ReportWire

Tag: retirement

  • CAVA Group, Inc. (CAVA) Stock Forecasts

    CAVA Group, Inc. (CAVA) Stock Forecasts

    [ad_1]

    Summary

    CAVA Group, Inc., founded in 2006, owns and operates a chain of Mediterranean restaurants. The company has 8,100 employees.

    Subscribe to Yahoo Finance Plus Essential for full access

    Exclusive reports, detailed company profiles, and best-in-class trade insights to take your portfolio to the next level

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • How to start saving for retirement at 45 in Canada – MoneySense

    How to start saving for retirement at 45 in Canada – MoneySense

    [ad_1]

    Are you on track, or are you playing catch up?

    For some Canadians, that may feel like plenty of time to ramp up their retirement savings, especially if expensive childcare years are behind them. For others, starting to save for retirement at 45 can feel like they missed the window on savings growth.

    I’ll turn 45 this summer, and so I felt compelled to take on the assignment about saving for retirement at this age. While I’d like to think I’m in a better financial position than most Canadians my age (Lake Wobegon effect, perhaps?), I’m also keenly aware that I’m closer to my 60s than I am to my 20s. Retirement planning is a chief concern.

    Indeed, according to the latest annual retirement study conducted by IG Wealth Management, while 72% of Canadians aged 35- and over have started saving for retirement, 42% of them are doing so without a retirement plan, and 45% are confident they know how much money they will need for retirement—granted, that’s a tough question to answer.

    Saving for retirement

    If you’ve read David Chilton’s classic, The Wealthy Barber (Stoddart Publishing, 2002), you’ll know a popular rule of thumb is to save and invest 10% of your gross (pre-tax) income for retirement. Simply “pay yourself first” with automatic contributions to your retirement accounts and you’ll be in good shape for retirement. (You can download The Wealthy Barber Returns for free.)

    But not everyone has the ability to save in this linear fashion. For instance, those who work in public service as a nurse or a teacher already have a significant portion of their paycheques automatically deducted to fund a defined benefit pension plan. Should they also save 10% of their gross income for retirement? Of course not! In fact, they might find it impossible to do so.

    Similarly, couples in their 20s and 30s who are raising a family are faced with a host of competing financial priorities such as childcare (albeit temporarily) and more expensive housing costs. 

    What this means is a 45-year-old with little to no retirement savings might actually have 15 to 20 years of pensionable service in their workplace pension plan. It might mean that a 45-year-old with little to no retirement savings just got out of the expensive childcare years and now finds themselves flush with extra cash flow to start catching up on their retirement savings.

    The “rule of 30” for retirement savings

    That’s why I like the “rule of 30,” popularized by retirement expert Fred Vettese in his book of the same title (ECW Press, 2021). Vettese suggests that the amount you can save for retirement should work in tandem with childcare and housing costs. (Read a review of Vettese’s latest book, Retirement Income For Life.) 

    [ad_2]

    Robb Engen, QAFP

    Source link

  • RRIF and LIF withdrawal rates: Everything you need to know – MoneySense

    RRIF and LIF withdrawal rates: Everything you need to know – MoneySense

    [ad_1]

    You do not have to wait until age 71 to convert your RRSP. Most people consider doing so once they have retired.

    RRIF withdrawal rates

    The minimum age at which you can convert an RRSP to a RRIF varies by province: it’s 50 in some, and 55 in others. But starting the year after conversion, you must begin to make minimum withdrawals from your RRIF. The table below includes the minimum withdrawal rates for all RRIFs set up after 1992. It shows the percentage of the account balance (at the previous year-end) that must be paid out in the current year.

    Age at end of previous year Withdrawal rate for current year Age at end of previous year Withdrawal rate for current year
    55 2.86%   76 5.98%
    56 2.94%   77 6.17%
    57 3.03%   78 6.36%
    58 3.13%   79 6.58%
    59 3.23%   80 6.82%
    60 3.33%   81 7.08%
    61 3.45%   82 7.38%
    62 3.57%   83 7.71%
    63 3.70%   84 8.08%
    64 3.85%   85 8.51%
    65 4.00%   86 8.99%
    66 4.17%   87 9.55%
    67 4.35%   88 10.21%
    68 4.55%   89 10.99%
    69 4.76%   90 11.92%
    70 5.00%   91 13.06%
    71 5.28%   92 14.49%
    72 5.40%   93 16.34%
    73 5.53%   94 18.79%
    74 5.67%   95 or older 20.00%
    75 5.82%  
    Source: Rates calculated using the CRA’s prescribed factors formulas.

    Locked-in retirement accounts (LIRAs)

    The withdrawal rates above represent the minimum percentages that must be withdrawn, but account holders can make larger withdrawals if they need to or want to, as long as the account is not locked in.

