The Double Dip Party Continues

A news article caught my attention today. Pension + Salary — how’s that for a “retention bonus”?

It is an issue that is rising is concern across the US. My hope is that it will soon be addressed in Canada as well. My recent blog called Canada promotes double dipping covered the basics of the issue.

If you see any Canadian articles about double dipping, please let me know.

Some NY lawmakers collect pension pay and salaries
State Legislators Double-Dip Salaries, Pensions; Lone Holdout Honored
In Utah - Double dippers adding to the pension fund problem?

USA Today - Our view on ‘double dipping’: Public sector ‘retirees’ draw a pension — and a paycheck
Auditor: 'Double dipping' costs Del. $17M a year
Florida limits 'double-dipping' for state workers

Canada promotes double dipping when most governments are eliminating it!

As the slogan for Red Rose tea says... Only in Canada Eh!

Jonathan Chevreau of the Wealthy Boomer and the National Post recently created a video that described how the Canadian government promoted double-dipping to Canadian public sector employees. Phased retirement video

This is a scheme that was hatched in the federal budget in 2007. There was not much discussion about the deal at the time. With the new environment in pensions it has highlighted the huge gap between public sector pensions and the average Canadian retiree. The idea was originally designed to help companies deal with labor shortages. Of course the bureaucrats who wrote it made sure that there was something in it for themselves. Phased retirement article

It was an issue that I had written about before in a previous article Double-Dipping. Imagine getting your gold-plated pension at age 50 and then government telling you they want to have you back at your old job... at full pay. With the elimination of mandatory retirement we will see public sector employees eligible for 2 gold-plated pensions.

I have been advocating for pensions disclosure similar to the Sunshine List in Ontario and B.C. There is one in California that lists those pensioners earning over $100,000 per year. We need one in Canada to list those who have excessive pensions in Canada. They were after all negotiated between them and the taxpayer. the only problem was that during the negotiations the taxpayers had no-one to represent them.

Most government in North America are looking for ways to eliminate double-dipping and Canada wants to promote it.
In Arkansas - State legislator puts spotlight on ‘double dipping’ county officials
Ohio needs to rein in double-dipping by public officials
Double Dipping in Florida
Upset in Delaware about double-dipping

The great public-sector pension rip-off

The Economist published an article that reported on public sector pensions.

It is called The great public-sector pension rip-off. It is a short article but highlights the key points about what is wrong with our public sector pensions. Although it is written from the UK it perfectly describes Canadian pensions as well.

JOIN a private-sector company these days and you will be very lucky if you get a pension linked to your final salary. In Britain almost three out of four companies that retain such schemes have closed them to new employees. The cost of paying such benefits, which are partly linked to inflation and offer payouts to surviving spouses, is simply too high now that many retirees are surviving into their 80s.

Yet most new public-sector employees in Britain and America continue to benefit from pensions linked to their salaries. The pension costs facing the public sector are roughly the same as those facing the private sector; their employees are likely to live just as long. But because of the presumed largesse of future taxpayers, governments seem under much less pressure to reduce their pension costs. In 2005 a reform package in Britain raised the retirement age for new state employees, but still left existing employees able to retire at 60.

Note: In Canada the retirement age begins as early as 50 for some public sector workers and most are eligible for retirement beginning at age 55 for full pensions. Many workers in the public sector will spend more time in retirement than they did working. For many the pension income will be far greater than their working income ever was.

Perhaps the real reason why public-sector pension costs have not been tackled is that the full bill has never been revealed to taxpayers. Calculating the cost of a pension scheme depends on two key assumptions. The first is the potential longevity of the employees; the second is the discount rate applied to future benefits. The higher the discount rate, the smaller the liability appears to be. There is a lot of debate about the right discount rate to use, but the conservative approach is to take the cost of government borrowing. Use that rate, and the liability of American state and municipal pension schemes may be $3 trillion—three times the value of all the authorities’ existing debts. In Britain the liability adds up to 85% of GDP.

Even if that figure overstates the problem, there is little doubt that governments are understating their pensions liabilities. When workers in Britain are transferred from the public to the private sector, they are entitled to keep their pension rights; employers who take them on find that their pension costs are around double those estimated by the public sector. The fudge seems likely to continue. A consultation document sent out by the British government suggested that, rather than raising taxes or cutting spending, local authorities should fall short of fully funding their pension liabilities in the short term.

