加拿大的目标福利计划——一个值得推广的创新

Jana Steele, Angela Maserolle, Mel Bartlett
{"title":"加拿大的目标福利计划——一个值得推广的创新","authors":"Jana Steele, Angela Maserolle, Mel Bartlett","doi":"10.2139/SSRN.2464197","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"The limitations inherent in the traditional pension models – defined contribution (DC) and defined benefit (DB) – are facing increased scrutiny and new models are developing in response to these pressures. Due to extremely low interest rates and the volatility of equity markets, over the past several years many DB pension plans have suffered significant solvency deficits. As a result, plan sponsors have sought relief from higher contributions required under pension laws. Temporary relief measures granted in certain jurisdictions have not addressed the underlying issues but have provided merely short-term solutions. At the other end of the spectrum, DC plans incorporate both predictable contributions and an alignment of risk and reward for plan members, but they leave complicated investment decision-making to plan members who frequently have no investment expertise. Furthermore, DC plans fail to capture substantial value available from pooling of costs, investment risk and longevity risk among plan members. We need to move beyond the DB versus DC debate towards a middle-ground option that incorporates some of the positive attributes of both designs. Target-benefit plans (TBPs) can deliver the cost predictability of DC plans combined with a defined-benefit-type pension to retirees, with predictable contribution levels, and enable pooling of longevity and investment risks. This Commentary reviews the recent New Brunswick shared risk pension legislation and draws lessons that can be applied to the design of similar TBP legislation elsewhere. In most Canadian jurisdictions, pension laws do not currently accommodate single-employer TBPs – although several provinces have taken initial steps. Existing legislation generally prohibits reduction of accrued benefits outside of the multi-employer unionized environment, and a key element of TBPs is their ability to let benefits vary as a function of the funding status of the plan. Tax rules must be changed to accommodate single-employer TBPs. As well, clear and logical accounting guidance for TBPs must be established to facilitate the emergence of such plans. Also, a jurisdictions wishes to permit conversion of accrued benefits to target benefits, legislative change is required. In New Brunswick, accrued benefits may be converted, which can promote intergenerational equity. Pension standards laws across the country will have to be changed in order to facilitate the emergence of new design options such as single-employer TBPs.","PeriodicalId":76903,"journal":{"name":"Employee benefits journal","volume":"40 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2014-07-09","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"13","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Target- Benefit Plans in Canada – An Innovation Worth Expanding\",\"authors\":\"Jana Steele, Angela Maserolle, Mel Bartlett\",\"doi\":\"10.2139/SSRN.2464197\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"The limitations inherent in the traditional pension models – defined contribution (DC) and defined benefit (DB) – are facing increased scrutiny and new models are developing in response to these pressures. Due to extremely low interest rates and the volatility of equity markets, over the past several years many DB pension plans have suffered significant solvency deficits. As a result, plan sponsors have sought relief from higher contributions required under pension laws. Temporary relief measures granted in certain jurisdictions have not addressed the underlying issues but have provided merely short-term solutions. At the other end of the spectrum, DC plans incorporate both predictable contributions and an alignment of risk and reward for plan members, but they leave complicated investment decision-making to plan members who frequently have no investment expertise. Furthermore, DC plans fail to capture substantial value available from pooling of costs, investment risk and longevity risk among plan members. We need to move beyond the DB versus DC debate towards a middle-ground option that incorporates some of the positive attributes of both designs. Target-benefit plans (TBPs) can deliver the cost predictability of DC plans combined with a defined-benefit-type pension to retirees, with predictable contribution levels, and enable pooling of longevity and investment risks. This Commentary reviews the recent New Brunswick shared risk pension legislation and draws lessons that can be applied to the design of similar TBP legislation elsewhere. In most Canadian jurisdictions, pension laws do not currently accommodate single-employer TBPs – although several provinces have taken initial steps. Existing legislation generally prohibits reduction of accrued benefits outside of the multi-employer unionized environment, and a key element of TBPs is their ability to let benefits vary as a function of the funding status of the plan. Tax rules must be changed to accommodate single-employer TBPs. As well, clear and logical accounting guidance for TBPs must be established to facilitate the emergence of such plans. Also, a jurisdictions wishes to permit conversion of accrued benefits to target benefits, legislative change is required. In New Brunswick, accrued benefits may be converted, which can promote intergenerational equity. Pension standards laws across the country will have to be changed in order to facilitate the emergence of new design options such as single-employer TBPs.\",\"PeriodicalId\":76903,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Employee benefits journal\",\"volume\":\"40 1\",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2014-07-09\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"13\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Employee benefits journal\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.2139/SSRN.2464197\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Employee benefits journal","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.2139/SSRN.2464197","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 13