    Why do some Canadians have locked-in accounts? When a pension plan member leaves a pension, they may have the opportunity to transfer funds from their pension to a locked-in retirement account (LIRA). If they have a defined contribution (DC) pension, they may transfer the investments to a locked-in account. If they have a defined benefit (DB) pension plan and elect to receive a lump sum commuted value and to forgo their future monthly pension payments, they may be eligible to transfer some or all of the funds to a locked-in account.

    A locked-in RRSP may also be called a LIRA. LIRA is the term used in B.C., Alberta, Saskatchewan, Manitoba, Ontario, Quebec, Nova Scotia, New Brunswick, and Newfoundland and Labrador.

    You can withdraw from an RRSP, but you cannot withdraw from a locked-in RRSP. The latter must be converted to the locked-in equivalent of a RRIF: a life income fund (LIF) is most common, although Newfoundland and Labrador has locked-in RIFs (LRIFs) and Saskatchewan and Manitoba have prescribed RRIFs.

    LIF withdrawal rates

    LIFs have the same minimum withdrawal rates as RRIFs. But they also have maximum withdrawal rates, which vary by province and territory, to prevent former pension plan members from spending their pension funds too quickly. The table below shows the maximum withdrawal rates for LIFs.

    Age at end of previous year LIF/LRIF withdrawal rates:
    B.C., Alta., Sask., Ont., N.B., N.L.
    LIF withdrawal rates:
    Manitoba, Quebec, Nova Scotia
    LIF withdrawal rates:
    federal, Yukon, Northwest Territories, Nunavut
    55 6.51% 6.40% 5.16%
    56 6.57% 6.50% 5.22%
    57 6.63% 6.50% 5.27%
    58 6.70% 6.60% 5.34%
    59 6.77% 6.70% 5.41%
    60 6.85% 6.70% 5.48%
    61 6.94% 6.80% 5.56%
    62 7.04% 6.90% 5.65%
    63 7.14% 7.00% 5.75%
    64 7.26% 7.10% 5.86%
    65 7.38% 7.20% 5.98%
    66 7.52% 7.30% 6.11%
    67 7.67% 7.40% 6.25%
    68 7.83% 7.60% 6.41%
    69 8.02% 7.70% 6.60%
    70 8.22% 7.90% 6.80%
    71 8.45% 8.10% 7.03%
    72 8.71% 8.30% 7.29%
    73 9.00% 8.50% 7.59%
    74 9.34% 8.80% 7.93%
    75 9.71% 9.10% 8.33%
    76 10.15% 9.40% 8.79%
    77 10.66% 9.80% 9.32%
    78 11.25% 10.30% 9.94%
    79 11.96% 10.80% 10.68%
    80 12.82% 11.50% 11.57%
    81 13.87% 12.10% 12.65%
    82 15.19% 12.90% 14.01%
    83 16.90% 13.80% 15.75%
    84 19.19% 14.80% 18.09%
    85 22.40% 16.00% 21.36%
    86 27.23% 17.30% 26.26%
    87 35.29% 18.90% 34.45%
    88 51.46% 20.00% 50.83%
    89 or older 100.00% 20.00% 100.00%
    Source: Office of the Superintendent of Financial Institutions and Empire Life.

    There may be situations where locked-in account holders can make withdrawals that exceed the annual maximum. In Ontario, for example, there may be unlocking options for people experiencing financial hardship from:

    [ad_2]

    Jason Heath, CFP

    Source link

  • Colorado House committee defeats bill to repeal anti-BDS law on PERA investments

    Colorado House committee defeats bill to repeal anti-BDS law on PERA investments

    [ad_1]

    Colorado’s public pension program must continue divesting from companies that economically boycott Israel after a state House committee rejected a bill that would have repealed the requirement.

    The 10-1 bipartisan defeat of HB24-1169 late Monday in the House Finance Committee came after hours of emotional and tense testimony. The discussion often spiraled into support or condemnation for Israel and its months-long military campaign in the Gaza Strip.

    More than 100 people testified for or against the measure, which would have repealed a 2016 state law that requires the Public Employees Retirement Association to divest from companies that participate in the BDS movement. That movement promotes boycotts, divestment and sanctions against Israel as a way of protesting the country’s treatment of Palestinians.

    Only three companies have been flagged under the law, according to PERA. It applies only to international companies. The law costs roughly $10,000 a year to administer.

    Just one member of the Democrat-controlled finance committee, Rep. Lorena Garcia, an Adams County Democrat, voted to advance the bill. The measure was sponsored by Rep. Elisabeth Epps, a Denver Democrat. She was reprimanded by House leadership last month for, among other things, disrupting House proceedings and joining pro-Palestinian protesters seated in the House’s gallery during the November special session.

    Nearly 30,000 people have been killed in Gaza during Israel’s war with Hamas, according to the Gaza Health Ministry. Israel launched the war in response to Hamas’ Oct. 7 terrorist attacks, which killed 1,200 people and included the taking of about 250 hostages, some of whom are still being held.

