So you're saying when it comes to managing the pension system, the focus is solely on the beneficiaries? What happened to stakeholder capitalism? Aren't the taxpayers and the students stakeholders in the educational system? Don't their needs matter?
The fiduciaries to the pension funds, specifically, are to make sure the pensions are managed to the benefit to the participants in the pensions. Not to play politics with those funds.
That's all.
Now, re: the governance (and I looked over both presentations, which looked just fine to me) -- usually the nature of the benefits to be earned are crafted not by the boards overseeing the pensions, but by the legislatures or board of education or somebody not overseeing the funds. And the legislatures are NOT fiduciaries (hmm). They also often make the promises (the benefit formulas) but then do not provide sufficient contributions to support those promises.
So yes, there are other stakeholders, and the politicians (who are not fiduciaries to the pensions) are supposed to be balancing these interests. The question is: how well do they?
A lot of teachers pensions are such that they are not part of Social Security.
I wished that when they did that Social Security giveaway recently they simply forced everybody on SocSec, and we wouldn't have the whining about the WEP, etc.
So you're saying when it comes to managing the pension system, the focus is solely on the beneficiaries? What happened to stakeholder capitalism? Aren't the taxpayers and the students stakeholders in the educational system? Don't their needs matter?
The fiduciaries to the pension funds, specifically, are to make sure the pensions are managed to the benefit to the participants in the pensions. Not to play politics with those funds.
That's all.
Now, re: the governance (and I looked over both presentations, which looked just fine to me) -- usually the nature of the benefits to be earned are crafted not by the boards overseeing the pensions, but by the legislatures or board of education or somebody not overseeing the funds. And the legislatures are NOT fiduciaries (hmm). They also often make the promises (the benefit formulas) but then do not provide sufficient contributions to support those promises.
So yes, there are other stakeholders, and the politicians (who are not fiduciaries to the pensions) are supposed to be balancing these interests. The question is: how well do they?
Of course!
"Ohio teachers are not required to pay Social Security taxes.
Instead, they contribute to the School Employees Retirement System of Ohio (SERS) and do not earn qualified service toward Social Security.
This system provides a lifetime pension for teachers who meet certain age and service requirements.
However, teachers still need to pay federal income tax." (Source Brave Search)
A lot of teachers pensions are such that they are not part of Social Security.
I wished that when they did that Social Security giveaway recently they simply forced everybody on SocSec, and we wouldn't have the whining about the WEP, etc.
https://marypatcampbell.substack.com/p/social-security-tinkering-no-its