Talk:Retirement plan

Untitled

Having created several articles to help round out the retirement plan genre, I've moved significant (and very good quality) content from the following articles around:

Although I tried to integrate everything logically, there is still considerable smoothing to be done with respect to standardization of terminology, voice, and style. Please consider these pages as a whole when making edits and modifications and let's try to get all the content arranged in the logical spots. Thanks! Chris 02:52, 30 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Careful on the material you move around. If we want to be accurate for the IRS and Erisa treatment of these plans, you'll need some good resources before moving a lot around. Currently the coverage of these topics is of course shaky at best. I have not attacked them full on because I lost one of my best resource books on the topic. - Taxman 04:00, Oct 1, 2004 (UTC)

Of course, there is the additional difficulty that 3 of the above topics are only in the US. I'm not sure if almost all of the specific material on retirement plans in the US shouldn't be moved to a 'Retirement plans in the US' article. As far as I understand it, Defined benefit pension plans are much more common in Europe and DC plans are not common, while the reverse is now true in the US for a number of reasons. Canada has both. Their RRSP plans are DC at least. I even thought the terms defined contribution and defined benefit are entirely US in origin and usage. I could be wrong. - Taxman 17:22, Oct 1, 2004 (UTC)

Yes, I agree, a Retirement plans in the US article would be a good idea, along with similar articles on other countries. In particular, material on specific regulations would be more appropriate in separate country articles, as jargon like "Section 615 schemes" or "401(k) plans" is pretty meaningless to most people from outside the country in question.

I can confirm that the terms defined contribution and defined benefit are not US specific, and are used pretty much everywhere.

Enchanter 19:04, Oct 1, 2004 (UTC)

Good to know. Though the usage guidlines say the title should be Retirement plans in the United States. I'll start or contribute to that since that is obviously where most of my knowledge lies. - Taxman 02:27, Oct 2, 2004 (UTC)

Well I started that article. That is the one I will work on the most since it is what I know about. That way I can write what I know and have references for and we can all try to work together to write the generally applicable article here. I'll try to remove the US related minutae out of this article. - Taxman 22:08, Oct 28, 2004 (UTC)

wikiprojects

The content within this article suggests that a wikiproject on labor or something similar would be the best fit for this article.EECavazos 21:33, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merger with Pension article

I merged all the content here into the Pension article as the material here was mostly redundant to that article. There also seems to be (judging from the talk page) a more active group of people working on it.

Dhollm (talk) 00:35, 25 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nice work. — Malik Shabazz (talk · contribs) 01:53, 25 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Assessment comment

The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:Retirement plan/Comments, and are posted here for posterity. Following several discussions in past years, these subpages are now deprecated. The comments may be irrelevant or outdated; if so, please feel free to remove this section.

==WP Tax Class==

Start class because the article needs references, but the tax content itself is limited.EECavazos 21:31, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

==WP Tax Priority==

Low priority because the tax content and tax focus of this article are both limited.EECavazos 21:32, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Last edited at 21:32, 11 November 2007 (UTC). Substituted at 04:12, 30 April 2016 (UTC)