    Epps told fellow lawmakers Monday that she repeatedly had been told the legislature had no business weighing in on international affairs, but she argued that the 2016 anti-BDS law did just that.

    “There is a particularly insidious criticism that is made of folks who are protesting a range of issues,” she said. “The central element of that criticism is that we’re not doing it right. … If you want to petition your pension board to do an economic boycott, that’s not right either. That can’t be how we continue to do business here.”

    [ad_2]

    Seth Klamann

    Source link

  • Trump Rejoices After ‘Loser’ Jimmy Kimmel Suggests He May Be Retiring From Late Night

    Trump Rejoices After ‘Loser’ Jimmy Kimmel Suggests He May Be Retiring From Late Night

    [ad_1]

    Opinion

    Source YouTube: Fox News, Jimmy Kimmel Live!

    The former President Donald Trump is celebrating after the radically liberal late night host Jimmy Kimmel suggested that he may be retiring from late night.

    Trump Trashes ‘Loser’ Kimmel

    “They could get a far more talented person, who would also get better Ratings, for 5% of what they are paying this Loser!” Trump wrote on his Truth Social social media platform alongside a link to an ABC News article that was titled “Jimmy Kimmel hints at retiring from talk show: ‘I think this is my final contract.”

    “I think this is my final contract,” Kimmel told the Los Angeles Times. “I hate to even say it, because everyone’s laughing at me now — each time I think that, and then it turns out to not be the case.”

    “I still have a little more than two years left on my contract, and that seems pretty good,” he added. “That seems like enough.”

    Kimmel recently celebrated the 21st anniversary of his late night talk show “Jimmy Kimmel Live!”

    Related: Jimmy Kimmel Openly Fantasizes About Death Of Donald Trump

    Kimmel’s Future Plans

    As for how he plans to occupy his time when he retires, Kimmel said,  “I don’t know exactly what I will do.”

    “It might not be anything that anyone other than me is aware of,” he continued. “I have a lot of hobbies — I love to cook, I love to draw, I imagine myself learning to do sculptures. I know that when I die, if I’m fortunate enough to die on my own terms in my own bed, I’m going to think, ‘Oh, I was never able to get to this, and I was never able to get to that.’ I just know it about myself.”

    Kimmel admitted that the idea of dying without accomplishing everything that he wants to do in life “bums [him] out a little bit.”

    “I know that when I die, if I’m fortunate enough to die on my own terms in my own bed, I’m going to think, ‘Oh, I was never able to get to this, and I was never able to get to that,’” Kimmel added. “I just know it about myself.”

    Related: Bill Burr Trashes Anti-Trump ‘Idiot Liberal’ Late Night Host Jimmy Kimmel On His Own Show

    Kimmel Responds To Trump

    Kimmel has long had one of the worst cases of Trump derangement syndrome of anyone in television. Last night, he responded to Trump calling him a “loser” for suggesting he may retire.

    “This apparently caught the attention of America’s most famous tangerine,” Kimmel said in his monologue.

    “And I got to say that is a hell of a way to find out you’re not going be somebody’s running mate,” he continued. “He has no idea how delighted I am by something like this. I’m going to try to enjoy it, because he probably won’t be able to do this when they take away his phone in prison, so I’m going really like, soak it in.”

    Check out his full comments on this in the video below.

    Kimmel has shown time and time again over the past few years that he truly is a loser, so we applaud Trump for calling him out. In the end, the world of television will be a far better place if Kimmel does indeed retire, so we can only hope that he follows through with his plan!

    Now is the time to support and share the sources you trust.
    The Political Insider ranks #3 on Feedspot’s “100 Best Political Blogs and Websites.”

    An Ivy leaguer, proud conservative millennial, history lover, writer, and lifelong New Englander, James specializes in the intersection of… More about James Conrad

    [ad_2]

    James Conrad

    Source link

  • What’s new in the latest edition of Retirement Income for Life? – MoneySense

    What’s new in the latest edition of Retirement Income for Life? – MoneySense

    [ad_1]

    1. “Mine is probably the only calculator that assumes one’s spending does not quite keep pace with inflation in our later years.” 
    2. “My calculator is one of the few out there that isn’t sponsored by a bank or investment company. I’m not selling anything other than the best income estimate possible. Also, it is the only calculator to my knowledge that explicitly shows how much better you do if you buy an annuity or defer CPP (Canada Pension Plan).”

    Deferring CPP: Sometimes people shouldn’t wait until age 70

    For me, deferring the CPP ship has already sailed. I took it at 66 when my wife retired, although she waited until 68 to take hers. We had initially planned for her to wait until age 70, but we did it sooner because Vettese’s articles argued for an exception to his usual recommendation to wait until age 70. In 2022 and in 2023, he suggested that those on the cusp of turning 70 might take CPP a year or two early, owing to the high inflation adjustments Ottawa made to CPP and Old Age Security (OAS) in those years. 

