|
|
| Re: Death toll to exceed 100? (London Fire) (1441652) | |
 |
|
| Home > OTChat | |
[ Post a New Response | Return to the Index ]
[1 2] |
||
|
Page 2 of 2 |
||
|
| (1443993) | |
Re: Death toll to exceed 100? (London Fire) |
|
|
Posted by Charles G on Sat Jun 24 10:37:48 2017, in response to Re: Death toll to exceed 100? (London Fire), posted by AlM on Sat Jun 24 10:21:12 2017. Add in a bit of hubris and you get Grenfell. Here's a link to a recent editorial for an insurance trade magazine written by a UK acquaintance of mine shortly after the fire.Bathroom sockets and other BS As far as US Pensions go, what a disaster! Illinois is just the first state to break under the weight of their obligations -- there will be more. In the example you cite, the retirees can pay now -- or future retirees can pay later because there certainly isn't enough money coming in nor is there anywhere near enough investment income being earned to pay out what is eventually going to be owed. |
|
|
| (1444003) | |
Re: Death toll to exceed 100? (London Fire) |
|
|
Posted by AlM on Sat Jun 24 11:14:12 2017, in response to Re: Death toll to exceed 100? (London Fire), posted by Charles G on Sat Jun 24 10:37:48 2017. The answer is that we are the only nation on earth that is concerned at the risk of accidental electrocution while we are at our ablutions. We limit bathroom power to a puny 12 volts.Not true of course. The US requires ground fault interrupters, so if you drop your plugged-in hair into the filled tub while you are in it, you don't get electrocuted. Bathroom electrocutions are a real issue; but there are effective approaches other than the UK approach. My IRS pension example applies to private pensions, which are well funded on the whole. Retirees who ask for an annuity will get it; it's just that those who ask for a lump sum are short changed by 10%, not because the pension fund can't afford to pay them more, but because the regs still say this is OK and now the regs can't easily be changed. It's public pensions that are most at risk, and not surprisingly this is because they are not really regulated. A state can do whatever it wants in terms of funding. Multiemployer (Taft Hartley - joint union/management) pension funds are a mixed bag - many are OK but a few are so spectacularly underfunded that they are expected to bankrupt the PBGC multiemployer pension fund insurance program in 2025. |
|
|
| (1444015) | |
PensionChat (was Grenfell) |
|
|
Posted by Charles G on Sat Jun 24 11:50:25 2017, in response to Re: Death toll to exceed 100? (London Fire), posted by AlM on Sat Jun 24 11:14:12 2017. Interesting info on pensions. Thanks. I don't pay much attention generally. I had two pensions from employers early in my career. One offered a lump sum a few years back and I took it, and if the other did I'd probably take it as well -- it is relatively small and just creates the administrative burden of letting them know each time my address changes. (at one point there was a 6 or 7 year period where I had forgotten all about the one that is still in place). |
|
|
| (1444018) | |
Re: PensionChat (was Grenfell) |
|
|
Posted by AlM on Sat Jun 24 12:03:39 2017, in response to PensionChat (was Grenfell), posted by Charles G on Sat Jun 24 11:50:25 2017. at one point there was a 6 or 7 year period where I had forgotten all about the one that is still in placeThere is a company called Berwyn Group that makes a living because of people like you. :) I have a client with 13K pension participants and there are about 80 they owe money to but can't find. PS. The pension plan has a fiduciary duty to make "reasonable efforts" to find you, but if the reasonable efforts don't succeed, they get to keep the money. And if your plan has any advantageous early retirement features, it is entirely up to you to identify those and take action. I have another client who has no reduction for commencement at 62 for any benefit earned before 1/1/2003, but if you don't realize that you are out of luck - they will only give you back payments from age 65. |
|
|
| (1444081) | |
Re: Death toll to exceed 100? (London Fire) |
|
|
Posted by Henry R32 #3730 on Sat Jun 24 21:41:23 2017, in response to Re: Death toll to exceed 100? (London Fire), posted by AlM on Sat Jun 24 11:14:12 2017. New York state pensions are doing well, though that is because we have a competent comptroller. The governor also pushed through a retirement tier which essentially doubled employee contribution requirements - NY may be the last state in the union to ever have a pension problem, provided we don't allow pension fund raiding for other bullshit. |
|
|
| (1444082) | |
Re: Death toll to exceed 100? (London Fire) |
|
|
Posted by Henry R32 #3730 on Sat Jun 24 21:44:28 2017, in response to Re: Death toll to exceed 100? (London Fire), posted by Dave on Thu Jun 15 11:56:25 2017. The building was fine. They used cheap arabic-style cladding when they renovated it (presumably to make it prettier to the neighborhood) and that is what caused problems. I would look at the projects in Coney Island to make sure they didn't make the same mistake. But any apartment building built in any English speaking country from the 60s onward should never have had this happen. |
|
|
| (1444091) | |
Re: Death toll to exceed 100? (London Fire) |
|
|
Posted by AlM on Sat Jun 24 22:25:18 2017, in response to Re: Death toll to exceed 100? (London Fire), posted by Henry R32 #3730 on Sat Jun 24 21:44:28 2017. But any apartment building built in any English speaking country from the 60s onward should never have had this happen.Sadly the UK does not have as strict building codes as the US. No US building that size built in the 70s, much less massively renovated in 2016, would have a single stairwell. |
|
|
[1 2] |
||
|
Page 2 of 2 |
||