Dagwud, teachers here I believe don't pay into S.S., and that's why whenever there are articles or reports about their high pensions, that isn't known and explains the higher amounts. There was some state recently on the East coast that was thinking of taking their state employees from the same setup to paying into S.S. to lower their pension costs. I don't think that they have an option because the pension and the way it's funded and is done by statute.
After becoming a trustee to those funds, I have got to see an inside look of how investment brokers or managers manipulate and game the system, and how rigged the markets are. They charge fees and commissions for everything that they do on top of maintenance fees and charges also. Yes, they do provide a service, but I'm not going to pay somebody to do something that I can do the same or better, or can do without them and come out farther ahead. They don't create or add anymore value to anything, they just manipulate moves to their advantage, which is to bleed revenues from your value/money. Hyped, exaggerated, or outright fraudulent information is the norm, to guide people or funds to flow to where they can skim the most off of them. Myself and a few others have been pushing the move for two year management contracts, and they counter that the longer contracts can lower management fees and costs, and it never has. We want them to actually compete for the management of those funds, and to reward the most efficient and successful managers, not be stuck paying for substandard performance. But, they fix their costs uniformly between companies, whether they are justified or not. It's quite a racket, and they really put on the song and dance/baffle you with bulls##t routines when they see the gravy train coming to an end.
