ABF | Local 707 Pension Fund insolvent in 2016

How can you say the pension funds aren't a Ponzi-like scheme when your own post contradicts that? Here is the definition of a Ponzi scheme:

A Ponzi scheme is a fraudulent investment operation where the operator, an individual or organization, pays returns to its investors from new capital paid to the operators by new investors, rather than from profit earned by the operator.
Ponzi scheme - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The fact that any company is assessed a withdrawal liability over and above all the required regular pension contributions for each employee is in itself proof of the Ponzi-like aspect of the plan. If it were not a Ponzi-like scheme there would be no such thing as a withdrawal liability. As long as a company was up-to-date with all the normal pension contributions it wouldn't matter if they closed down. Everyone would be whole as far as all their pension time earned there.

Tell us about the fraud.
 
Tell us about the fraud.

If you read and understood my post it should be obvious. But I'll try again for you since you're special.

Each worker has contributions made on his behalf. Those accumulated contributions plus whatever amount those contributions earn over time become a large quantity of money at some future point in time. When a worker retires his pension should be in proportion to that accumulated amount. If his pension is larger than that amount can provide, where does that extra money come from? If it comes from contributions of workers who are still working and haven't retired yet, that's a Ponzi-like scheme.
 
Young Teamsters paying into a fund,which by most accounts,will never see a penny of their investment???The ratio of recipients to contributors all but guarantee it.
I have no stakes in this game,but it is mirrored by the Gubment ponzi,called Social Security,which I do have stakes in.

The funding status of all the funds is a matter of public record. When you sign on to the job you accept involvement in the pension plan, I don't see the deceit.
 
The funding status of all the funds is a matter of public record. When you sign on to the job you accept involvement in the pension plan, I don't see the deceit.

It's not deceit in the true sense of the word in my opinion. It's just that more and more was promised than could actually be delivered. I don't really know who to blame for the situation - the funds themselves, the Government, etc. But the actuality is that amounts were promised that were unsustainable in the long run. At some point it was destined to fail since the number of new workers contributing was bound to level off or, as happened, declined. Then the chickens come home to roost.
 
If you read and understood my post it should be obvious. But I'll try again for you since you're special.

Each worker has contributions made on his behalf. Those accumulated contributions plus whatever amount those contributions earn over time become a large quantity of money at some future point in time. When a worker retires his pension should be in proportion to that accumulated amount. If his pension is larger than that amount can provide, where does that extra money come from? If it comes from contributions of workers who are still working and haven't retired yet, that's a Ponzi-like scheme.

"Ponzi-like", I suppose that's nondefinitive enough to be acceptable. "special", why yes, I am. Thank you for noticing.
 
"Ponzi-like", I suppose that's nondefinitive enough to be acceptable. "special", why yes, I am. Thank you for noticing.

Of course I think you're special. We go back a long way with the barbs but they've never been truly obnoxious like some. :smile new:

(PS - Even though you've "liked" some who were more on the obnoxious side)
 
It's not deceit in the true sense of the word in my opinion. It's just that more and more was promised than could actually be delivered. I don't really know who to blame for the situation - the funds themselves, the Government, etc. But the actuality is that amounts were promised that were unsustainable in the long run. At some point it was destined to fail since the number of new workers contributing was bound to level off or, as happened, declined. Then the chickens come home to roost.

The Government.
 
Young Teamsters paying into a fund,which by most accounts,will never see a penny of their investment???The ratio of recipients to contributors all but guarantee it.
I have no stakes in this game,but it is mirrored by the Gubment ponzi,called Social Security,which I do have stakes in.
I have not heard of any checks not being sent out. I think we will be fine in the long run. But we all have to fight for what we have earned. Remember there is a bunch of young Congressman and Senators that see our ss as a burden to them getting at the money we are owed. we all need to stop the sky is falling dialog. YOUR BROTHER ALWAYS!
 