    But partial annuitization is very much still a possibility. My wife’s locked-in retirement account (LIRA)—which she opened when working—is likely to turn into a life income fund (LIF) sometime this year or the next. She has no employer pension, and I have only what I have dubbed a “mini” pension and an even smaller “micro” pension from previous employers. 

    How to use annuities in retirement

    So, I’ve always read, with interest, Vettese’s views about annuitizing at least part of RRSPs once they must be wound up at the end of the year one turns 71. At one point he suggested annuitizing 30% of RRSP assets, though the current book lowers that to 20%. (See also this Retired Money column on that very subject, written early in 2018 entitled: RRIF or Annuity? How about both?)

    Incidentally, the third edition of the book also mentions a couple of annuity-like innovations that weren’t available when the first two editions were published. In chapter 16, entitled “Can we do even better?” Vettese described Purpose Investments’ Longevity Pension Fund and Guardian Capital’s Guardpath Modern Tontine Trust. 

    He says that instead of annuities issued by Canadian insurance companies, these two new longevity financial products are offered by investment companies, thus chiefly use stocks and bonds for income. 

    One difference is that, unlike with traditional annuities, the income is not guaranteed. Also, there are no survivor benefits. He concludes the chapter, stating both are “like a less nerdy version of annuities for retirees prepared to take a small amount of risk.”

    But back to PERC

    You can try a stripped-down version for free and with no obligation. In fact, you’ll have to print out the results because of privacy concerns: “The data from PERC is stored, but it’s not attached to anything that could reveal one’s identity,” he told me. 

    If you want the full treatment with multiple scenarios, the price for a one-year subscription to a Canadian customized PERC is a reasonable $135 plus tax. You can enter the basics of your financial situation and that of your spouse (which Vettese recommends) and, in less than a half an hour, the PERC generates a summary of your likely future retirement income. You enter pre-tax amounts for pensions and other income and PERC handles the tax side of it automatically. 

    [ad_2]

    Jonathan Chevreau

    Source link

  • ‘Quit entertaining these crazy-butt ideas’: This South Carolina teacher earns $158K and is very close to retirement, paid-off home — but is considering more debt for renovations. Should she?

    ‘Quit entertaining these crazy-butt ideas’: This South Carolina teacher earns $158K and is very close to retirement, paid-off home — but is considering more debt for renovations. Should she?

    [ad_1]

    ‘Quit entertaining these crazy-butt ideas’: This South Carolina teacher earns $158K and is very close to retirement, paid-off home — but is considering more debt for renovations. Should she?

    Patience is a virtue: one that could come in handy in certain financial situations, according to personal finance guru Dave Ramsey.

    Dina, a 59-year-old teacher from Pawleys Island, S.C., is months away from retirement and a fully paid-off home but is considering more debt to finance some renovations. In a recent episode of The Ramsey Show, Dina said a home equity line of credit (HELOC) or reverse mortgage was on the table.

    Don’t miss

    Ramsey was stunned. “Quit entertaining these crazy-butt ideas,” he told her. He told Dina she could be jeopardizing her financial future if she isn’t willing to be patient.

    To borrow or not to borrow

    A lifetime of good choices and regularly seeking money advice put Dina’s family in a good financial position. She claimed her household income is $158,000, while she and her husband have no debt besides a small mortgage, don’t eat out much and drive old cars.

    The mortgage is worth $41,000. Dina said her savings over the next few months, combined with $28,000 in a tax-sheltered annuity, should be enough to pay the mortgage off fully by August 2024.

    Dina planned to complete one final school year and retire at the age of 60.

    However, the condition of their house is getting in the way of a fairytale ending. Their family home is roughly 24 years old and in need of some repairs.

    Dina said the siding needed to be replaced, and the family wanted to add a sunroom to the back of the house. She didn’t have estimates for how much these renovations would cost but is willing to consider a HELOC or reverse mortgage to finance them.

    Ramsey isn’t a fan of that idea. “Where is that woman who called and said she [regularly] listened to [my] show!?” he asked.

    Read more: Thanks to Jeff Bezos, you can now cash in on prime real estate — without the headache of being a landlord. Here’s how

    Like Dina, many seniors consider complex financial instruments to tap into the value of their homes.

    A reverse mortgage is a loan that allows seniors to convert some of their home equity into cash. The borrower doesn’t need to pay interest or principal while they live on the property, but the loan becomes due with accumulated interest when they move away permanently or pass away.

    There are about 480,000 reverse mortgages outstanding in the U.S., according to a 2023 report by the National Consumer Law Center (NCLC).

