Keyword:
Benefits and Pensions Monitor - Latest News Benefits and Pensions Monitor - Archives Benefits and Pensions Monitor - Classifieds Benefits and Pensions Monitor - Events Benefits and Pensions Monitor - Directories Benefits and Pensions Monitor - Subscribe
Inspired - Benefits and Pensions Monitor

Home
News
Archives
Classifieds
Events / Conferences
Directories
Subscribe
Resources
FAQs
Contact Us
Advertise In Monitor
Advertising Links


Browse by Topics

A Conversation With
Administration
Alternative Investment
Consultants
Global Custody
Money Managers
Benefits
Compensation
DB Pensions
DC Pensions
Disability Management
EAFE & Emerging Markets
Executive Compensation
Group Insurance
Healthcare
Investment
Legal
Miscellaneous
Pensions
Retirement Planning
Risk Management
Socially Responsible Investment
Technology

Benefits and Pensions Monitor

Gradual Contribution Reduction Hardly An Advantage Public Sector Plans Have No Favoured Position

Having read the recent editorial in the August issue of the Monitor, I believe some clarification is necessary.

The recent changes to the Income Tax Act regarding plan surplus do not give public sector plans any undue advantage or favoured position.

Rather, they provide some equity in the rules for cost shared plans.

For example, in OMERS the pension plan costs, all of them, are shared 50/50 between employers and employees. Contributions (currently just over 6.5 per cent each) are equal. Therefore, under the previous ITArules for excess surplus, when surplus exceeded 10 per cent both employee and employer contributions ceased, according to the 50/50 arrangement.

In a plan that is not cost shared in this way, only the employer contributions were required to cease. The new rules recognize this critical difference and allow a more gradual contribution reduction for both employee and employer contributions. This is hardly an ‘advantage.’

Further, when we first wanted to bring this issue to the fore with Finance and CCRA in Ottawa, we approached industry associations to solicit support for our efforts. We found that there was absolutely no interest among non-cost shared plans.

Plan sponsors seemed quite content with the current rules, as, I believe, it was a relatively non-controversial way of accessing plan surplus.

Michael Beswick OMERS

 

Subscribe to Monitor

 

Home / News Alerts / Archives / Classifieds / Events / Directories / Resources / Subscribe / Login / Contact Us
Advertise In Monitor / Advertising Links / FAQs / People / Privacy Policy / Terms of Service / Sitemap

Copyright ©1999 - 2008 Benefits and Pensions Monitor. All rights reserved.
Pension Fund Investment - Employee Benefits Management

Benefits and Pensions Monitor - Contact Us Benefits and Pensions Monitor - Login Benefits and Pensions Monitor logo