Talk:Retirement plans in the United States/Archives/2011

Employee vs. Employer associations
"Retirement plans may be set up by employers, insurance companies, the governement or other institutions such as employer associations or trade unions." Is this supposed to say employer associations or employee associations? Rmhermen 22:10, Oct 28, 2004 (UTC)
 * I know groups of employers can get together for the purpose of health insurance in the US, they are known as MEWA's or multi employer welfare organizations. And I just googled and found one thing referring to the idea at the fool.com link I added on the page:
 * "An Employer and Employee Association Trust Account, or Group IRA, is a traditional IRA set up by employers, unions, and other employee associations for employees or members."
 * They list it as one of the 11 types of IRA's. One I had never heard of. But apparently the answer is both - Taxman 23:52, Oct 28, 2004 (UTC)
 * As part of cleaning up the article, I've removed the reference as superfluous. We don't need to specifically list every type of sponsor in the article summary. If we do choose to list every possible type of plan sponsor, the article body is more appropriate anyway. Enharmonix (talk) 20:44, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

References anyone?
There is no single reference in the article.--  ExpImp talk con 12:24, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

Focus of article
This article is ostensible about all types of retirement plans in the US, but most of the discussion focuses solely on cash balance plans. See, for example, "Portability, Valuation" or "PBGC insurance, a legal difference". If the intent is to focus on the similarities and differences between DC and CB plans, the article should be renamed. Malik Shabazz 05:57, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

History of Pensions
The "History of Pensions" section would be more appropriate as a section of the Pension article.

Controversy settled?
The age discrimination controversy is most specifically mentioned in section 1.3 Hybrid and Cash Balance Plans. It is my understanding that the matter has been definitively settled (they do not discriminate) in all District courts meaning the Supreme Court is unlikely to hear any future cases on age discrimination with respect to cash balance plans. This info seems dated within the last few years. I don't have relevant information (i.e., citations) at my disposal, but maybe somebody out there can update this.

I mention it because I am cleaning up the article to meet MOS standards and would like to remove this information if it's outdated (I'm almost positive it is). At the very least, I want to "as of" date it, but I don't even have that information. If I get no feedback, I will go with my gut and edit out anything not explicitly backed up with a citation. Thanks Enharmonix (talk) 20:37, 24 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Almost all of the recent cases have rejected the age discrimination claims, although I wouldn't say that the matter is "definitively settled". The Pension Protection Act of 2006 provided relief for most hybrid plans on a prospective basis. I think it's safe to say that the plan designs were controversial, that there have been allegations of age discrimination, but that the courts have generally rejected such claims.


 * PS: Nice work with the article. I assume you work in the retirement field? — Malik Shabazz (talk · contribs) 20:54, 24 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Thanks, and yes, I do actually work in the retirement. I'll update accordingly. -- Enharmonix (talk) 22:42, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Employee Contributions
In 1.2 Defined Benefit Plans, I noticed that the article now says "Employee contributions to a cash balance plan are always eligible for lump sum distribution." I'm the one who originally noted this, and don't think I specified cash balance plans. If I'm not mistaken, this does not apply to cash balance plans. Specifically, there are two problems. First, employee contributions are always available as a lump sum for any type of plan, not just cash balance. Second, cash balance plans are not legally required to offer a lump sum, nor must they be contributory. To avoid any confusion, I've removed the offending sentence altogether.

We probably should not include this statement without a citation. --Enharmonix (talk) 19:03, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

explain the economic rationale behind premitting employers to integate retirement plans with social security.
explain the economic rationaledehind premitting employers to integate retirement plans with social security. i ask this question cause i wanna know this leroy johnson.. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.127.130.92 (talk) 18:07, 20 May 2011 (UTC)