What is the difference between state pension plans and defined contribution plans?
"The specific ""State Pension"" plan you have linked to is provided by the government of the U.K. to workers resident there. More generally speaking, many countries provide some kind of basic worker's pension (or ""social security"") to residents.  In the United States, it is called (surprise!) ""Social Security"", and in Canada most of us call ours ""Canada Pension Plan"".  Such pensions are typically funded by payroll deductions distinct & separate from income tax deducted at source.  You can learn about the variety of social security programs around the world courtesy of the U.S. Social Security Administration's own survey. What those and many other government or state pensions have in common, and the term or concept that I think you are looking for, is that they are typically defined benefit type of plans.  A defined benefit or DB plan is where there is a promised (or ""defined"") benefit, i.e. a set lump sum amount (such as with a ""cash balance"" type of DB plan) or income per year in retirement (more typical). (Note: Defined benefit plans are not restricted to be offered by governments only. Many companies also offer DB plans to their employees, but DB plans in the private sector are becoming more rare due to the funding risk inherent in making such a long-term promise to employees.) Whereas a defined contribution or DC plan is one where employee and/or employer put money into a retirement account, the balance of which is invested in a selection of funds. Then, at retirement the resulting lump sum amount or annual income amounts (if the resulting balance is annuitized) are based on the performance of the investments selected. That is, with a DC plan, there is no promise of you getting either a set lump sum amount or a set amount of annual income at retirement!  The promise was up front, on how much money they would contribute.  So, the contributions are defined (often according to a matching contribution scheme), yet the resulting benefit itself is not defined (i.e. promised.) Summary: DB plans promise you the money (the benefit) you'll get at retirement. DC plans only promise you the money (the contributions) you get now."
If your new employer has a Final Salary or defined benefit type pension scheme, join it. DB plans are attractive because they are often less a risk for the employee. If your employer has a defined contribution scheme and contributes to it, join it and contribute at least up to the maximum amount that they will match – otherwise you are leaving free money on the table. You also probably need to sit down with an independent adviser for what to do with your existing pension (is it a DC or DB) and if you want to have a pension outside of your employer. "Let's not trade insults. I understand defined benefit plans better than you think. Of course offering a lump-sum payout NOW is better for the company. If you think of the lifetime value of the pension, then yeah, it's ""worse"" for the recipient... but exactly like lottery winners, this is just a question of my personal discount rate. Maybe I want/need that money now, and value it more now than I would in 10/20/30 years. So it's a question for each individual to decide." @JoeTaxpayer's answer outlines how to value it. Some other considerations: As I understand it, some public pensions may be tax-free if you still live in the state that is paying the pension. E.g. when a Massachusetts teacher receives pension, it is exempt from state taxes, but if that person moves to Vermont he will have to pay Vermont income tax on those payments. So if you plan to stay in the state post-retirement, this provides additional value. Pension payments aren't fully guaranteed by the PBGC. And not all pension plans are fully funded. Depending on the political and economic environment when you hit retirement, your retirement plan could suffer. (And if you aren't working, you may not have a union vote any more when the other working members are voting on contract amendments that affect pensions.) I'm not certain of all of the rules, but I hear news reports from time to time that formulas like what you've posted in the original question are changed through negotiation with the union. If you make an employment decision using the formula in year X and then the formula changes in year X+10, your expected pension payment will change. Defined Benefit - the benefit you receive when you retire is defined e.g. $500 a month if you retire at age 65. It is up to the plan administrators to manage the pension fund, and ensure that there is enough money to cover the benefits based on the life expectancy of the retiree. Defined Contribution - the amount you contribute to the plan is defined. The benefit you receive at retirement depends on how well the investments do over the years. Public sector and private industry retirement plans, taxation and estate planning would be the most substantial differences between the two countries. The concepts for accumulating wealth are the same, and if you are doing anything particularly lucrative with an above average amount of risk, the aforementioned differences are not very relevant, for a twenty something. The simple answer is that with the defined contribution plan: 401k, 403b, 457 and the US government TSP; the employer doesn't hold on to the funds. When they take your money from your paycheck there is a period of a few days or at the most a few weeks before they must turn the money over to the trustee running the program. If they are matching your contributions they must do the same with those funds.  