[UCGal]

[quote=JohnAlt91941][quote=UCGal]

I think targeting your anger towards public union employees is missing the point. The public employee worker bees are not the problem. Until 10-15 years ago private employers offered similar benefits to private sector, non-union, employees.[/quote]

I’m not sure where you mean in the last 10-15 years. This sounds like something from another era, like the 1950’s or 1960’s. I’m not saying defined benefit pensions weren’t more common 10-15 years ago, but they couldn’t have been as rich as what we see in government.

Seriously, there were private employees getting 2.5% for every year worked starting at age 55 as recently as 15 years ago? Maybe at the Big 3 auto makers but how about in this part of the country? Every place I’ve worked going back to the 1980’s it’s been IRA or 403B or 401k usually with a modest employer match.[/quote]

In the 80’s I worked for subsidiary of Cubic – they had defined benefit pension AND 401k. In the early 90’s I worked for a small, privately held company in WA state, they had 401k only. I then moved to PA and worked for a publicly traded, fortune 500, company from 93-2000. They had both 401k (with match) and a defined benefit pension. We were aquired in 2000. I am vested in the now frozen pension that was in place till our acquisition.
The company that acquired us – for whom I’m still employed – had eliminated their defined benefit pension for new hires (and as acquirees we were new hires) in favor of a “portable pension”. We also have a 401k. The 401k had a match until 2009, then the eliminated the match. (In my view that was a 3% paycut!) It’s just recently (past few months) been restored. Somewhere in the mid-2000’s they stopped giving the portable pension to new hires – but existing employees were grandfathered in. In 2009 they froze the portable pension. Meaning they were no longer contributing to it other than to make sure it was funded to existing obligations. In 2010 they froze the “portable” part of the portable pension – because they UNDERFUNDED their obligations. They just sent out paperwork, this week, saying that this year it is even more underfunded… So the portability (ability to roll it into an IRA upon separation) is gone until they bring up the funding. They have applied to take 15 years, rather than 7, to properly fund their obligations.

So – until Jan 2000 – I had a defined benefit pension from a publicly traded company (not government.) From 2000-2009 I had a portable pension from a publicly traded company (not government). This is in addition to 401k programs.

I have seen a steady decline in employer provided retirement benefits in the private sector. They used to be standard, now they are not. Even a 401k match is no longer a “given”.

This wasn’t another era. As I mentioned – I had a private employer that gave a defined benefit pension as recently as 11 years ago. They might still be giving it to us if we hadn’t been bought.

Rather than get mad at public employees – I am envious. I used to get a pension but my employer chose to eliminate that benefit. Along with a host of other benefits. I’m not mad at the public worker who did nothing to me – I’m mad at my employer for the steady decline in benefits.

I’ve been a loyal employee… but I’ll tell you – it’s getting old.

[UCGal]

[quote=JohnAlt91941][quote=UCGal]

I think targeting your anger towards public union employees is missing the point. The public employee worker bees are not the problem. Until 10-15 years ago private employers offered similar benefits to private sector, non-union, employees.[/quote]

I’m not sure where you mean in the last 10-15 years. This sounds like something from another era, like the 1950’s or 1960’s. I’m not saying defined benefit pensions weren’t more common 10-15 years ago, but they couldn’t have been as rich as what we see in government.

Seriously, there were private employees getting 2.5% for every year worked starting at age 55 as recently as 15 years ago? Maybe at the Big 3 auto makers but how about in this part of the country? Every place I’ve worked going back to the 1980’s it’s been IRA or 403B or 401k usually with a modest employer match.[/quote]

In the 80’s I worked for subsidiary of Cubic – they had defined benefit pension AND 401k. In the early 90’s I worked for a small, privately held company in WA state, they had 401k only. I then moved to PA and worked for a publicly traded, fortune 500, company from 93-2000. They had both 401k (with match) and a defined benefit pension. We were aquired in 2000. I am vested in the now frozen pension that was in place till our acquisition.
The company that acquired us – for whom I’m still employed – had eliminated their defined benefit pension for new hires (and as acquirees we were new hires) in favor of a “portable pension”. We also have a 401k. The 401k had a match until 2009, then the eliminated the match. (In my view that was a 3% paycut!) It’s just recently (past few months) been restored. Somewhere in the mid-2000’s they stopped giving the portable pension to new hires – but existing employees were grandfathered in. In 2009 they froze the portable pension. Meaning they were no longer contributing to it other than to make sure it was funded to existing obligations. In 2010 they froze the “portable” part of the portable pension – because they UNDERFUNDED their obligations. They just sent out paperwork, this week, saying that this year it is even more underfunded… So the portability (ability to roll it into an IRA upon separation) is gone until they bring up the funding. They have applied to take 15 years, rather than 7, to properly fund their obligations.

So – until Jan 2000 – I had a defined benefit pension from a publicly traded company (not government.) From 2000-2009 I had a portable pension from a publicly traded company (not government). This is in addition to 401k programs.

I have seen a steady decline in employer provided retirement benefits in the private sector. They used to be standard, now they are not. Even a 401k match is no longer a “given”.

