Jump to content

403(b) for Schools


Recommended Posts

Joel: You can take your issues to the NJ attorney general. There is no reason for taxpayers to subsidize a 457 plan.

mgb: You are all mixed-up! All fees are paid by the paricipants...the taxpayer pays ZERO! Any increase in fees is paid by the participant.

Can you now think of a viable reason for the state's decision to farm out the plan to Prudential Financial?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Don- in NJ retiree health benefits vest after 5yrs of svc . State is on the hook when ee reaches retirement age.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest yanfan

Hi Joel,

Thanks for taking the time to respond. Do you know if transfers from another 403b plan can be made into the SACT plan in NJ (90-24) ? Also, do you think this type of fund is a better choice than a Vanguard index fund for the long term?

Thanks again.

John

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Don- in NJ retiree health benefits vest after 5yrs of svc . State is on the hook when ee reaches retirement age.

A retiree must have worked 25 years as a public employee in NJ in order to have free health insurance.

Joel

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Joel:

Thanks for your reply.

I am much more familiar with private sector retiree health benefits than those in the public sector.

Every court case I have seen discusses whether health benefits vest or not.

Not one case that I can recall refers to vesting of how the benefits are paid for.

Is anyone familiar with any case in which the employer not only had to provide lifetime benefits, but also had to pay for the benefits in full?

Don Levit

Link to comment
Share on other sites

According to published reports, in 2003 the Alaska Supreme court ruled that the legislature could not reduce state provided retiree health benefits that had been promised to retired state workers which resulted in the legislature substituting a DC retirement plan and health reimbursement plan for the state DB plan for new hires beginning 2006.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

no- I dont know any more than what was is in my previous post. Most state constitutions have provisons that prohibit cut backs of accrued benefits or even reduction for future benefit accrual for public employees. NY has a prohibition against reducing benefits for public employees that requires creation of separate groups for new employees every time there is a change in benefits for public employee.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...