The risk is in that window of time between payday and deposit day. If the business folds, or enters bankruptcy protection, or decides to slash what they will contribute to the match in the future anything already sent to the trustee is out of their clutches. In the other hand a defined a benefit plan or pension plan: where you get X percent of your highest salary times the number of years you worked; is not protected from the company. These plans work by the company putting aide money each year based on a formula. The formula is complex because they know from history some employees never stick around long enough to get the pension.  The money in a pension is invested outside the company but it is not out of the control of the company. Generally with a well run company they invest wisely but safely because if the value goes up due to interest or a rising stock market, the next year their required contribution is smaller. The formula also expects that they will not go out of business. The problems occur when they don't have the money to afford to make the contribution. Even governments have looked for relief in this area by skipping a deposit or delaying a deposit.  There is some good news in this area because a pension program has to pay an annual insurance premium to The Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation a quai-government agency of the federal government. If the business folds the PBGC steps in to protect the rights of the employees. They don't get all they were promised, but they do get a lot of it.  None of those pension issues relate to the 401K like program. Once the money is transferred to the trustee the company has no control over the funds. "As others are saying, you want to be a bit wary of completely counting on a defined benefit pension plan to be fulfilling exactly the same promises during your retirement that it's making right now. But, if in fact you've ""won the game"" (for lack of a better term) and are sure you have enough to live comfortably in retirement for whatever definition of ""comfortably"" you choose, there are basically two reasonable approaches: Those are all reasonable approaches, and so it really comes down to what your risk tolerance is (a.k.a. ""Can I sleep comfortably at night without staying up worrying about my portfolio?""), what your goals for your money are (Just taking care of yourself? Trying to ""leave a legacy"" via charity or heirs or the like? Wanting a ""dream"" retirement traveling the world if possible but content to stay home if it's not?), and how confident you are in being able to calculate your ""needs"" in retirement and what your assets will truly be by then. You ask ""if it would be unwise at this stage of my life to create a portfolio that's too conservative"", but of course if it's ""too conservative"" then it would have been unwise. But I don't think it's unwise, at any stage of life, to create a portfolio that's ""conservative enough"". Only take risks if you have the need, ability, and willingness to do so." These are plans similar to 401k plans. 457(b) plans available for certain government and non-profit organizations, 403(b) available for certain educational, hospital, religious and non-profit organizations. Your school apparently fits into both classes, so it has both. These plans don't have to allow ROTH contributions, but they may, so you have to check if there's an option. The main (but not only) difference from IRA is the limit: for 401(k), 403(b) and 457(b) plans the contribution limit is $17500, while for IRA its $5500 (for 2013). Additional benefit of 457(b) plan is that there's no 10% penalty on early withdrawal, just taxes (at ordinal rates). The issue here is not that Sears is taking money from the pension.  The pension is underfunded and Sear is asking to not make additional payments towards the underfunding.  Pensioners are still getting screwed.  At least in the US, there are lots of controls on what companies can do with pension money.  Way beyond just having separation of assets. "Most (if not all states) in the US are only interested in source income. If you worked in that state they want to tax it. Many states have reciprocity agreements with neighboring states to exempt income earned when a person works in lets say Virginia, but lives in a state that touches Virginia.  Most states don't consider interest and dividends for individuals as source income. They don't care where the bank or mutual fund branch is located, or headquartered.If it is interest from a business they will allocate it to the state where the business is located.  If you may ask you to allocate the funds between two states if you move during the year, but most people will just divide the interest and dividends based on the number of days in each state unless there is a way to directly allocate the funds to a particular state.  Consider this: Where is the money when it is in a bank with multiple branches? The money is only electronic, and your actual ""$'s"" may be in a federal reserve branch. Pension funds are invested in projects all over the US." I'm of the opinion that it doesn't matter much unless something in your life changes in retirement. And since many retirement planners assume a default income target of 80 percent of pre-retirement income, I figure many people's tax bracket isn't moving much. The most interesting reason I know to Go Roth in a 401k is limits. You can only contribute like $17k, whether Roth or not. In a traditional contribution, some of the 17k you put in goes to taxes when taken out, but in a Roth contribution you pay taxes up front. So if you have more than $17k to invest, Roth lets you sneak some more into the system. My perspective is from the US. Many employers offer 401(k)s and you can always contribute to an IRA for either tax deferred or tax free investment growth. If you're company offers a 401(k) match you should always contribute the maximum amount they max or you're leaving money on the table.    