this post was submitted on 09 May 2024
99 points (100.0% liked)

Personal Finance

3819 readers
1 users here now

Learn about budgeting, saving, getting out of debt, credit, investing, and retirement planning. Join our community, read the PF Wiki, and get on top of your finances!

Note: This community is not region centric, so if you are posting anything specific to a certain region, kindly specify that in the title (something like [USA], [EU], [AUS] etc.)

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] acetanilide@lemmy.world 10 points 6 months ago (1 children)

They're similar in that you use it for retirement.

But, 401ks you contribute to and the value depends on the stock market.

Pensions you don't contribute to and the amount you get is fixed.

More here: https://www.forbes.com/advisor/retirement/pension-vs-401k/

[–] Squizzy@lemmy.world 2 points 6 months ago (2 children)

Oh interesting, where I am both of those are pensions but one is called defined benefit pension and the other a defined contribution. Mt wife has a defined benefit whereas I have contribution.

Benefit is definitelt better, knowing what you will definitely have is ideal and you can still take full advantage of a DC scheme if you want.

[–] sugar_in_your_tea@sh.itjust.works 1 points 5 months ago* (last edited 5 months ago)

You'll generally get less from a defined benefit plan vs a defined contribution plan. A defined benefit plan is an insurance product, so the managers are encouraged to be more conservative with investments to limit risk. A defined contribution plan is an investment product, so the managers are encouraged to maximize returns.

Would you rather have a 5% yield guarantee or a very high chance at 10% return? (as in, 10% has been consistent in the past) In almost every scenario, a defined benefit plan will have much lower usable cash and no inheritance vs a defined contribution plan.

The US actually has both. Social Security is a defined benefit plan, and a 401k is defined contribution. Social Security is intended to replace ~40% of pre-retirement income (more for lower income, less for higher income), and the 401k is intended to fill in the gaps.

[–] Copernican@lemmy.world 1 points 6 months ago (1 children)

I think the "Pensions you don’t contribute to and the amount you get is fixed." is a bit murky. If you have a pension that probably means you have a lower salary compared to an equivalent non pension job, because part of your labor value goes into funding the pension. But the main thing is 401(k) puts a lot of responsibility on the individual. And as this article points out, if you put a lot put retirement financial planning on the individual, that creates a larger social problem since many people can't sufficiently do that themselves, even if they are being responsible with what they earn.

[–] Squizzy@lemmy.world 2 points 6 months ago

Yeah see the only different here is if the benefit is defined or the contribution is. Employers still give decently toward the DC and they manage the scheme. They have group schemes that all empkoyees are a part of and you cant leave it unless you leave the job or decide not to contribute.