Argument of Control

Posted by Sheri Harris on Saturday, April 11, 2009 Under: Finance

When any company loses its retirement investment via the stock market, what resource has the employee been given regarding money recovery options? Since the employee is a participant and contributes as much with the company inviting itself to match employee contribution, what generates an employer to be given permission to lose at least the employee's investment in any given plan?  If an employee were to make say, $80,000 one year and contributes $10,000 to the investment funds offered by the company, if the stock invested fails and a huge loss occurs; then how much money has that employee really earned during that year?

In a manner of speaking that employee has only earned actually $70,000. A scenario of employee investment, is that lots of employees have a fixed amount of income automatically deducted from their paycheck. So the employee actually never receives this income to make any decision regarding its use.  This is done to ensure employee contribution on a regular basis.

The debate questions, should the employer have ultimate control over employee income with regards to IRA and 401k plans? The conflict arises over the fact that if a stock should fail which may also include financial struggle for the company as well; the employee loses two-fold. This is because now the employee by automatic deduction has an income that was never received and will then eventually become subjected to remedies of corporate hardship.

Why should a company that pays the salary of its employees determine and oversee employees investments? Who is to say that employers in natural competition do not "grudge" in handing employee income by dominating where that money goes? I mean afterall, employers get paid even in choices leading to failure.

If the company is the "hen" that employees supposedly nuture until the "eggs" are hatched, then it would be of unnatural circumstance for the employee to return such productive deed. The reason in obvious is that the employee is no longer compensated by monetary means for his or her work.

The employee should be provided among all things a way to develop a retirement plan and inclusive in that plan an overall decision made by the employee concerning what to now do with the money set aside for retirement. In stages of life, as a company continues with employees from "chick to maturity"; and once matured the employee can now receive the "eggs" so dilligently nested.?

OTHERWISE, why would one work so many years to put them there?

In : Finance 



null

About Me


The writer professes a desire for human existence to evolve itself. If in effect change cannot withstand such struggles of forefather implementation; then it will be that of America who will exist without furthur progress. Sadiq's General e-mail: gdi104@aol.com

Argument of Control

Posted by Sheri Harris on Saturday, April 11, 2009 Under: Finance

When any company loses its retirement investment via the stock market, what resource has the employee been given regarding money recovery options? Since the employee is a participant and contributes as much with the company inviting itself to match employee contribution, what generates an employer to be given permission to lose at least the employee's investment in any given plan?  If an employee were to make say, $80,000 one year and contributes $10,000 to the investment funds offered by the company, if the stock invested fails and a huge loss occurs; then how much money has that employee really earned during that year?

In a manner of speaking that employee has only earned actually $70,000. A scenario of employee investment, is that lots of employees have a fixed amount of income automatically deducted from their paycheck. So the employee actually never receives this income to make any decision regarding its use.  This is done to ensure employee contribution on a regular basis.

The debate questions, should the employer have ultimate control over employee income with regards to IRA and 401k plans? The conflict arises over the fact that if a stock should fail which may also include financial struggle for the company as well; the employee loses two-fold. This is because now the employee by automatic deduction has an income that was never received and will then eventually become subjected to remedies of corporate hardship.

Why should a company that pays the salary of its employees determine and oversee employees investments? Who is to say that employers in natural competition do not "grudge" in handing employee income by dominating where that money goes? I mean afterall, employers get paid even in choices leading to failure.

If the company is the "hen" that employees supposedly nuture until the "eggs" are hatched, then it would be of unnatural circumstance for the employee to return such productive deed. The reason in obvious is that the employee is no longer compensated by monetary means for his or her work.

The employee should be provided among all things a way to develop a retirement plan and inclusive in that plan an overall decision made by the employee concerning what to now do with the money set aside for retirement. In stages of life, as a company continues with employees from "chick to maturity"; and once matured the employee can now receive the "eggs" so dilligently nested.?

OTHERWISE, why would one work so many years to put them there?

In : Finance 



null

Argument of Control

Posted by Sheri Harris on Saturday, April 11, 2009 Under: Finance

When any company loses its retirement investment via the stock market, what resource has the employee been given regarding money recovery options? Since the employee is a participant and contributes as much with the company inviting itself to match employee contribution, what generates an employer to be given permission to lose at least the employee's investment in any given plan?  If an employee were to make say, $80,000 one year and contributes $10,000 to the investment funds offered by the company, if the stock invested fails and a huge loss occurs; then how much money has that employee really earned during that year?

In a manner of speaking that employee has only earned actually $70,000. A scenario of employee investment, is that lots of employees have a fixed amount of income automatically deducted from their paycheck. So the employee actually never receives this income to make any decision regarding its use.  This is done to ensure employee contribution on a regular basis.