Note: A recent blog of mine called The need for transparency in public sector pensions addressed this issue of the real pension shortfalls that exist.
Public affluence, private penury

There may be an argument for giving some public-sector workers, such as the police or the armed services, higher pay and benefits in the form of pensions. But the cost should be fully accounted for. Today’s opaque pensions system is unfair to private-sector workers, who suffer a triple whammy. First, most are now enrolled in riskier defined contribution (DC) pension schemes, where payouts depend on investment performance. Second, employers make smaller contributions to DC schemes than to final-salary plans, so pensions are likely to be lower. And third, as well as shouldering more of the burden for their own retirement, private-sector workers pay for public-sector pensions via their taxes. There is, in effect, a hidden transfer from private-sector workers to their public-sector peers. In Britain it may amount to as much as 30% of pay.

When the full costs become apparent, taxpayers may demand reform. Cutting costs is not easy: the bulk relate to promises already made. But raising the retirement age for public-sector workers in order to reflect increased life expectancy would be a start. Moving to DC pensions for new entitlements, or to a cheaper version of a defined benefit scheme (such as an average- rather than a final-salary pension) would also help. The greying of the American and British populations will inevitably involve some costs. It would be unfair if the burden was borne disproportionately by private-sector workers.

Here is another excellent article printed earlier this year by the Economist detailing the Pension Predicament. Pension Apartheid

Comment from public sector worker about this Blog

After the series of CBC interviews I received a comment post on the blog. It was from a public sector employee who was upset with some of my remarks on the radio interviews. One of those 11 interviews across Canada can be found here from CBC Edmonton. In the rest of Canada that same interview was done by Catherine Swift

Monique did respond with some very legitimate comments. There are some members of our society that new to be protected.

For example, my mother a single mother sacrificed much to raise me and my three brothers. I am very thankful that she has a partial federal government pension.

We know that the group most at risk to poverty is senior women.

Some of the comments were as follows:

It is true that *some* individuals at the highest levels of management in municipal governments receive compensations of 6-figure salaries, along with their pensions and various benefits packages. However, if you would first do, and then share, thorough research with your readers you would find that many, if not all, of those managers are in union-exempt positions. This is certainly true of my own employer.

The vast majority of employees in my workplace do not make enough to even be included on the annual compensation disclosure list (whose cut-off is 50 K, annually). I am one of those employees not on that list.

Yes, if I am lucky enough to not lose my job to cutbacks in the next 20-some years (I am a newer employee) I will retire with a pension that will allow me to not starve, keep a roof over my head and access sound health care in my retirement years. How dare I expect this?!!

Until that time though, I will take my $44, 000 per year (plus - maybe - an annual cost of living increase and, yes, benefits: I'm having my teeth cleaned this Wednesday, and tonight I will file to get maximum - $200 - reimbursement for the $500 prescription eye glass lenses I had to buy last month). I'll take that 44 K and the promise of a dignified retirement and do my darndest to serve the people of my city - putting to use my 6 years of post-secondary education (a graduate degree is the minimum professional qualification for my position - you may be interested to know mine came from a faculty of management) to try to figure out a way to offer my particular type of public service city-wide with a staff of 2.

In my opinion we live in one of the best countries in the world. There are many challenges ahead for us and our society. I think we can all come together and find the solutions that will allow for fairness and dignity for all Canadians.

I hope that we can achieve for all Canadians what Monique outlines in her comments.

Thanks for your comments Monique

The Heavyweights Step In!

Today CARP, The Canadian Association of Retired Persons released a series of advocacy articles aimed at creating major pension reform in Canada.

At initial glance there are certianly some very intersting proposals and ideas originating from the articles in this month's CARP on-line forum. As Zoomers

Pension Reform: the status quo is not an option
This article has brought attention to the clamour across the country for pension reform. It notes some of the pension reform commisions that have been struck across the country to review pension issues.
One intersting note about this article is the call for universal access by all Canadians to a form of defined benefit plan. These type of plans have been the ones that have created the pension crisis we are in and would only be a intergenerational burden with the next generation picking up the tab.
The most positive call to action for this article is a Pension Summit of the First Ministers and Finance Ministers. Included is a list of the emails for all of Canada's Finance Ministers who will hear the message loud and clear over the next few days.

