Anonymously contributed:
It is time for Glenn Mara, now head of LLNS/LANS to begin cleaning house.
An open letter to Glenn.
Dear Glenn,
During the transition, one of the silliest reprisals that jealous Congressional staff took at LANL and LLNL was to remove the option of Lump-sum cashout from TCP-1.
There is no reason to continue this and we request that you get this changed.
Having a lump-sum cash-out option is a no-cost benefit to TCP-1 members. It costs NNSA/LLNS nothing, since it is actuarially equivalent to an annuity payout. ERISAs assumptions are very consevative, so no losses would occur. The faster TCP-1 benefits are paid off, the faster the porcine Congress can waste the left-overs stoking their unsatiable egos.
Why lump-sum? Because I would like complete separation from LLNS. While I trust Mara, I trust no one else running LLNS. I want my money outta there before some Bush-era MBA bu*********r figures out how to screw me, through adjusting factors, misinterpretting law or "Madoffing" us with glee.
Please write me a check before you retire and the incompetence resumes.
Monday, August 24, 2009
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
10 comments:
Dream on.
Go back to RFP, pre-Transition, and Transition documents …
The lump sums computed under TCP1/ERISA (using required
interest rates, annuity tables, etc) were greater than UCRPs. Therefore,
not ‘substantially equivalent’, and thus not allowed.
Remember that a lump sum cash out was considered not to be "substantially equivalent". Of course substantially equivalent meant the lowest option possible.
One of the hindrances of taking a lump sum on the UC was the forfeiture of retirement in medical. Since the mantra of "retirement medical is not guranteed" is not being uttered time and time again, that penalty is losing it's teeth.
I am curious, if you didn't trust LLNS, why did you choose TCP1?
It is your money, lump sum should be an option.
Perhaps they don't want the cashouts because they need the funds to pay off current retirees.
If the funds drop below a set level, the interest won't cover the payouts, and everyone has to start contributing again. And who wants that, right?
Maybe the problem here is that you are still thinking democratic, while this is a socialist time.
LAstly, Don't forget about the management fees you pay every year. Who would want to give that up, its free money! Thanks partner. Now be a good socialist and run along quietly.
"Glenn Mara, now head of LLNS/LANS" ??? WTH are you talking about?
"Maybe the problem here is that you are still thinking democratic, while this is a socialist time."
What a broken record. This is a factor of capitalism, the market and the workplace NOT which administration is in office. Just quit it with the "Socialist" bugaboo. It's getting old.
Sarah said it was a socialist 'death panel' that euthanized lump sum for TCP-1!
Perhaps they don't want the cashouts because they need the funds to pay off current retirees. -- why should they let you have a lump sum when all they have to do is wait for you to die and keep it.
Hey Original poster:
I saw you comment but could not publish it because it has an expletive. Rules are rules.
Why do you see the need for an expletive? Does it make your point clearer?
Post a Comment