Remember When?

[Andy the Actuary]

What happened? Form and instructions used to be but two pages !!!

f5500sb__1976.pdf

[SoCalActuary]

I like pepper-jack cheese and artichoke hearts with my Whine.

My favorite theory is that the govt hires too many actuaries and attorneys, whose job is to make perfect forms which are the enemy of "good-enough" forms.

[mbozek]

I like pepper-jack cheese and artichoke hearts with my Whine.

My favorite theory is that the govt hires too many actuaries and attorneys, whose job is to make perfect forms which are the enemy of "good-enough" forms.

The attorneys/actuaries are ony implimenting the continual barrage of legislation mandated by a Congress that is always trying to prevent the last crisis from occurring in the future or protect plan participants from some imagined risk be it investment risk (QDIA, annuities,) or insufficiently funded plans (PPA). Congress cannot protect plan sponsors from obsolescence (Kodak, Borders), inability to control expenses when revenue declines (all airlines, domestic steel co) etc. I have read reports that ERISA and tax laws for pension plans have been revised more the 25 times since 1974. It is interesting to note that ther are some regulations that were, proposed or revoked as long as 30 years ago that have not been adopted or deleted (think Carter regs for disclosure). There is a constant churning of rules and polices which morf into different forms as administrations change from on party to the other which requires constant revision to the procedures regulating retirement plans.

[MoJo]

I like pepper-jack cheese and artichoke hearts with my Whine.

My favorite theory is that the govt hires too many actuaries and attorneys, whose job is to make perfect forms which are the enemy of "good-enough" forms.

...or, private sector actuaries and attorneys are always trying to game the system and provide greater levels of benefits (at taxpayer expense) than they should, and continue to abuse the system, requiring more and more restrictions.

As a private sector attorney/consultant, I stand as guilty as my colleagues....

[david rigby]

...or, private sector actuaries and attorneys are always trying to game the system and provide greater levels of benefits (at taxpayer expense) than they should, and continue to abuse the system, requiring more and more restrictions.

As a private sector attorney/consultant, I stand as guilty as my colleagues....

"taxpayer expense" might be a debatable point, as is "should"

[MoJo]

...or, private sector actuaries and attorneys are always trying to game the system and provide greater levels of benefits (at taxpayer expense) than they should, and continue to abuse the system, requiring more and more restrictions.

As a private sector attorney/consultant, I stand as guilty as my colleagues....

"taxpayer expense" might be a debatable point, as is "should"

Taxpayer expense in my mind isn't debatable - it refers tot he HUGE value of the tax deferral that qualified plans (and participants in them) enjoy. The "should" descriptor refers to the fact that if you want me, as a taxpayer, to subsidize your savings, then I insist that there be limits on the benefit you receive, and rules to prevent abuse (and I have seen plenty of that in my career).

Don't want the limits? The solution is simple - don't use a TAX QUALIFIED vehicle for savings. There is no requirement that an employer offer one, or that participants participate in them.

[frizzyguy]

The system is set up to give employers incentives to give money to their employees. We follow the letter of the law/regs to provide employers a larger benefit.

If this system was setup so employees needed to get more money, many small employers wouldn't set up a plan. Then what happens to the tax payers.

Also, there are limits (IRC 415) about the benefits and also rules that prevent abuse (IRC 410b, 401(a)(26) and 401(a)(4).