boycott united forever

"kontiki" wrote in message
...
Mike Rapoport wrote:
It isn't supposed to require either a leap of faith or the company
remaining in business. The Company is suppose to deposit money to fund
the pension plan which is a trust with an independent board. The funds
are professionally managed and, barring catastrophe, there should be
enough to pay the promised benefits.

One could make the same argument that Social Security is supposed to be
just that:
"professionally managed and, barring catastrophe, there should be enough
to
pay the promised benefits." But even that is no longer sacrosanct.

The only real solution to all of this is for people to take charge of
their
own retirement via their own personal accounts that they themselves
manage.
When you delegate this responsibility to some other party you do so at
your own risk.


I agree with most of what you say.

Social Security was a well thought out, adequately funded program when it
was inplemented in 1935. The problem came when people started looking at it
as a retirement program. In 1935, life expectancy was 63. Social Security
was envisioned as insurance against being injured or killed on the job and
also it would provide income if you lived past 65 an age where you would be
uncompetitive in the workforce. It was a reasonable approach that got
derailed when the underlying assumptions started to change (life expectancy)
and the program didn't change with it.

Mike
MU-2