Companies can't always support pensions and it isn't the best idea to rely on one entirely for retirement unless your pension is from the federal government.   Even states such as Illinois are going through extreme financial difficulties due to pension funding issues. It's only going to get worse and if you think pension benefit accrual isn't going to be cut eventually you'll have another thing coming. I'd be worried if I was a state employee in the middle of my career with no retirement savings outside of my pension.   Ranting: Employees pushed hard for some pretty absurd commitments and public officials let the public down by giving in. It seems a little crazy to me that someone can work for the state until they're in their 50's and then earn 70% of their 6 figure salary for the rest of their life. Something needs to be done but I'd be surprised if anyone has the political will to make tough choices now before thee options get much much worse and these states are forced to make a decision. littleadv's answer gives a concise summary of the system as it stands now, but much more changed than just the portion of the mandatory contribution that was diverted to the private plan. In broad terms, the balances of your accounts and your future benefit won't change. It's only the source of these benefits that's changing. The Bloomberg article describes the changes this way: The state will take over the amount of bonds that pension funds held as of end of Sept. 3 and turn them into pension liabilities in the state-run social security system... The state will assume control of 51.5 percent of pension-fund assets, including bonds guaranteed by the government and “other non-stock assets” After the change, Polish workers that held bonds in the private portion of their retirement portfolios will instead have more payments from the state-run pension system. The balances of your retirement portfolio and your future benefits shouldn't change, but the reality may depend on how the state pension system is managed and any future changes the government implements. The effect this change will have on future benefits isn't clear, because the change may simply delay the problem of high levels of outstanding sovereign debt, not solve it. The government stated that because increasing numbers of workers invested their money in private pension funds, less money went into the government's fund, which forced them to issue sovereign debt in order to cover the shortfall in their current pension liabilities.  The government's recent cancellation of government bonds in the hands of private pensions will decrease their overall outstanding debt, but in exchange, the government is increasing its future pension liabilities. Years down the road, the government may find that they need to issue more sovereign debt to cover the increased pension liabilities they're taking on today. In other words, they may find themselves back in the same situation years down the road, and it's difficult to predict what changes they might make at that time. You are close to understanding, but it looks like you are slightly off: regular 401K - The amount you contribute is taken out of your taxable income for tax purposes in the tax year you earn it. However, when you take it out at retirement that withdrawal counts as income for tax purposes. (You pay the tax on the money later) Roth 401K - The amount you contribute is not taken out of your taxable income for tax purposes in the tax year you earn it. However, when you take it out at retirement that withdrawal will not as income for tax purposes. (You pay the tax on the money now.) Additional benefit: You don't pay tax ever on the gains. "This is really unfortunate.  In general you can't back date individual policies.  You could have (if it was available to you) elected to extend your employer's coverage via COBRA for the month of May, and possibly June depending on when your application was submitted, then let the individual coverage take over when it became effective.   Groups have some latitude to retroactively cover and terminate employees but that's not an option in the world of individual coverage, the carriers are very strict about submission deadlines for specific effective dates.  This is one of the very few ways that carriers are able to say ""no"" within the bounds of the ACA.  You submit an application, you are assigned an effective date based on the date your application was received and subsequently approved.  It has nothing to do with how much money you send them or whether or not you told them to back date your application. If someone at the New York exchange told you you could have a retroactive effective date they shouldn't have. Many providers have financial hardship programs.  You should talk to the ER hospital and see what might be available to you.  The insurer is likely out of the equation though if the dates of service occurred before your policy was effective. Regarding your 6th paragraph regarding having paid the premium.  In this day and age carriers can only say ""no"" via administrative means.  They set extremely rigid effective dates based on your application date.  They will absolutely cancel you if you miss a payment.  If you get money to them but it was after the grace period date (even by one minute) they will not reinstate you.  If you're cancelled you must submit a new application which will create a new coverage gap.  You pay a few hundred dollars each month to insure infinity risk, you absolutely have to cover your administrative bases because it's the only way a carrier can say ""no"" anymore so they cling to it."