This wasn’t another era. As I mentioned – I had a private employer that gave a defined benefit pension as recently as 11 years ago. They might still be giving it to us if we hadn’t been bought.

Rather than get mad at public employees – I am envious. I used to get a pension but my employer chose to eliminate that benefit. Along with a host of other benefits. I’m not mad at the public worker who did nothing to me – I’m mad at my employer for the steady decline in benefits.

I’ve been a loyal employee… but I’ll tell you – it’s getting old.

[UCGal]

[quote=JohnAlt91941][quote=UCGal]

I think targeting your anger towards public union employees is missing the point. The public employee worker bees are not the problem. Until 10-15 years ago private employers offered similar benefits to private sector, non-union, employees.[/quote]

I’m not sure where you mean in the last 10-15 years. This sounds like something from another era, like the 1950’s or 1960’s. I’m not saying defined benefit pensions weren’t more common 10-15 years ago, but they couldn’t have been as rich as what we see in government.

Seriously, there were private employees getting 2.5% for every year worked starting at age 55 as recently as 15 years ago? Maybe at the Big 3 auto makers but how about in this part of the country? Every place I’ve worked going back to the 1980’s it’s been IRA or 403B or 401k usually with a modest employer match.[/quote]

In the 80’s I worked for subsidiary of Cubic – they had defined benefit pension AND 401k. In the early 90’s I worked for a small, privately held company in WA state, they had 401k only. I then moved to PA and worked for a publicly traded, fortune 500, company from 93-2000. They had both 401k (with match) and a defined benefit pension. We were aquired in 2000. I am vested in the now frozen pension that was in place till our acquisition.
The company that acquired us – for whom I’m still employed – had eliminated their defined benefit pension for new hires (and as acquirees we were new hires) in favor of a “portable pension”. We also have a 401k. The 401k had a match until 2009, then the eliminated the match. (In my view that was a 3% paycut!) It’s just recently (past few months) been restored. Somewhere in the mid-2000’s they stopped giving the portable pension to new hires – but existing employees were grandfathered in. In 2009 they froze the portable pension. Meaning they were no longer contributing to it other than to make sure it was funded to existing obligations. In 2010 they froze the “portable” part of the portable pension – because they UNDERFUNDED their obligations. They just sent out paperwork, this week, saying that this year it is even more underfunded… So the portability (ability to roll it into an IRA upon separation) is gone until they bring up the funding. They have applied to take 15 years, rather than 7, to properly fund their obligations.

So – until Jan 2000 – I had a defined benefit pension from a publicly traded company (not government.) From 2000-2009 I had a portable pension from a publicly traded company (not government). This is in addition to 401k programs.

I have seen a steady decline in employer provided retirement benefits in the private sector. They used to be standard, now they are not. Even a 401k match is no longer a “given”.

This wasn’t another era. As I mentioned – I had a private employer that gave a defined benefit pension as recently as 11 years ago. They might still be giving it to us if we hadn’t been bought.

Rather than get mad at public employees – I am envious. I used to get a pension but my employer chose to eliminate that benefit. Along with a host of other benefits. I’m not mad at the public worker who did nothing to me – I’m mad at my employer for the steady decline in benefits.

I’ve been a loyal employee… but I’ll tell you – it’s getting old.

[UCGal]

I agree with njtosd with additional emphasis on the fact that it depends on which molding you choose.

Friends, in restoring their Rittenhouse Sq row house, spent over 20k on custom milled molding. They admitted after the fact that it did not need to be custom milled. This is what happens when the person ordering the molding is an architect who’s feeling his oats.

If they’d chosen a stock molding they would have spent about 2k on the same molding for the same effect.

[UCGal]

I agree with njtosd with additional emphasis on the fact that it depends on which molding you choose.

Friends, in restoring their Rittenhouse Sq row house, spent over 20k on custom milled molding. They admitted after the fact that it did not need to be custom milled. This is what happens when the person ordering the molding is an architect who’s feeling his oats.

If they’d chosen a stock molding they would have spent about 2k on the same molding for the same effect.

[UCGal]

I agree with njtosd with additional emphasis on the fact that it depends on which molding you choose.

Friends, in restoring their Rittenhouse Sq row house, spent over 20k on custom milled molding. They admitted after the fact that it did not need to be custom milled. This is what happens when the person ordering the molding is an architect who’s feeling his oats.

If they’d chosen a stock molding they would have spent about 2k on the same molding for the same effect.

[UCGal]

I agree with njtosd with additional emphasis on the fact that it depends on which molding you choose.

Friends, in restoring their Rittenhouse Sq row house, spent over 20k on custom milled molding. They admitted after the fact that it did not need to be custom milled. This is what happens when the person ordering the molding is an architect who’s feeling his oats.

If they’d chosen a stock molding they would have spent about 2k on the same molding for the same effect.

[UCGal]

I agree with njtosd with additional emphasis on the fact that it depends on which molding you choose.

Friends, in restoring their Rittenhouse Sq row house, spent over 20k on custom milled molding. They admitted after the fact that it did not need to be custom milled. This is what happens when the person ordering the molding is an architect who’s feeling his oats.

