|
||||||||||||
|
|
||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||
Defined-Contribution Retirement Plans?A Bad Idea DefinedBy Deborah A. WilburnThinking about retirement may not be a favorite pastime, but it is necessary, especially if you hope to file away your lesson plans permanently one day. The good news? You’re likely among the 90 percent of all K–12 teachers and education support professionals who currently have what’s called a defined-benefit plan. That can make the difference between having enough money in retirement and coming up short. Defined-benefit plans have several key characteristics: Predictability. You know how much of a monthly benefit you will receive at retirement age, making it easier to plan for the future. The benefit is typically calculated according to a formula based on years of service and final average salary. Security. The benefit is guaranteed for the rest of your life. Expert money management. The funds put into the plan on your behalf by your employer (and you, if your plan requires employee contributions) are professionally managed. Low expenses. Fees associated with having the money professionally managed are low, increasing earnings. Extra benefits. Many defined-benefit plans are comprehensive, offering additional perks such as cost of living adjustments, retiree health coverage, disability, and early retirement. The alternative is the defined-contribution plan. These are individual, tax-deferred investment accounts funded by the employer, the employee, or both, depending on how the plan is designed. However, it’s up to employees to determine how that money will be invested. As a supplemental investment product, they can be a useful tool. But if a state decides to offer a defined-contribution plan to fund employee pensions, the balance in educators’ accounts when they leave—especially in states that are not part of Social Security—could represent their entire retirement package. Judging by how poorly the majority of participants fare with thes e plans, many are in danger of reaching retirement with nowhere near adequate money. When politicians make noises about converting public employees to a defined-contribution plan, it’s usually promoted as a cost-saving measure that workers are clamoring for—neither of which is necessarily true. “Experience in places that have converted to a defined-contribution plan shows it doesn’t save money and, in fact, can be more expensive,” says Nancy McKenzie, NEA’s senior pension specialist. Unfortunately, some workers mistakenly assume they stand to gain from employee-managed plans. “People think, ‘My employer is putting 10 percent of my pay into a defined-benefit plan, I’d rather have that in my own account,’” says McKenzie. But, “usually the employer contribution is lower when the conversion is made, because the idea is to save the employer money.” If you hear that your state legislature is considering changing your defined-benefit to a defined-contribution plan, it’s important to take a stand. NEA has developed a tool kit, “Protecting the Retirement Security of NEA Members,” available at www.nea.org/retired/tools/ publications.html. It has research, more resources, and concrete steps for developing an action plan. “It’s important for people to understand and appreciate the value of what they have,” says McKenzie. And, if necessary, to defend it.
| ||||||||||||
Printer friendly E-mail | ||||||||||||
help contact us change your address sitemap legal privacy policy your california privacy rights advertise jobs@nea © Copyright 2002-2008 National Education Association ![]() |
||||||||||||