    Industry experts believe these instruments could see more adoption in the coming years as seniors tap into their enormous housing wealth. However, Ramsey called getting a reverse mortgage a “bad idea,” and the NCLC report said, “reverse mortgages end in foreclosure much more often than they should.”

    Instead of borrowing money, Ramsey recommended some patience.

    Delay retirement

    Dina could afford her renovations if she postponed her retirement and financed it herself, Ramsey said.

    Considering her household income and the fact that mortgage payments won’t be an additional burden after August, Ramsey estimated that Dina can pay for her renovations within a couple of years if she just worked a little longer. He also recommended getting a quote on the renovations so that she and her husband can create a detailed plan for the projects.

    “Work two more years, who cares?” Ramsey said. His co-host Jade Warshaw agreed: “If you can save to pay off the house, you can save to do these improvements; it’s just going to take a little time.”

    A little patience should save Dina’s retirement nest egg.

    What to read next

    This article provides information only and should not be construed as advice. It is provided without warranty of any kind.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • How to qualify for EI benefits in retirement – MoneySense

    How to qualify for EI benefits in retirement – MoneySense

    [ad_1]

    What are EI benefits? What are special benefits?

    Regular benefits are paid to eligible employees who lose their job through no fault of their own, JM. Typically, this would include those who are terminated because of a restructuring or those who work in seasonal industries.

    Special benefits include parental benefits (maternity and parental leave), sickness benefits (for those who cannot work due to injury or illness), compassionate care benefits (for those caring for a seriously ill family member needing end-of-life care) or parents of critically ill children benefits (regardless of their age).

    An optional retirement is not a qualifying reason for EI benefits, JM, because it does not fall into the special benefits categories and regular benefits are not meant to pay out to people who choose to stop working.

    Can you get EI if you quit your job in Canada?

    If your retirement, JM, is not your choice, you may qualify for regular benefits. Of note is that there are several reasons when quitting a job is considered “just cause,” but you must be able to substantiate to Service Canada that quitting was the only reasonable option.

    These reasons may include:

    • sexual or other harassment
    • needing to move with a spouse or dependent child to another place of residence
    • discrimination
    • working conditions that endanger your health or safety
    • having to provide care for a child or another member of your immediate family
    • reasonable assurance of another job in the immediate future
    • major changes in the terms and conditions of your job affecting wages or salary
    • excessive overtime or an employer’s refusal to pay for overtime work
    • major changes in work duties
    • difficult relations with a supervisor, for which you are not primarily responsible
    • your employer is doing things which break the law
    • discrimination because of membership in an association, organization or union of workers
    • pressure from your employer or fellow workers to quit your job

    Can you receive EI and OAS and CPP?

    If you do qualify for EI benefits, JM, your Old Age Security (OAS) pension won’t impact your eligibility for EI benefits, since it is an age-based pension that does not have to do with work or earnings. However, Canada Pension Plan (CPP) or Québec Pension Plan (QPP) benefits will, as they are pensions that are related to work and earnings. Likewise, with employer pension plans and even foreign pensions that arose from employment in another country.

    CPP, QPP and employer pensions generally constitute “earnings” that reduce your entitlement to EI benefits and must be reported to Service Canada. These types of earnings are deducted from your EI benefits.

    There is an impact on your EI if you have earnings while receiving it, whether from employment, self-employment, or CPP/OAS/workplace pension income. You lose $0.50 of your EI for every $1 you earn up to 90% of your previous weekly earnings. For earnings in excess, EI benefits get reduced dollar-for-dollar.

    [ad_2]

    Jason Heath, CFP

    Source link

  • How to model retirement income in Canada – MoneySense

    How to model retirement income in Canada – MoneySense

    [ad_1]

    Mike, you are at risk of leaving too much money after you die, and it may not be until you reach age 70, 75 or 80 when you realize it. You could think, “I have all this money, and only so much time and energy left. If I had known, I would have done more.” 

    Lucky for you Mike, you are already thinking about it. Now, it is time for you to engage in some serious play and run some “what ifs” with the projection model you created. Experiment by finding the maximum you can spend each year until your deaths, and then do the same thing again but to the end of your expected health span, when you are too old to enjoy yourself.

    When the money runs out in the model you created, find out the value of your house and farm. Would you sell these to support your retired lifestyle? How much money, if any, do you want to leave your beneficiaries? Play with a few different combinations to see what spending patterns are possible.

    Don’t worry about how you will draw any funds, taxes or other planning strategies. Just get a good sense of what is possible for you.

    Then you will know how much you can spend each year. It’s up to you to decide how you are going to spend or gift your money, which is easier said than done.

    Don’t worry if you can’t identify future plans. Instead, make this year a good one, and do the same next year. If you string together a good year after another and after another, and so on, over your lifetime, you will have lived a full and rich life, with no regrets. Once you have a good sense of how you want to live in your retirement, that’s when you can apply tax and planning strategies. 