If they’d chosen a stock molding they would have spent about 2k on the same molding for the same effect.

[UCGal]

From the article:

But starting in the 2013-14 school year, it would prohibit districts and the California Board of Education from using textbooks or other instructional materials that reflect adversely on gay, bisexual and transgender Americans.

That seems very rational and reasonable to me. Don’t let textbooks promote hate.

[quote=urbanrealtor]As a kid growing up in the bay area, I already had some of that.
I think its good to know about the important civil rights struggles for any group in your area.
I would want my son (soon to be sons, plural) to know about that also.[/quote]

Congratulations, Dan! You’re officially a breeder. LOL.
Seriously – as the mom of 2 boys – it’s a fun job raising boys.

[UCGal]

From the article:

But starting in the 2013-14 school year, it would prohibit districts and the California Board of Education from using textbooks or other instructional materials that reflect adversely on gay, bisexual and transgender Americans.

That seems very rational and reasonable to me. Don’t let textbooks promote hate.

[quote=urbanrealtor]As a kid growing up in the bay area, I already had some of that.
I think its good to know about the important civil rights struggles for any group in your area.
I would want my son (soon to be sons, plural) to know about that also.[/quote]

Congratulations, Dan! You’re officially a breeder. LOL.
Seriously – as the mom of 2 boys – it’s a fun job raising boys.

[UCGal]

From the article:

But starting in the 2013-14 school year, it would prohibit districts and the California Board of Education from using textbooks or other instructional materials that reflect adversely on gay, bisexual and transgender Americans.

That seems very rational and reasonable to me. Don’t let textbooks promote hate.

[quote=urbanrealtor]As a kid growing up in the bay area, I already had some of that.
I think its good to know about the important civil rights struggles for any group in your area.
I would want my son (soon to be sons, plural) to know about that also.[/quote]

Congratulations, Dan! You’re officially a breeder. LOL.
Seriously – as the mom of 2 boys – it’s a fun job raising boys.

[UCGal]

From the article:

But starting in the 2013-14 school year, it would prohibit districts and the California Board of Education from using textbooks or other instructional materials that reflect adversely on gay, bisexual and transgender Americans.

That seems very rational and reasonable to me. Don’t let textbooks promote hate.

[quote=urbanrealtor]As a kid growing up in the bay area, I already had some of that.
I think its good to know about the important civil rights struggles for any group in your area.
I would want my son (soon to be sons, plural) to know about that also.[/quote]

Congratulations, Dan! You’re officially a breeder. LOL.
Seriously – as the mom of 2 boys – it’s a fun job raising boys.

[UCGal]

From the article:

But starting in the 2013-14 school year, it would prohibit districts and the California Board of Education from using textbooks or other instructional materials that reflect adversely on gay, bisexual and transgender Americans.

That seems very rational and reasonable to me. Don’t let textbooks promote hate.

[quote=urbanrealtor]As a kid growing up in the bay area, I already had some of that.
I think its good to know about the important civil rights struggles for any group in your area.
I would want my son (soon to be sons, plural) to know about that also.[/quote]

Congratulations, Dan! You’re officially a breeder. LOL.
Seriously – as the mom of 2 boys – it’s a fun job raising boys.

[UCGal]

[quote=mp7444]By the way, I did some searching on http://www.sdtreastax.com/ site (just to experiment :P), and found some address and it shows as “FAMILY XXX TRUST”, instead of last name and first name. How do they get that?

Thanks.[/quote]

A living trust is a vehicle to handle wills/estate issues. Basically assets are owned by the trust (including real estate if you choose) and then the owners “own” the trust – and therefore the assets. The idea is that you transfer the large assets (investments that are outside a 401k, homes, etc) into the trust.

A trust does not go through probate.

The trust outlines who inherits the trust by laying out beneficiaries of the trust. In that respect it acts similar to a will – but only addresses the assets held in the name of the trust… so it doesn’t say who’s going to inherit Aunt Hattie’s china. (because Aunt Hattie’s china isn’t titled in the name of the trust.) That needs to be outlined in a separate will.

http://www.livingtrustvswill.com/

[UCGal]

[quote=mp7444]By the way, I did some searching on http://www.sdtreastax.com/ site (just to experiment :P), and found some address and it shows as “FAMILY XXX TRUST”, instead of last name and first name. How do they get that?

Thanks.[/quote]

A living trust is a vehicle to handle wills/estate issues. Basically assets are owned by the trust (including real estate if you choose) and then the owners “own” the trust – and therefore the assets. The idea is that you transfer the large assets (investments that are outside a 401k, homes, etc) into the trust.

A trust does not go through probate.

The trust outlines who inherits the trust by laying out beneficiaries of the trust. In that respect it acts similar to a will – but only addresses the assets held in the name of the trust… so it doesn’t say who’s going to inherit Aunt Hattie’s china. (because Aunt Hattie’s china isn’t titled in the name of the trust.) That needs to be outlined in a separate will.

http://www.livingtrustvswill.com/

[Author]

Posts