The debate questions, should the employer have ultimate control over employee income with regards to IRA and 401k plans? The conflict arises over the fact that if a stock should fail which may also include financial struggle for the company as well; the employee loses two-fold. This is because now the employee by automatic deduction has an income that was never received and will then eventually become subjected to remedies of corporate hardship.

Why should a company that pays the salary of its employees determine and oversee employees investments? Who is to say that employers in natural competition do not "grudge" in handing employee income by dominating where that money goes? I mean afterall, employers get paid even in choices leading to failure.

If the company is the "hen" that employees supposedly nuture until the "eggs" are hatched, then it would be of unnatural circumstance for the employee to return such productive deed. The reason in obvious is that the employee is no longer compensated by monetary means for his or her work.

The employee should be provided among all things a way to develop a retirement plan and inclusive in that plan an overall decision made by the employee concerning what to now do with the money set aside for retirement. In stages of life, as a company continues with employees from "chick to maturity"; and once matured the employee can now receive the "eggs" so dilligently nested.?

OTHERWISE, why would one work so many years to put them there?

In : Finance 



null

Argument of Control

Posted by Sheri Harris on Saturday, April 11, 2009 Under: Finance

When any company loses its retirement investment via the stock market, what resource has the employee been given regarding money recovery options? Since the employee is a participant and contributes as much with the company inviting itself to match employee contribution, what generates an employer to be given permission to lose at least the employee's investment in any given plan?  If an employee were to make say, $80,000 one year and contributes $10,000 to the investment funds offered by the company, if the stock invested fails and a huge loss occurs; then how much money has that employee really earned during that year?

In a manner of speaking that employee has only earned actually $70,000. A scenario of employee investment, is that lots of employees have a fixed amount of income automatically deducted from their paycheck. So the employee actually never receives this income to make any decision regarding its use.  This is done to ensure employee contribution on a regular basis.

The debate questions, should the employer have ultimate control over employee income with regards to IRA and 401k plans? The conflict arises over the fact that if a stock should fail which may also include financial struggle for the company as well; the employee loses two-fold. This is because now the employee by automatic deduction has an income that was never received and will then eventually become subjected to remedies of corporate hardship.

Why should a company that pays the salary of its employees determine and oversee employees investments? Who is to say that employers in natural competition do not "grudge" in handing employee income by dominating where that money goes? I mean afterall, employers get paid even in choices leading to failure.

If the company is the "hen" that employees supposedly nuture until the "eggs" are hatched, then it would be of unnatural circumstance for the employee to return such productive deed. The reason in obvious is that the employee is no longer compensated by monetary means for his or her work.

The employee should be provided among all things a way to develop a retirement plan and inclusive in that plan an overall decision made by the employee concerning what to now do with the money set aside for retirement. In stages of life, as a company continues with employees from "chick to maturity"; and once matured the employee can now receive the "eggs" so dilligently nested.?

OTHERWISE, why would one work so many years to put them there?

In : Finance 



null

Argument of Control

Posted by Sheri Harris on Saturday, April 11, 2009 Under: Finance

When any company loses its retirement investment via the stock market, what resource has the employee been given regarding money recovery options? Since the employee is a participant and contributes as much with the company inviting itself to match employee contribution, what generates an employer to be given permission to lose at least the employee's investment in any given plan?  If an employee were to make say, $80,000 one year and contributes $10,000 to the investment funds offered by the company, if the stock invested fails and a huge loss occurs; then how much money has that employee really earned during that year?

In a manner of speaking that employee has only earned actually $70,000. A scenario of employee investment, is that lots of employees have a fixed amount of income automatically deducted from their paycheck. So the employee actually never receives this income to make any decision regarding its use.  This is done to ensure employee contribution on a regular basis.

The debate questions, should the employer have ultimate control over employee income with regards to IRA and 401k plans? The conflict arises over the fact that if a stock should fail which may also include financial struggle for the company as well; the employee loses two-fold. This is because now the employee by automatic deduction has an income that was never received and will then eventually become subjected to remedies of corporate hardship.

Why should a company that pays the salary of its employees determine and oversee employees investments? Who is to say that employers in natural competition do not "grudge" in handing employee income by dominating where that money goes? I mean afterall, employers get paid even in choices leading to failure.

If the company is the "hen" that employees supposedly nuture until the "eggs" are hatched, then it would be of unnatural circumstance for the employee to return such productive deed. The reason in obvious is that the employee is no longer compensated by monetary means for his or her work.

The employee should be provided among all things a way to develop a retirement plan and inclusive in that plan an overall decision made by the employee concerning what to now do with the money set aside for retirement. In stages of life, as a company continues with employees from "chick to maturity"; and once matured the employee can now receive the "eggs" so dilligently nested.?

OTHERWISE, why would one work so many years to put them there?

In : Finance 



null