Need to expand the Canada Pension Plan
CARP calls for a complete overhaul of the CPP program. This is an attempt to ensure that all Canadians will have a reasonable retirement income.
One of the ambitious objectives of this article is for a replacement income of 70% for all retired Canadians. This is a great objective but would call for a doubling of contributions from 9.9% to almost 20% of income.

Pension Reform – It Starts with You
Pierot makes the case for increasing the contribution limits for higher income Canadians to allow for more accumulation into retirement plans.
Pierot makes his case by starting off by pointing out the large disparity between private and public sector pensions. This article classifies public sector plans as first class and the average Canadian's retirement plan as economy class.

"About 2.7 million public sector workers (more than 80% of the public sector) travel first-class as members of defined-benefit (DB) pension plans. After a 30-year career, a worker earning $80,000 will have an indexed pension integrated with the Canada Pension Plan that pays $48,000 per year for life and is worth about $1 million.

The 23% of private sector workers with pension plans are mostly travelling coach. Many belong to defined-contribution (DC) pension plans that don’t promise a guaranteed pension.

With no pension plans, the remaining 77% of private sector workers (10.6 million) are travelling standby."

Whatever the outcome of these articles they are sure to create a ripple throughout Canada. Let's hope for the best.

Pension Primer - Some of the concepts explained

When I began to study pensions many years ago there were some concepts that I did not initially understand and were confusing but became clearer after I studied them in action.

Pension Types
In Canada there are two types of pensions. There are defined contribution plans and there are defined benefit plans.

The best description for the difference in these is the definitions given by Oxford Dictionary of pensions.
1) a regular payment made by a government to people above a specified age... or to such a person's surviving dependents - Public Sector pensions
2) a regular payment from a fund to which the recipient has contributed - private sector pensions - Private Sector pensions

Pension Income
With the defined contribution plan the retirement income determination of this plan is easy. Whatever you have accumulated in the plan at retirement you can draw down on for income. So as a basic example if, at retirement, you have $250,000 accumulated you could draw down $25,000 per year for 10 year. Of course we have an expectation that the fund will generate investment income and can pay more over our retirement.

Most Canadians have the contributory kind while those in the public sector have the defined benefit pensions. In my opinion defined benefit plans are not really pensions at all but a guaranteed income at retirement.

In the public sector the level of defined benefits or guaranteed retirement income is set at 70% of retirement income. The usual public sector formula is 2% of income per working year. Therefore the usual retirement is set for 35 year producing the 70% replacement income. Some pensions typically for police and firefighters are accelerated to allow for retirement after 30 years.

Currently the Federal government pays an average of over$80,000 per year to it's employees. The average employee therefore will earn a guaranteed income of $56,000 per year in retirement. These plans are "integrated" with CPP (Canada Pension Plan) which is around $10,000 per year. So the pension will pay $46,000 of this income with the CPP covering the rest.

In Ontario a teacher retires in the highest income group at over $90,000. Therefore they will receive a pension in excess of $60,000 per year.

Pension Provisions or Formulas

The public sector defined benefit plan is designed to pay 70% of income during retirement. In addition is offers.

Life time - It funds "income" for the life of the retiree
Indexing - It increases every year for life. Based on "inflation" which is set at some arbitrary number selected by government employees.
Survivor benefits - The surviving spouse of the retiree is guaranteed generally 60% of the income. This is regardless of whether or not they have other sources of income, including a public sector pension.
Trips - Free trips to Florida or Arizona every year (just joking)

Pension Boosting or Pension Spiking
Public sector pensions are a continuation of income into retirement years. The public sector pension attempts to replace 70% of the retirees income. Most formulas for pension income are based on an average of the past few years working income.

We saw recently the release of the Sunshine List in the Province of Ontario. This is the list of the employee who earned over $100,000. There was a fair amount of coverage in the press over those employees who made it to the list from jobs with a base rate much less than $100,000.

Since the retirement income is based on a percentage of working income the higher the final pay rate in the final years the higher the pension. Toronto Star reports on bus drivers in the Sunshine List These employees earning overtime have discovered that 70% of $100,000 is a much better pension than 70% of the $60,000 base rate. This is pension boosting.