    How to model out retirement income

    Mike for some people, the risk of dying with too much money is all-too real. For all the emphasis Canadians place on investments and on tax and planning strategies, there’s very little on the important thing: maximizing life satisfaction.

    Using the model as I have described will give you a glimpse into your future, so you can make confident spending decisions today. Updating the model annually will keep your assumptions honest, keep you on track and allow you to enjoy yourself without feeling guilty spending your money.

    [ad_2]

    Allan Norman, MSc, CFP, CIM

    Source link

  • Employee Fired for Refusing to Retire Gets $105K in Damages | Entrepreneur

    Employee Fired for Refusing to Retire Gets $105K in Damages | Entrepreneur

    [ad_1]

    This article originally appeared on Business Insider.

    A former employee is set to receive $105,000 in back pay and damages after her company of nearly 20 years fired her when she refused to retire at 65, according to the US Equal Employment Opportunity Commission.

    A discrimination lawsuit filed by the federal agency said J&M Industries, Inc., a manufacturing and distribution company in Louisiana, violated federal age-discrimination laws by firing the employee.

    The Age Discrimination in Employment Act prohibits discrimination against individuals age 40 or older based on age.

    In a news release outlining the suit’s outcome last week, the EEOC said a company manager repeatedly asked the employee, who wasn’t named, about her retirement plans as she approached her 65th birthday.

    The manager directly asked her, “When are you going to retire,” “Why don’t you retire at 65,” and “What is the reason you are not retiring?” the EEOC‘s lawsuit said.

    When she told the company she had no immediate plans to stop working, the company informed her that her role as a purchasing agent was being eliminated due to economic uncertainty, the federal agency said.

    But the EEOC said the company hired a man in his 30s for the same role, which it had claimed to be eliminating, within a month.

    The Miami Herald reported that the company denied firing the woman because of her age, saying the 39-year-old replacement had “broader, more significant duties than she did.”

    The company said comments made about her retirement plans were either “stray remarks” or were related to succession planning, per The Miami Herald.

    Under the three-year consent decree settling the suit, the company agreed to pay $105,000 in back pay and liquidated damages, provide training, revise policies, provide regular reports to the EEOC, and post a notice affirming compliance with the ADEA law.

    The EEOC filed the suit in the Eastern District of Louisiana.

    “This resolution serves the public interest,” Rudy Sustaita, the regional attorney for the EEOC’s Houston District Office, said in a statement.

    “It provides relief for the former employee and will help protect others from age discrimination,” he added. “We are pleased that the EEOC and J&M Industries were able to reach this resolution.”

    J&M Industries didn’t immediately respond to a request for comment from Business Insider, which was sent outside operating hours.

    [ad_2]

    Joshua Zitser

    Source link

  • Illinois Tool Works Inc. (ITW) Stock Forecasts

    Illinois Tool Works Inc. (ITW) Stock Forecasts

    [ad_1]

    Summary

    Illinois Tool Works is a global manufacturer of engineered industrial products and equipment. The company’s operations are divided into seven segments: Test & Measurement and Electronics, Automotive OEM, Polymers & Fluids, Food Equipment, Welding, Construction Products, and Specialty Products. The shares are a component of the S&P 500. The company has 46,000 employees.

    Subscribe to Yahoo Finance Plus Essential for full access

    Exclusive reports, detailed company profiles, and best-in-class trade insights to take your portfolio to the next level

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Should retirees consider a home equity sharing agreement (HESA)? – MoneySense

    Should retirees consider a home equity sharing agreement (HESA)? – MoneySense

    [ad_1]

    Clay raised seed funding in 2023 and is initially launching the product to home owners in the Greater Toronto Area as an alternative to reverse mortgages and the simple—although not always ideal—option of selling a property to downsize or become renters.

    What is a home equity sharing agreement?

    The HESA is a relatively straightforward concept. You give some of your home equity to Clay in exchange for cash today. Clay will get paid when you sell your home in the future, up to 25 years down the road, meaning you don’t need to make monthly payments in the meantime.

    The limit for a HESA is up to 17.5% of your home’s value, up to $500,000. However, most home owners will get nowhere near that $500,000 limit. The average Canadian home price in December 2023 was $657,145, according to the Canadian Real Estate Association. That would translate to a potential lump sum cash payment of $115,000. The maximum payment of $500,000 would apply to homes valued at around $2.8 million.

    An interesting option with the HESA is that you can buy back Clay’s share of your home anytime after the first five years. So, it’s not an irreversible decision. But there are a few costs to consider.

    Before you can access a HESA, your property is independently appraised to determine its fair market value. Clay will then apply a risk adjustment rate of 5% to determine its starting value for the HESA. Home owners must cover a 5% origination fee and a closing fee of 1% of Clay’s share of your home appreciation (or $500, whichever is greater). The home owner must also pay the cost of inspections, appraisals and fees to cover the registration of Clay’s charge on the property.

