ADVERTISEMENT

Peabody Energy

This was inevitable. Why is anyone surprised? If the product you produce basically becomes "illegal", what do you think is going to happen to pensions that rely on revenue from the business?

This is 3 levels of "success" in the liberal world. 1) A Corporation is being gradually put out of business. 2)Countless new dependents to the Govt/politicians are being created 3)*the bonus*...the environment is being "saved".

This country has lost its damn mind. People moan and cry for "jobs to return to the US", bitch about "manufacturing being sent overseas"....this is a perfect example of why/how manufacturing jobs left and most likely will never return.....its simply "illegal" for them to come back or operate here at all.

How long before even "green" successful companies like Tesla are being pissed on by mindless idiots that subscribe to Bernie Sanders way of thinking? Once they realize the batteries in the car are toxic its all over for them too.
 
  • Like
Reactions: ohio herd
My issue is not the ever evolving business of coal. My issue is the corporations are allowed by law to not honor pensions under bankruptcy protection.
 
Marine03 said:
My issue is not the ever evolving business of coal. My issue is the corporations are allowed by law to not honor pensions under bankruptcy protection.
Click to expand...

The great myth portrayed to the American worker is that any form of "pension" was ever truly "guaranteed". Simply another liability on a company's books that can no longer be paid. Unfortunate reality.
 
i am herdman said:
How are they going to honor them if they don't have any money?
Click to expand...

That's why the Coal Act of 1992 was formed. You still have to pay child support with no money, alimony with no money, taxes with no money. Perhaps the CEO and board of directors who made the decision to gobble up numerous mining companies while inheriting the retired employees benefits should be sent to prison like normal people who can't pay their obligations.
 
If they hadn't gobbled up those companies bankruptcy and lost pensions would have occurred many years ago. M&A delayed it.
 
Marine03 said:
That's why the Coal Act of 1992 was formed. You still have to pay child support with no money, alimony with no money, taxes with no money. Perhaps the CEO and board of directors who made the decision to gobble up numerous mining companies while inheriting the retired employees benefits should be sent to prison like normal people who can't pay their obligations.
Click to expand...

The only obligation that you can not pay and go to prison is federal taxes, and that's only if you purposely attempt to evade those taxes. You are actually going to prison for lying on your tax returns, not for not paying. No such thing as debtor's prisons in the U.S. Of A.
 
Rock98Dog said:
The only obligation that you can not pay and go to prison is federal taxes, and that's only if you purposely attempt to evade those taxes. You are actually going to prison for lying on your tax returns, not for not paying. No such thing as debtor's prisons in the U.S. Of A.
Click to expand...

You absolutely will go to prison if you do not pay child support.

Federal Child Support Laws
The Child Support Enforcement Act of 1984 grants districts attorneys and state attorneys generals the authority to collect back child support on behalf of custodial parents. This and other federal child support initiatives are managed by the Office of Child Support Enforcement within the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS).

A deadbeat parent’s failure to follow directives from a district attorney or state authority could subject them to penalties including jail time. However, Since a jailed parent is unlikely to be able to make regular payments, it is reserved as a last resort and used more as a deterrent. The goal is to encourage non-custodial parents to pay the ordered amount of child support, so enforcement typically begins with the removal of certain privileges and other restrictions. For example, a parent owing more than $2,500 in support may be denied a passport until he or she pays their past due balance.

In accordance with the Act, state attorneys may take any of the following enforcement measures against a delinquent non-custodial parent:

  • Garnishment of wages
  • Liens against property or real estate
  • Reporting the debtor to credit bureaus
  • Freezing bank accounts
  • Suspension of professional or driver's license (in some states)
  • Contempt order
  • Jail time


- See more at: http://family.findlaw.com/child-sup...-back-child-support.html#sthash.7l3Kkhxa.dpuf
 
I really don't know the particulars of this industry's pension accounts, but the assets should be held in separate accounts outside the assets of the company. It (the miners pension) should be funded annually from contributions of company and the employees. If present pension payments are coming from the present revenue of the company then that pension is only as safe as the viability of the company. That way if a company goes under the existing pension payments don't go with it. Paying pension payments from present revenue sounds too much like...well...social security"
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: i am herdman
GK4Herd said:
I really don't know the particulars of this industry's pension accounts, but the assets should be held in separate accounts outside the assets of the company. It (the miners pension) should be funded annually from contributions of company and the employees. If present pension payments are coming from the present revenue of the company then that pension is only as safe as the viability of the company. That way if a company goes under the existing pension payments don't go with it. Paying pension payments from present revenue sounds too much like...well...social security"
Click to expand...

