tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2009324187193157520.post9067957635720154161..comments2024-01-29T09:53:58.059-05:00Comments on Benefits and Compensation with John Lowell: Where Bad Law Comes From -- Anatomy of a Bad ProposalJohn Lowellhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00264893397248519558noreply@blogger.comBlogger2125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2009324187193157520.post-86641100901926749922013-04-21T07:34:17.693-04:002013-04-21T07:34:17.693-04:00Tom, thanks for reading and commenting. I agree wi...Tom, thanks for reading and commenting. I agree with all you, but it sure doesn't make the 'proposal' any better.John Lowellhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00264893397248519558noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2009324187193157520.post-30686442685106145872013-04-20T12:40:29.871-04:002013-04-20T12:40:29.871-04:00Hi John,
Before 1999 Section 403(b) programs were...Hi John,<br /><br />Before 1999 Section 403(b) programs were subject to similar restrictions. Contribution rates were determined by methods that accounted for a participant's age, salary and years of employment. Participants were allowed to select a contribution method that would determine their maximum annual rate. Usually, the first method allowed for the largest contribution over a period of employment, but the last method allowed a high rate for a short period of time before eventually equating to zero. It is important to note the method could not be changed.<br />This was incredibly costly and cumbersome to administer. It required outside DC counsel, and the assistance of a third party administrator. Frequently, logic determined a course of action based on fairness, but people were afraid of taking action.<br />This will be a disaster, but it will mean big money for DC law firms, and large HR corporations.<br />Tom Gunn<br />Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com