    So, Clay gets a good deal on purchasing some of your home’s equity at a lower price, and you pay the ongoing maintenance costs for 100% of the property going forward. The origination and closing fees can also add up. These nuances help make the HESA a good investment for Clay.

    Should retirees consider a HESA?

    I give Clay credit for its innovative approach to helping seniors access their home equity in retirement. Retirees who can’t tap into their home’s value may not have sufficient income to cover their expenses. Some retirees want to use home equity for gifting to their children during their lives, sometimes to help them get into homes of their own.

    A simple alternative may be to downsize or to sell and become a renter. But downsizing can be costly when you consider the transaction costs, including real estate commissions and land transfer tax.

    [ad_2]

    Jason Heath, CFP

    Source link

  • Are GICs worth it for Canadian retirees? – MoneySense

    Are GICs worth it for Canadian retirees? – MoneySense

    [ad_1]

    In other words, during the near-zero interest rates that prevailed until recently, investors wanting real inflation-adjusted returns had almost no choice but to embrace stocks. (Read more about TINA and other investing acronyms).  

    GICs have a place in locking in some real-returns, especially if inflation tracks down further. But Raina says investing in bonds offer opportunities to lock in healthy coupon returns, with the prospect of higher capital appreciation opportunities if interest rates fall further, since bonds currently trade at a discount. The risk is the unknown: when interest rates will start falling. Based on what the Bank of Canada (BoC) announced in the fall, Raina feels that could be some time in 2024. (On Dec. 6, the BoC announced it was holding its target for the overnight rate at 5%, with the bank rate at 5.25% and deposit rate at 5%.)

    CFA Anita Bruinsma, of Clarity Personal Finance, is more enthusiastic about GICs for retirees in Canada. “I love GICs right now,” she says. “It’s a great time to use GICs.” For clients who need a portion of their money within the next three years, she says, “GICs are the best place for that money as long as they know they won’t need the money before maturity.”

    Other advisors may argue bond funds could have good returns in the coming years, if rates decline. However, “I would never make a bet either way,” Bruinsma says, “I think retirees looking for a balanced portfolio should still use bond ETFs and not entirely replace the bond component with GICs. However, I do think that allocating a portion of the bond slice to GICs would be a good idea, especially for more nervous/conservative people.” For Bruinsma’s clients with a medium-term time horizon, she recommends laddering GICs so they can be reinvested every year at whatever rates then prevail. 

    GICs vs HISAs

    An alternative is the HISA ETFs. (HISA is the high-interest savings accounts Small referred to above). HISA ETFs are paying a slightly lower yield than GICs and also do not guarantee the yield. “I also like this product but GICs win for the ability to lock in the rate,” says Bruinsma.

    When investing in a GIC may not make sense

    Another consideration is that GICs are relatively illiquid if you lock in your money for three, four or five years or any other term. “If you are uncertain if you will need those funds in the near future, you can look at a high interest savings account ETF like Horizon’s CASH,” says Matthew Ardrey, wealth advisor with Toronto-based TriDelta Financial. “This ETF is currently yielding 5.40% gross—less a 0.11% MER.”

    Apart from inflation, taxation is another reason for not being too overweight in GICs, especially in taxable portfolios. Even though GIC yields are now roughly similar to “bond-equivalent” dividend stocks (typically found in Canadian bank stocks, utilities and telcos), the latter are taxed less than interest income in non-registered accounts because of the dividend tax credit. In Ontario, dividend income is taxed at 39.34% versus 53.53% for interest income at the top rate in Ontario, according to Ardrey. This is why, personally, I still prefer locating GICs in TFSAs and registered retirement plans (RRSPs)

    When GICs are right for retirees

    Ardrey says GICs can be a valuable diversifier when it’s difficult to find strong returns in both the stock and bond markets. “This is especially true for income investors who would often have more of a focus on dividend stocks.” Using iShares ETFs as market proxies, Ardrey cites the return of XDV as -0.54% YTD and XBB is 1.52% year to date (YTD). “Beside those numbers a 5%-plus return looks very attractive.”

    [ad_2]

    Jonathan Chevreau

    Source link

  • 5 Gen Xers share what it's really like to plan for retirement

    5 Gen Xers share what it's really like to plan for retirement

    [ad_1]

    The oldest Gen Xers, born in 1965, are just a few years away from traditional retirement age. But many don’t feel nearly ready enough for that next chapter. Fortune received hundreds of emails from Gen Xers who say they are worried about what the future holds in store for them and their retirement readiness.

    “I’ve followed my dreams, as my generation was told to do, but found that some dreams cost more to follow than others,” writes one Gen Xer. “My savings are virtually nonexistent.”