I agree. However, what gets overlooked in most cases is "where" those pension funds are invested outside the company, and how have those funds performed in those investments. In most cases, those "promises" of future pensions were negatively impacted due to poor performing investments, new $$$ allocated to pension accounts from company operations was not an amount sufficient; due to company financial under performance in certain years and the fact over the years a reduced number of miners contributing to the overall fund base.
 
raleighherdfan said:
I agree. However, what gets overlooked in most cases is "where" those pension funds are invested outside the company, and how have those funds performed in those investments. In most cases, those "promises" of future pensions were negatively impacted due to poor performing investments, new $$$ allocated to pension accounts from company operations was not an amount sufficient; due to company financial under performance in certain years and the fact over the years a reduced number of miners contributing to the overall fund base.
Click to expand...

Good points on the investment choices. But when a company pays the pension out of current assets and revenue, that's no different then investing the pension assets in a single stock. It is NEVER a good idea to invest your pension in a single stock. It is always advisable to invest in accounts that are more diversified.

Most companies shifted from a defined benefit to a defined contribution years ago. In a defined benefit plan the onus of performance was on the backs of the company. If their investments accounts didn't pan out or they just paid pensions out of current assets and revenue they were saddled with the burden themselves if the investments went south or there was a downturn in their industry. On defined contribution all the employer has to do is chip in a percentage of income income each year along with a percentage chipped in by the employee.

The investment accounts are a series of diversified mutual fund accounts (stocks, bonds, mixed, fixed, etc.) with varying degrees of risk based on the employees choice. When you retire you have a pot of money in which you can receive an income from. If the company goes bad these accounts aren't affected because they're held separate from company assets.

If an employee is still of working age when their company goes bankrupt they simply roll their retirement account into a personal IRA and allow it to continue to grow while they find employment elsewhere.
 
GK4Herd said:
Most companies shifted from a defined benefit to a defined contribution years ago. In a defined benefit plan the onus of performance was on the backs of the company. If their investments accounts didn't pan out or they just paid pensions out of current assets and revenue they were saddled with the burden themselves if the investments went south or there was a downturn in their industry. On defined contribution all the employer has to do is chip in a percentage of income income each year along with a percentage chipped in by the employee.
Click to expand...

I am not sure all these companies switched to a defined contribution plans.......At least not for the older already retired miners that had already entered retirement. You are right. Defined contributions plans are not influenced by the company's bankruptcy. However, the older defined benefit plans can be, due to it being a liability (on the balance sheet) owed to it's employees. And depending on the funding by the company and the investment choices by the trustees over the years, the liabilities (future payments owed to retired employees) may have outgrown the growth needed to pay these "guarantees".
 
I have to add this too. The misguided advice to those who actually still have an option to consider defined benefit plans is that they "are safer, less volatile, more guaranteed" than the now standard, defined contribution. This is simply a load of crap in reality. Even defined benefit plans were/are susceptible to various underlying market risks outside the Pension Trustees control. The biggest risk? (and this is critical) the BOND MARKET. Bond investments make up the largest part of defined benefit plans funds. Bonds (corporate, government, various other debt instruments) are always at risk for corrections created by large write downs/refinancing due to bankruptcies or other reorganizations by their originators. The impacts on returns for these investments is huge and costly to those that hold this "paper" and depend on them for income later.
 
The coal industry is a perfect microcosm of what will eventually happen with social security. The number of active workers was long ago surpassed by the number of retirees and the benefit pyramid became inverted. There are currently 13 retired miners for every active miner.
 
  • Like
Reactions: murox and raleighherdfan
Rock98Dog said:
The coal industry is a perfect microcosm of what will eventually happen with social security. The number of active workers was long ago surpassed by the number of retirees and the benefit pyramid became inverted. There are currently 13 retired miners for every active miner.
Click to expand...
How does the number of active miners vs retired miners impact the pension?
 
herdfan06 said:
How does the number of active miners vs retired miners impact the pension?
Click to expand...

Because the pension received by the retired miners is being paid for partly from the retirement contributions of the existing miners (just like SS). Less miners are working in relation to the amount of retired miners receiving benefits. Couple that with the fact that due to safety requirements in place now as well as increase in life expectancy, when these plans were set up they didn't anticipate that there would be that many miners alive to receive benefits at the numbers there are. Now couple that with the downturn in the industry and you have a pyramid scheme of sorts coming to roost.
 
  • Like
Reactions: raleighherdfan
GK4Herd said:
Because the pension received by the retired miners is being paid for partly from the retirement contributions of the existing miners (just like SS). Less miners are working in relation to the amount of retired miners receiving benefits. Couple that with the fact that due to safety requirements in place now as well as increase in life expectancy, when these plans were set up they didn't anticipate that there would be that many miners alive to receive benefits at the numbers there are. Now couple that with the downturn in the industry and you have a pyramid scheme of sorts coming to roost.
Click to expand...
Makes more sense, I was looking at it more from the profitability standpoint (concept of profitability, not the current state of profitability) vs the number of current/former employees.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

30CAT

That infrastucture deal, Pedo-Joe and his bleaters brag about?

Replies
89
Views
2K
Pullman Square - Non Sports Talk
WV-FAN
WV-FAN
ADVERTISEMENT

Latest posts

ADVERTISEMENT
Top Bottom
Back