I do not know if I would use the word "lying" CrystalR; but the article you sited is incorrect. The Central Bank's plan is indeed defined benefit and its employees contribute 5% of their salaries to that plan.
The operative word is "defined". What is defined, is it the contribution? Therefore, a fixed rate for the sponsor. Or is it the benefit the employee will receive on retirement? In which case the sponsors contribution rate can go up or down. Therefore, the word contribution in "Defined Contribution" does not speak to whether or not a beneficiary is contributing to their plan.
**Simplified**, as it relates to existing plans in The Bahamas, a pension plan can be:
1. Defined Benefit, NON contributory - where the sponsor makes all the contributions and the beneficiary makes none. e.g. B.E.C 2. Defined Benefit, Contributory - where BOTH sponsor and beneficiary contribute e.g. Central Bank 3. Defined Contribution, NON contributory - where the sponsor makes all the contributions and the beneficiary makes none. 4. Defined Contribution, Contributory - where BOTH sponsor and beneficiary contribute e.g. Bahamasair *(I believe)*
Let us be clear you started the name calling read your comment... "stupid", "uneducated", "ignorant". So yes, you should re-read the article and step outside your ego for a moment to consider maybe you are the one that is wrong as it pertains the article, the union leader and the Central Bank's pension.
> "It added that the existing defined benefit plan, where the Central Bank > contributed 100 per cent of the monies with no staff contribution..."
This statement, in your article above, is completely false. As responsible journalists, I would not have expected the Tribune to report such fallacies, regardless of the source.
The staff of the Central Bank of The Bahamas has contributed 5% of their monthly salary to their pension fund since inception (1978). Which is easily proven just give them a call and ask.
There is indeed an idiot here "moncurcool" and that would be you.
Perhaps you should educate yourself or bother to read the article. A "non-contributory" fund is one where employees contribute nothing. Any pension plan, whether defined contribution OR benefit, can be contributory or non-contributory. The Central Bank of The Bahamas has had a Defined Benefit Plan since 1978; and its staff has contributed 5% of their salary monthly since inception. A simple Google search would result in these facts.
DragonFly says...
This is wonderful news! I am very excited about Baha Mar and impact on our economy. Congratulations to both PLP and FNM governments and the investors.
On Baha Mar on course for opening on March 27
Posted 12 February 2015, 1:13 p.m. Suggest removal
DragonFly says...
I do not know if I would use the word "lying" CrystalR; but the article you sited is incorrect. The Central Bank's plan is indeed defined benefit and its employees contribute 5% of their salaries to that plan.
On Union will go to court over pensions
Posted 12 February 2015, 12:46 p.m. Suggest removal
DragonFly says...
That is a question you would have to ask them.
On Union will go to court over pensions
Posted 12 February 2015, 12:35 p.m. Suggest removal
DragonFly says...
The operative word is "defined". What is defined, is it the contribution? Therefore, a fixed rate for the sponsor. Or is it the benefit the employee will receive on retirement? In which case the sponsors contribution rate can go up or down. Therefore, the word contribution in "Defined Contribution" does not speak to whether or not a beneficiary is contributing to their plan.
**Simplified**, as it relates to existing plans in The Bahamas, a pension plan can be:
1. Defined Benefit, NON contributory - where the sponsor makes all the contributions and the beneficiary makes none. e.g. B.E.C
2. Defined Benefit, Contributory - where BOTH sponsor and beneficiary contribute e.g. Central Bank
3. Defined Contribution, NON
contributory - where the sponsor
makes all the contributions and the
beneficiary makes none.
4. Defined Contribution, Contributory -
where BOTH sponsor and beneficiary
contribute e.g. Bahamasair *(I
believe)*
On Union will go to court over pensions
Posted 12 February 2015, 12:34 p.m. Suggest removal
DragonFly says...
Let us be clear you started the name calling read your comment... "stupid", "uneducated", "ignorant". So yes, you should re-read the article and step outside your ego for a moment to consider maybe you are the one that is wrong as it pertains the article, the union leader and the Central Bank's pension.
On Union will go to court over pensions
Posted 12 February 2015, 12:24 p.m. Suggest removal
DragonFly says...
> "It added that the existing defined benefit plan, where the Central Bank
> contributed 100 per cent of the monies with no staff contribution..."
This statement, in your article above, is completely false. As responsible journalists, I would not have expected the Tribune to report such fallacies, regardless of the source.
The staff of the Central Bank of The Bahamas has contributed 5% of their monthly salary to their pension fund since inception (1978). Which is easily proven just give them a call and ask.
On Central Bank: 20% pension contribution rate 'unsustainable'
Posted 11 February 2015, 4:26 p.m. Suggest removal
DragonFly says...
There is indeed an idiot here "moncurcool" and that would be you.
Perhaps you should educate yourself or bother to read the article. A "non-contributory" fund is one where employees contribute nothing. Any pension plan, whether defined contribution OR benefit, can be contributory or non-contributory. The Central Bank of The Bahamas has had a Defined Benefit Plan since 1978; and its staff has contributed 5% of their salary monthly since inception. A simple Google search would result in these facts.
On Union will go to court over pensions
Posted 11 February 2015, 4:09 p.m. Suggest removal