摘要

传统养老金模式——固定缴款(DC)和固定收益(DB)——固有的局限性正面临越来越多的审查,新的模式正在发展,以应对这些压力。由于极低的利率和股票市场的波动,在过去几年中,许多固定养老金计划遭受了严重的偿付能力赤字。因此,计划发起人寻求减轻养老金法要求的更高缴款。在某些司法管辖区批准的临时救济措施并没有解决根本问题,而只是提供了短期解决办法。另一方面,固定缴款计划既包含可预测的供款,也为计划成员提供风险和回报的一致性,但它们将复杂的投资决策留给了通常没有投资专业知识的计划成员。此外,固定缴款计划未能从分摊成本、投资风险和计划成员的寿命风险中获得可观的价值。我们需要超越DB和DC之间的争论,找到一个结合两种设计的一些积极属性的中间选择。目标收益计划(tbp)可以为退休人员提供固定缴款计划(DC)和固定收益型养老金的成本可预测性,并具有可预测的供款水平,并实现寿命和投资风险的汇集。本评论回顾了新不伦瑞克省最近的共同风险养老金立法,并总结了可以应用于其他地方类似TBP立法设计的经验教训。在加拿大的大多数司法管辖区,养老金法律目前并不适用于单一雇主的tbp——尽管有几个省份已经采取了初步措施。现有立法一般禁止在多雇主工会环境之外减少应计福利,tbp的一个关键因素是,它们有能力让福利随着计划的资金状况而变化。税收规则必须改变,以适应单一雇主tbp。此外,必须为TBPs制定明确和合乎逻辑的会计指导,以促进此类计划的出现。此外,如果司法管辖区希望允许将累算福利转换为目标福利,则需要修改立法。在新不伦瑞克省,应计福利可以转换,这可以促进代际公平。全国各地的养老金标准法律都必须修改,以促进单一雇主tbp等新设计方案的出现。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
Target- Benefit Plans in Canada – An Innovation Worth Expanding
The limitations inherent in the traditional pension models – defined contribution (DC) and defined benefit (DB) – are facing increased scrutiny and new models are developing in response to these pressures. Due to extremely low interest rates and the volatility of equity markets, over the past several years many DB pension plans have suffered significant solvency deficits. As a result, plan sponsors have sought relief from higher contributions required under pension laws. Temporary relief measures granted in certain jurisdictions have not addressed the underlying issues but have provided merely short-term solutions. At the other end of the spectrum, DC plans incorporate both predictable contributions and an alignment of risk and reward for plan members, but they leave complicated investment decision-making to plan members who frequently have no investment expertise. Furthermore, DC plans fail to capture substantial value available from pooling of costs, investment risk and longevity risk among plan members. We need to move beyond the DB versus DC debate towards a middle-ground option that incorporates some of the positive attributes of both designs. Target-benefit plans (TBPs) can deliver the cost predictability of DC plans combined with a defined-benefit-type pension to retirees, with predictable contribution levels, and enable pooling of longevity and investment risks. This Commentary reviews the recent New Brunswick shared risk pension legislation and draws lessons that can be applied to the design of similar TBP legislation elsewhere. In most Canadian jurisdictions, pension laws do not currently accommodate single-employer TBPs – although several provinces have taken initial steps. Existing legislation generally prohibits reduction of accrued benefits outside of the multi-employer unionized environment, and a key element of TBPs is their ability to let benefits vary as a function of the funding status of the plan. Tax rules must be changed to accommodate single-employer TBPs. As well, clear and logical accounting guidance for TBPs must be established to facilitate the emergence of such plans. Also, a jurisdictions wishes to permit conversion of accrued benefits to target benefits, legislative change is required. In New Brunswick, accrued benefits may be converted, which can promote intergenerational equity. Pension standards laws across the country will have to be changed in order to facilitate the emergence of new design options such as single-employer TBPs.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
A Proposal for Taking the Complexities Out of Taxing U.S. Retirement Distributions to Foreign Nationals Do Social Movements Spur Corporate Change? The Rise of “MeToo Termination Rights” in CEO Contracts Rules of Medical Necessity Does Employee Ownership Reduce Strike Risk? Evidence from U.S. Union Elections All that Glitters Is not Gold. Effects of Working from Home on Income Inequality at the Time of COVID-19
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1