Double Dipping
Public sector pensions have a much earlier retirement date than the private sector. Many public sector employees retire in their early 50's. Today the life expectancy has increased to over 80 years of age. Many of these "seniors" are able to continue working and I think should be able to continue working. Take the mayor of Mississauga for example, Hazel is a prime example of a very active, intelligent and capable 80 year old.

Public employees can trigger their pensions and find a new job. When they earn both pension and working income they are "Double Dipping". Report from the Toronto Sun

Taxpayer or Pension Liability
There is a common principle for all defined benefit pensions. Employees may make some contributions but the final liability of funding the pension is with the employer. The employer for public sector pensions is of course governments that are funded by taxpayer money. Ultimately all taxpayers are responsible for public sector pensions.

These numbers are very flexible and are manipulated based on the needs of the pensions at the time.

For example, this came from a Google search America's Intelligence Wire - Mar 21, 2006 - Last week, the Ontario Teachers Pension Plan announced it currently faces a $32-billion funding shortfall. Many factors contribute to the looming crisis . This was at a time when the pension saw an new government coming into power that was beholding to them and they wanted to leverage that IOU into more cash.

A year later the political opposition to large amounts of money being pumped into the plan started to rise. The plan then used it's magic and "The Ontario Teachers' Pension Plan is cutting back on inflation protection for some future retirees to eliminate a $12.7-billion funding shortfall reported" After a large injection of cash from Ontario taxpayers the shortfall estimates were changed.

Then this year after a disastrous year on the markets. It lost $19 Billion on the markets and it lost the return for the year. The expected returns on the $100 Billion plan should have been around 6% or another $6 Billion. The shortfall from previous years $12B, last year's losses $19B and the loss of income from last year $6B turned into.... ta da... are you ready for this....
"London Free Press - ‎Apr 3, 2009‎ - Despite a $2.5-billion shortfall that will likely grow during the next four years, contributors to the Ontario Teachers"


Pension Dumping
Many companies in the private sector have found the burden of pensions unsustainable. In an attempt many companies have used whatever means available to escape from the liabilities of defined benefit pensions.
Many companies have looked for relief from their employees, union and to governments. As a last resort many companies have gone bankrupt.
Unfortunately this is not an option for public sector pensions. They can only dump onto the taxpayer.

Underfunded Pensions
An underfunded pension is one where the commitments to employees for future pension income is not sustainable based on the amount of money currently accumulated in the pension fund.

The end of part one

Over the past several years as part of my business I have watched the problem of public sector pensions. The problem has grown much more serious, painful and acute in just the last year.
In the early days of media and general public recognition of the public sector pension problem very few commentators discussed the issue. There were a few organizations such as CD Howe and the Canadian Federation of Independent Business CFIB who understood the serious implications of what the CFIB called the Pension Predicament.
Today the issue has become a topic of mainstream discussion throughout our society. At every business or charity function I attend the topic is brought up for heated discussion and every day there is a front page article or pension editorial about public sector pensions. It seems that almost everyone understands the issue and has an opinion on it.
This is a good situation to be in because now society can begin the work of changing the pension system to make it fair for all.
Part of the problem with the pension issue is understanding the nature and dynamics of the serious problem we had created. As a professional working in the area as a consultant to small companies, it took me a while to understand how the system worked in relation to the different types of pensions plans. I always saw a huge difference between the different types of pensions some of my clients had. The public sector employees had pensions that far outshone anything a private sector employee would be given.
Today I understand the pension predicament as the fundamental differences in the way the private sector and public sector pensions work. The private sector plan is a traditional pension based on money accumulated over the working career of the employee. However, the public sector pensions is based on a guarantee of continuing income based on retirement income levels.
In Canada the public sector pension norm is that 70% of retirement income will be guaranteed for life. The income is usually structured to include CPP but comes with several additional guarantees as well. It is guaranteed for life, guaranteed to increase every year and guaranteed to a surviving spouse, usually at 60%. The public sector pension is also know as a defined benefit pension. It should be called a guaranteed retirement income stream.
The fundamental problem for the public sector pensions today is that they are not sustainable and unfairly places onto the backs of the taxpayer to finance.
There is no way that given the promises made, public sector pensions can be sustained. Several attempts over the years have been made by the magic of actuarial analysis to figure out how much these plans should accumulate in order to remain solvent. However, most of these actuarial attempts have turned out to be a slight of hand trick used by the public sector unions to deceive the taxpayer into promising higher and higher guaranteed levels of retirement income.
The trend over time has been for higher payouts at retirement and earlier payouts. The formula for calculating the defined pension (guaranteed retirement income) is based on a formula of working years and the income earned in those years. For example, a typical private sector defined benefit plan would be based on the total working career of the employee. The public sector plan is based generally on the average past 5 years of working. Today a Government of Ontario contract is being negotiated based on a past 3 years average retirement income.
The total commitments made to public sector pensions is estimated to be short over $100 Billion dollars in Canada and in the U.S. a recent report shows them to be short $237 billion. This is after about 30 years of pumping hundreds of billions of dollars into these plans by taxpayers.

