邢唷��>� ,.��+��欹�%` ��bjbjN郚� 4$,�,�� 22222222rtttttt$�hQ��22222��22�RRR2�2�2rR2rRR��R2&牁l~v伾�BRr�0�R/ R/ R/ �R 22R22222��R222�2222��SMURA submission to Nova Scotia Panel on Pensions, January, 2009. (from a letter to Paul Huber, Dalhousie retirees association. We certainly agree that it is not a good idea to make locked in pension funds available in any amount to retirees (if this is the intention of the recommendation, which seems unclear.) Anyway, doesn't Revenue Canada place federal restrictions on maximum amounts that can be withdrawn from these plans, that could not be changed by the actions of any one province? We do have some other concerns especially in regard to defined contribution plans. One thing, of course, is the amount that the employer contributes to the plan. At 91制片厂Pro, these percentages have been fixed for many years at: employee 6 per cent, employer 8 per cent, for a total of 14 per cent put aside every year. Obviously we would benefit by a higher level of contributions. Limits on pension contributions have been increasing in recent years, and our plan could be altered to take advantage of these raised limits on RSP's. Our defined contribution plan has certain advantages: (1) the funds are in the employee's name and are thus more secure against bankruptcy, mismanagement or default, as has happened with other plans, (2) upon retirement the funds are the property of the retiree, and stay with him and his estate, which compensates to some extent for lower levels of pay out while the retiree is alive, and (3) the employee and subsequent retiree has more control over the investment and dispersal of these funds. The disadvantage, however, of these defined contribution plans is in the lower levels of annual pay outs to retirees as compared with some defined benefit plans. I suppose also that our pensions are subject to the vicissitudes of the market, but also we are freed from the need for perpetual bargaining with the employer even after retirement. With these considerations in mind, our concerns revolve around the levels of contribution. Faculty themselves are perhaps partly to blame, also, in not seeing the advantages during collective bargaining of putting more effort into non-salary benefits, which save them income tax, and opting for the short range gain of salaries that appear higher. It is to our advantage to have more of the faculty wage package put into non-taxable benefits, such as professional expenses and pensions. We should get the employer to make a great percentage contribution to pension plans, as is permitted by law. The security and performance of investments is also a major concern. During the time of their employment, we are all under a single carrier, and that performance must be closely monitored. The financial stability of these institutions must also be carefully assessed, and CURAC and CAUT must be instrumental in pressing for greater scrutiny of providers of pension investments. These must also be guaranteed by government to an adequate level, as are our personal bank accounts. The levels of returns on Defined Contribution plans also depend on the participation of employees. Membership in these plans should be mandatory at all ages. Frequently younger academics do not have a longer range perspective on their financial needs in later life, and do not invest to the maximum extent possible. Education, as well as legal limitations, are necessary to enable faculty to take advantage of interest compounding over as long a time as possible. So in sum, our concerns about pensions at 91制片厂Pro, in relation to the report of the Nova Scotia Pension Panel, include: (1) maintaining the locked-in status of pension plans (i.e., transfer to a LIF from the pension funds); (2) scrutiny of the financial status and performance of pension plan carriers; (3) adequate levels of federally backed insurance of pension plans; (4) a higher level of contributions to pension plans by employers; (5) mandatory participation in pension plans for faculty while employed; (6) education on investment and financial planning. Thank you again for your efforts in giving input to the pension panel. And please keep us in the loop on what CURAC is doing along these lines. Ronald Cosper President, SMURA ��h蘞Dh蘞Dh謡€�� \ � � � @ � � 'o�D��% s � S��2}� ��gd蘞D�� X��>��!l�G��Q��.z��+x�[��gd蘞D[��(no~��gd蘞D 21恏:p蘞D靶/ 班=!�'"�'#悹$悹%�靶靶愋��@@�@NormalCJ_HaJmH sH tH DA��DDefault Paragraph FontRi��RTable Normal�4� l4�a�(k��(No ListDZ@�D蘞D Plain TextCJOJQJ^JaJ�$�� [��謡蘞D�@€�!��p@��Unknown��G��: �Times New Roman5�€Symbol3&��: �Arial?5� 噝 €�Courier New"1�鹦h炪裦炪裦�R�R!�'��亖4��2��HP�?��蘞D2��@SMURA submission to Nova Scotia Panel on Pensions, January, 2009 Ronald Cosper Ronald Cosper�鄥燆鵒h珣+'迟0�� 0 HT t€ ��DSMURA submission to Nova Scotia Panel on Pensions, January, 2009Ronald CosperNormalRonald Cosper2Microsoft Office Word@襂k@€mv伾@€mv伾�R�胀諟.摋+,0<hp�� 91制片厂Pro�'ASMURA submission to Nova Scotia Panel on Pensions, January, 2009Title �� !"��$%&'()*��-��Root Entry�� Fp蓏~v伾/€1Table��WordDocument��4$SummaryInformation(��DocumentSummaryInformation8��#CompObj��q�� FMicrosoft Office Word Document MSWordDocWord.Document.8�9瞦