Excellent column, Don! I was on the "inside" of this for many years, working for a financial institution and then 14 years at a public pension fund. Public pensions, and I assume this applies in part to Social Security, are far more efficient and they benefit lower income people. Many politicians have tried to take the risk off government and put it on the members of pension plans. because they are too "political" to allow the plans to be funded and managed properly (Maryland used to be a perfect example). There are other aspects, most notably, that the administrative costs for plans like 401k's are typically 1.5% give or take, which benefits the private money managers (often wealthier people). The parallel costs for pension plans are about 0.5% or about a third. Keep up the fine work. IG
Excellent column, Don! I was on the "inside" of this for many years, working for a financial institution and then 14 years at a public pension fund. Public pensions, and I assume this applies in part to Social Security, are far more efficient and they benefit lower income people. Many politicians have tried to take the risk off government and put it on the members of pension plans. because they are too "political" to allow the plans to be funded and managed properly (Maryland used to be a perfect example). There are other aspects, most notably, that the administrative costs for plans like 401k's are typically 1.5% give or take, which benefits the private money managers (often wealthier people). The parallel costs for pension plans are about 0.5% or about a third. Keep up the fine work. IG
Thanks, Ira. It's gratifying to get confirmation from an insider.