pension. Do the math. Even without any overtime. You need to get a clue man. I bet your too lazy to read the contracts too. That's why you have the contract you have, how pathetic is this guy.

 

[swamt]

The Weez has spread July in MIA when it was given as a possibility on these pages by people he holds in esteem. That goal post has since been moved, again.

NYer, C'mon man. Do you really believe this contract will get done by July? No way. Not going to happen. You gotta consider the source, and that guy don't know chite.

 

[WeAAsles]

Wow. Really? The example of pay you post is still better than the pension. Do the math. Even without any overtime. You need to get a clue man. I bet your too lazy to read the contracts too. That's why you have the contract you have, how pathetic is this guy.

Unsolicited attack # 1

 

[WeAAsles]

NYer, C'mon man. Do you really believe this contract will get done by July? No way. Not going to happen. You gotta consider the source, and that guy don't know chite.

Unsolicited attack # 2

 

[WeAAsles]

Back on topic. Here's an interesting article that was shared with me this morning.


"Facing increased PBGC variable premiums and potential corporate tax reform, U.S. corporations are accelerating their pension contribution schedules.

At least four companies have announced significant debt issuances in recent months, the proceeds of which are being used, at least in part, to make hefty pension contributions in 2017, surpassing the original expected contributions that had been announced in 10-K filings with the Securities and Exchange Commission."



http://m.pionline.com/article/20170...m-spurs-hefty-corporate-pension-contributions

 

[Jester]

Something you all need to consider on this "choice" issue between the pension and 401K. While it is certainly something most in the union membership would desire, pensions like insurance are about risks, investment returns and actuarial estimates.

My view is that if I was near retirement, ceteris paribus (there's a $5 phrase for everyone) in terms of company contributions between 401K and pension, I would choose the pension. For example, keeping the math simple $80(?)/month per year of service, so one year equals $960 annually. Safely I would need to have around $10,000 in retirement to equal that benefit over a lifetime to draw down against, but the company has been contributing $1.05/hour to the pension which is only about $2,200 a year for full time? So $960 return on a $2,200 investment-- that's a nice return on investment! In contrast, if one has 30 years to retirement then the magic of compounding interest (even just looking at what the company contributes) creates a sizable 401K which returns a larger monthly income than what a $2,400 ($80 x 30) monthly pension would provide.

My point being that if given the choice, I suspect those close to retirement would flood into the pension and those with decades to retirement would take the 401K option instead. It would leave the pension in even worse financial condition. Like health insurance, pensions attempt to pool the risk between expensive and less expensive policy holders/beneficiaries to average out the risks. I don't think it is a viable option for the IAMNPF to allow high return retirees (those close to retirement) to stay in the pension while the low return retirees (those decades from retirement) to opt out.

We are seeing the same thing with ObamaCare state health insurance exchanges where younger, healthier people are ignoring the personal mandate and paying the fine, as it is cheaper than the premiums. However, older, higher risk, less healthy people are willing to pay the premiums, especially without penalty for pre-existing conditions, and the results are predictable as insurers withdraw from the market.

 

[WeAAsles]

Something you all need to consider on this "choice" issue between the pension and 401K. While it is certainly something most in the union membership would desire, pensions like insurance are about risks, investment returns and actuarial estimates.

My view is that if I was near retirement, ceteris paribus (there's a $5 phrase for everyone) in terms of company contributions between 401K and IRA, I would choose the pension. For example, keeping the math simple $80(?)/month per year of service, so one year equals $960 annually. Safely I would need to have around $10,000 in retirement to equal that benefit over a lifetime to draw down against, but the company has been contributing $1.05/hour to the pension which is only about $2,200 a year for full time? So $960 return on a $2,200 investment-- that's a nice return on investment! In contrast, if one has 30 years to retirement then the magic of compounding interest (even just looking at what the company contributes) creates a sizable 401K which returns a larger monthly income than what a $2,400 ($80 x 30) monthly pension would provide.

My point being that if given the choice, I suspect those close to retirement would flood into the pension and those with decades to retirement would take the 401K option instead. It would leave the pension in even worse financial condition. Like health insurance, pensions attempt to pool the risk between expensive and less expensive policy holders/beneficiaries to average out the risks. I don't think it is a viable option for the IAMNPF to allow high return retirees (those close to retirement) to stay in the pension while the low return retirees (those decades from retirement) to opt out.

We are seeing the same thing with ObamaCare state health insurance exchanges where younger, healthier people are ignoring the personal mandate and paying the fine, as it is cheaper than the premiums. However, older, higher risk, less healthy people are willing to pay the premiums, especially without penalty for pre-existing conditions, and the results are predictable as insurers withdraw from the market.

Nicely educational perspective.

 

[Jester]

Back on topic. Here's an interesting article that was shared with me this morning.


"Facing increased PBGC variable premiums and potential corporate tax reform, U.S. corporations are accelerating their pension contribution schedules.

At least four companies have announced significant debt issuances in recent months, the proceeds of which are being used, at least in part, to make hefty pension contributions in 2017, surpassing the original expected contributions that had been announced in 10-K filings with the Securities and Exchange Commission."



http://m.pionline.com/article/20170...m-spurs-hefty-corporate-pension-contributions

That's not from the goodness of their corporate heart, but it is "rational expectations" (economicspeak) of a much lower corporate tax rate under a Trump proposal. Taking the pension expense deduction earlier at the higher corporate tax rate provides a greater tax benefit against current income.

 

[Jester]

Nicely educational perspective.

Thank-you for those kind words.

 

[WeAAsles]

That's not from the goodness of their corporate heart, but it is "rational expectations" (economicspeak) of a much lower corporate tax rate under a Trump proposal. Taking the pension expense deduction earlier at the higher corporate tax rate provides a greater tax benefit against current income.

Perhaps our wonderful Federal Government is finally having some concern about possible mass anarchy of social order if they don't do more to secure retirement financials Corporations have been negligent on?

AA has also been making accelerated payments into our Pension plans above what their lawful required minimums are as well.

 

[WeAAsles]

Thank-you for those kind words.

Well you made me think in a 180 mode about is it actually more beneficial for the older member to join in rather than the younger member?

You sparked some of the synapses in my old brain to fire up and calculate.