4 ms·
> That I agree with, but it's a more general issue about the temptation to make future promises you can't pay for, and is also true in the private sector. Ther
by anamax 17y ago
> That I agree with, but it's a more general issue about the temptation to make future promises you can't pay for, and is also true in the private sector.
There's an important difference. If IBM can't pay the pensions that it promised, IBM pensioners take the hit. If San Jose can't pay the pensions that it promised, I take the hit via taxes.
- BearOfNH 17y agoIf IBM can't pay the pensions that it promised, IBM pensioners take the hit. Have you heard of the Pension Benefit Guarantee Corporation?
- anamax 17y ago> Have you heard of the Pension Benefit Guarantee Corporation? Yes, I have. It's largely funded by companies that offer pensions - it's a huge problem that it isn't completely funded that way. That's not an argument for increasing its taxpayer funding. Also, the first thing that it does is cut pension benefits. I'm the only one who is going to pay for my retirement, so I've little sympathy for folks who think that I should pay for theirs. If you're in a giving mood, feel free to kick in some money for me. If you're not willing to do that, what's the argument that I should pay for someone else's?
- _delirium 17y agoIsn't that actually worse? Not only can IBM screw its pensioners, but the pensioners have no recourse: IBM's shareholders get to keep decades of profits gotten on the basis of promises that were later breached, and limited liability means those dividends can't be clawed back to pay the company's obligations.
- anamax 17y ago> Isn't that actually worse? For whom? Not for me. > Not only can IBM screw its pensioners, but the pensioners have no recourse They made a bet. Since they were willing to take the winnings, they should take the loss.