Pension and Public Sector Reform Gaining Steam

As the financial crisis worsens some public figures are stepping up to reform the system. It may be an impossible task but is essential to economic recovery.

All world citizens are faced with the same challenges in this financial crisis.

The Governor of the State of Rhode Island made a speech that will be instrumental in addressing the problems of the system. Complete Text: State of State Address

"In the midst of all the economic turmoil, tonight Id like to start out with
some uplifting stories.

First, what we need to do to get through this economic downturn. Second, how we better position our state for the future. And third, what we have already done to put in place the building blocks to create a stronger and more competitive.

First, we must strengthen our safety net for our most vulnerable citizens

we must reform our public employee pension and benefit plans so that they are fair and equitable, affordable and sustainable. And third, we must slow the rise of local spending by giving our mayors and town councils the ways and means to control spending and balance their budgets without raising property taxes.

I know that our proposed changes are difficult ones, and I know there are many critics.

But, the only alternative we hear from the special interests and lobbyists is raise taxes, because, they cant get by on less.

We need every department of every city and town to sharpen their pencils, tighten their belts, and be smarter about how they spend the taxpayers money! We need the unions to realize that our cities and towns cannot afford business as usual-they cannot afford the wages, the pensions, the health care, and the work rules that were bargained for. The world has changed dramatically. The cost of defined benefit pension plans and healthcare have spiraled out of control.

These costs are crushing our taxpayers - most of whom dont have such pensions and health benefits. This is not about picking on anyone-rather this is about picking up the burden together, for the sake of our children, our seniors on fixed incomes, and those truly dependent upon us. This is about pulling together to get us through this severe downturn.

Were not alone in this! Connecticut and Massachusetts are facing multi-billion dollar deficits.

California has an unemployment rate of 9+%, and a $45 billion deficit. Governor Schwarzenegger has declared a fiscal state of emergency. They are out of money!

They're postponing tax refunds, college tuition payments and requiring state employees to take 2 unpaid days off each month. We cant let this happen in Rhode Island.

I encourage every public employee union to sit down with the mayors, town managers, the city and town councils, and the school committees to become a part of the solution. Help your communities get through this! Some have already stepped forward and I thank them.

Our immediate challenge in the next few months will be to use the anticipated federal stimulus money wisely and sensibly. We must use the additional funding to bridge the deficit, support tax relief and structural reforms, grow jobs, and grow our economy.

Today, the pressing issue is growing jobs in those sectors of the economy that will bring money and investment to our state.

To illustrate why our state continues to be so vulnerable to economic downturns, I want to share a chart with you! In 1978, Rhode Island had 137,000 jobs in manufacturing which represented 34% of the entire workforce-today we have 46,000 representing under ten percent of the workforce.

I want to repeat that. The state has reduced employment by 25 percent, while the cities and towns have increased employment by 38 percent.

Ladies and gentlemen, thats why your property taxes are so high and keep rising. Thats also why it is so imperative that we find ways to consolidate services, and reduce the burden on our economy and our taxpayers. Government services consume our economy's resources --- they don't create them!

The competition, among states and countries for companies and jobs is intense. There are many factors that go into a company's decision about site selection-available workforce, energy costs, site readiness, over-all business climate, and, yes, taxes. We have been working hard on the first four - but now we need to make significant changes in our tax competitiveness.

Im tired of people writing stories about R.I. being tax hell, or ranked near the bottom in business tax competitiveness. We need to reverse the trend on that chart with bold, business friendly tax reforms.

I am firmly convinced that if we dramatically change our tax structure, our economy will produce jobs! What Rhode Island needs now is more taxpayers; not more taxes. This will only come from a tax policy that says to our business community, stay here and grow your business, and by the way, tell all of your out-of-state business friends that R.I. is a great place to do business. I want to send a loud signal that - R.I. is open for Business!!!!"