Ahh suck ass number 2 right on time. First let me welcome you to THE ABF FORUM. Now don't forget you are in our house. You have been a constant company suck ass on this site since I saw your fist post. You are a very condescending ass on the yrc forum in my opinion.
As for the pension funds. If you would take the time to have read my post you would have seen I was explaining to 396 how the plan was designed in the beginning and how the ibt and the fund managers have deviated from that plan to now have put many plans into danger.

What part of if the companies had paid all their liabilities to the funds there would have been no need for the aggressive investments and thus the tremendous loss in the capitol from the funds.

At one time we had almost 30 BILLION DOLLARS in the CSPF. YOU know it all, where would that put the fund if they the managers had not mismanaged it?

Ponzi my ass. It was designed that each employer paid for their employees upon exiting the fund and the fund managers did not do that.. Now say that isn't true.

But no you jump over here thinking that you know what is best for us. You the suck ass that voted to reduce payments and to even defers almost 100 MILLION DOLLARS that yrc owed the CSPF. And you are going to tell me all about the fund..You spineless Teamster wannabe.

I have done pretty well for myself. So I just want what was promised me when I joined the fund. It is a matter of principal for me. But you and your band of suck asses just keep giving the farm away. But as I told your buddy alfag you two will suffer the same penalties as everyone and maybe even more if us abf Teamsters have any say in the matter..

So now lets hear your stupid ass kissing comments I find them weak and almost funny. Remember You are our guest on this forum.

Wow, I'm impressed. Only you're wrong. The pension funds weren't designed that each employer pay for their employees upon exiting the fund. That provision was enacted by ERISA in 1980 after many MEPF's were finding themselves in trouble. You ought to do your homework before shooting off your mouth.

Oh, and by the way, I have a big stack of ABF paychecks in my file cabinet so I'll post here when and if I choose. Deal with it. :smile new:
 
OK I will try one more time please try to follow along. There would not be a 4/1 if all the companies PAID THEIR FULL WITHDRAWAL LIABILITIES!

4:1 is the approximate ratio of people sucking on the CSPF teat to the people currently employed with contributions being made to the fund.
 
4:1 is the approximate ratio of people sucking on the CSPF teat to the people currently employed with contributions being made to the fund.
Because the companies that went out of business that closed did not pay their FULL WITHDRAWAL LIABILITIES!
 
Are you employed by abf? And as for the PENSION LIABILITIES they have been a part of the CSPF from the beginning. Maybe you should know the facts before you open your mouth. You mean to tell me you thought that the 1980 ERISA created the liabilities Claus in our fund. You have got to be kidding me. And they the yrc Teamsters in that forum believe anything you post. You are a real idiot when it comes to the CSPF.

What form 5500 would you like for me to post for you?

You sneaky contractual idiot. What a joke you know nothing you are just a big bag of hot air. I'm really glad you came over here now all can see you know nothing. Be careful driving alfag home from the bar. I would hate to hear you two got REAR ENDED!

Like I said earlier, learn some facts before you shoot your big dumb mouth off.

"The rules governing withdrawal liability are found in the Multiemployer Pension Plan Amendments Act of 1980 which amended ERISA to impose withdrawal liability upon employers who cease contributions to a multiemployer defined benefit pension plan with unfunded vested benefits. Withdrawal liability is essentially an exit fee requiring employers to pay its share of a plan’s costs (future vested benefits) which have not been paid through previous contributions or investment returns. Withdrawal liability only applies to multiemployer defined benefit pension plans; it does not apply to health and welfare plans, annuity plans or other defined contribution plans."

http://www.agcmichigan.org/docs/member-service-docs/withdrawal_liability_rules.pdf
 
Any idea what CURRENT means Muler?
What do you think? I was explaining to you what the fund was established to do. You are a Teamster HATER and it shows. You have that right. But in this forum you have to hear my rebuttal to any and all Teamster negatives.

But for you to even say do I understand makes you look like a complete jerk. You may not like what I say but I say what I feel and that is the way I have always been. You on the other hand hate our way of life but you dance around like a scared little boy.

Is our pension fund in trouble? NO DUH. Can it be fixed? only by people willing to work hard and be honest. Is that person now in place in the Teamster Brotherhood? Not that I know of.
 
Top