It will be a challenge indeed for all political leaders. Many cannot rise to the challenge but my hope is that those who do will be an example for others.

The Biggest Economic Issue for 2009 will be Pensions

As the world starts to understand the implications of the biggest economic melt-down ever, pensions are emerging as a major economic issue.

We have seen the headlines over the past few weeks as media in Europe and North America look at and examine the impact of the current economic situation on public sector pensions. Billions of dollars have been lost. Taxpayers will have to replace the lost money into these pension funds and at the same time are suffering major meltdowns in their own retirement portfolios.

The weight of the public sector pension upon the back of the taxpayer is unsustainable. There is rising anger in the private sector over the cost of public sector pensions and resentment that taxpayers are having to fund the gold-plated public sector pensions.

Recently the Las Vegas Chamber of Commerce examined government spending in Nevada. As a result of several reports on the efficiency of government spending they released an initiative of Legislative Reform Issues

The top 3 reform issues addressed the fairness of the public sector compensation package.

1) Reform the Public Employees' Retirement System (pensions)- Nevada pays retirement benefits of 75 percent of a retiring employee's three highest consecutive years' salary.

2) Reform the Public Employees' Benefits Program - Unless action is taken to significantly redesign, reduce or eliminate the state's health insurance subsidy program, or to devise a viable pre-funding mechanism, the estimated $4.0 billion unfunded liability is expected to grow as the state's workforce increases, retired workers live longer and medical costs rise over time.

3) Bring local and state government employees' wages more in line with those of the private-sector. - On average, a Nevada public sector employee is paid roughly 28 percent more than a private sector employee

These are serious issues that need to be addressed. In a buoyant hyper-active economy, like we have seen over the past 30 years, these excesses could be funded by governments. Now government at all levels can no longer afford these extravagant compensation packages.

Forbes Article, Gilt-Edged Pensions - How much are they really worth?

Forbes came out with an article last week about the lucky stiff retiring on a public sector pension. The article tells the story of the stiff retiring four years ago at age 42 with a $65,000 per year pension. The pension is indexed for life, that is guaranteed to increase every year. Forbes places the value of that pension at $2,000,000 and most of that will be funded by taxpayers today and into the future.

In the article Forbes notes that America is "creating a nasty social problem as well. America, in case you hadn't noticed, is dividing into two nations. The 22.5-million-strong public sector (that includes retirees) is growing ever larger, and enjoying ever greater wages and benefits often guaranteed by state constitutions." This nasty little problem is not only occurring the the United States but in Canada and most countries around the world.

I have followed the pension world for the past ten years with a focus on the large gap between public sector plans and those of the average Canadian worker. In the UK (England) they have coined the phrase Pension Apartheid for the two nations that are developing.

The compensation levels of the public sector have been designed to compensate public sector workers based on a need to avoid political confrontation. They have powerful unions and whenever there is an upcoming election they make their voices heard.

Originally the union propaganda was that the public sector was underpaid relative to the private sector. However, Forbes points out:
"In public-sector America things just get better and better. The common presumption is that public servants forgo high wages in exchange for safe jobs and benefits. The reality is they get all three. State and local government workers get paid an average of $25.30 an hour, which is 33% higher than the private sector's $19, according to Bureau of Labor Statistics data. Throw in pensions and other benefits and the gap widens to 42%."

This same analysis holds true in Canada and recently was reinforced by the Wage Watch report released by the CFIB - Canadian Federation of Independent Business.

The real bonus to public sector employment is the pension plan. The pension plan is not based on an accumulation of funds like your plan is, it is based on a continued stream of income into retirement. This stream of income is based on 70% of the wage rates at termination of employment. In the Forbes example, the worker had a pension worth about 72% of his final salary. His ending salary was $90,000 per year and he will receive a $65,000 pension indexed for life.

These type of pensions do not exist in the private sector, except for a few companies, most of which were once public sector and are now "Crown Corporations".

Forbes notes that "four in five public-sector workers have lifetime pensions, versus only one in five in the private sector. The difference shifts huge risks from government to private-sector workers." In Canada those numbers are about the same.

Check out the Forbes article it certainly will create much needed debate around this issue over the next few weeks. Gilt-Edged Pensions