    “I’ll likely die before I can retire. Fun stuff,” writes another.

    Gen X has the largest wealth gap of any generation, or the difference between the amount they believe they’ll need to retire comfortably and how much they actually have socked away, according to the Schroders 2023 U.S. Retirement Survey. Over 60% of non-retired Gen Xers are not confident in their ability to achieve a dream retirement, compared to 49% of millennials and 53% of baby boomers. The typical Gen X household has $40,000 in retirement savings, according to a recent study from the National Institute on Retirement Security, far from the $1 million-plus financial experts suggest.

    There are myriad reasons for this, including two market crashes, 9/11, and other economic headwinds Gen X has experienced during their years in the workforce. And of course not every Gen Xer feels this way; many of those who emailed Fortune said they are more than prepared for a comfortable retirement.

    “I am fully retired and did so at age 56 and two months,” writes one Gen Xer born in 1965. “I do consider myself a bit of unicorn with my circumstances.”

    But one big reason for potential retirement struggles is the dissipation of pensions over Gen X’s time in the workforce (401(k)s, which put the onus on employees to save for their retirement rather than employers, came into existence at the end of 1978, just before Gen X began). They also carry more student loan debt than baby boomers (and balances for those who have it are often higher than that of millennials, thanks to years of compounding interest) and, broadly speaking, pay more for health care.

    “They are the first generation to rely on 401(k) plans instead of pensions and the next in line to retire,” said Deb Boyden, head of U.S. defined contribution at Schroders. “The stakes are higher for Generation X and the margin for error is lower.”

    “There is a lesson to be learned from our generation,” says Don, a 50-year-old living in Denver, Colorado. “We assumed we’d be treated the same as our parents, but now we’re reaching that stage, and, nope.”

    Here’s how five Gen Xers are thinking about and planning for retirement.

    ‘I’ve always had more than one job’

    Tiffanie Young, 46.

    Courtesy of Tiffanie Young

    Name: Tiffanie Young
    Age: 46
    Location: Astoria, Oregon

    Tiffanie Young first learned of the power of compound interest when she was 20 years old and starting her career in respiratory therapy. A mentor mentioned that if she starting saving even small amounts of money every week at her age, she could amass $1 million by the time she retired.

    “I was like, wow, that’s pretty cool,” Young tells Fortune. From then on, she made contributed to her employer’s 403(b)—a tax-advantaged retirement account similar to a 401(k) offered by public schools and nonprofits—incrementally increasing it each year. Aside from cashing out part of it to buy a house in 2007, she’s consistently saved for the past two-and-a-half decades.

    Young had her first child at 17, while still in high school. But she was determined to get a good job to provide for him and attended a two-year program at a community college for respiratory therapy. She’s been in the same profession for the past 25 years. Now, she and her husband have five children between them, all grown and out of the house.

    Over the years, Young has padded her savings and paid for things like family vacations by picking up shifts every week with a health care agency. “I’ve always had more than one job,” she says. When she first joined the agency, it still offered a pension; Young continues to pick up the occasional shift, despite moving around two hours away from the area it serves, so that she can access that pension in retirement.

    Young has had a few financial guardian angels over the years. She almost quit the agency gig a few years ago, but an older worker told her to hang on to the job until she was sure she was vested, in order to receive the pension. That, the coworker said, can be the “difference between eating steak and dog food” in retirement.

    “That stuck in my brain. I was like, I don’t want to eat dog food,” she says. “It’s a unique thing. I don’t want to let it go.”

    Young’s husband, who is 50, owns his own business, giving guided fishing tours. She says they feel about 70% ready to retire. But stock market fluctuations worry her, and she and her husband have been investing more in precious metals to diversify their nest egg. Her ideal retirement would be to drop to part-time work and join her husband’s business.

    “It does worry me a little bit, but we’ve made some investments in the past year and a half that we feel are very good investments in the business,” she says. “We feel we will have more assets to sell off to contribute to retirement.”

    ‘My generation is going to have a harder time than boomers’

    Don, 50, does not think he will retire.

    Name: Don
    Age: 50
    Location: Denver, Colorado

    Retirement isn’t in the picture for Don, a 50-year-old living in Denver, Colorado. Don, who asked that his last name be withheld to talk freely about his finances, works as a maintenance facilities technician at a marijuana dispensary, earning around $50,000 per year.

    Don grew up low income in the area and, having lost much of his retirement savings during the Great Recession, doesn’t trust investing in the stock market. When he does manage to save, “something always comes up,” he says; one of his cats needs to go to the vet, or something in his home needs to be fixed. He recently had to have back surgery, which put him out of work for three months and dwindled his savings.

    “My generation is going to have a harder time than boomers. Boomers, they had pensions,” Don tells Fortune. But “all you can do when you get knocked off your feet is get back up and dust off.”

    One bit of luck: Don bought a three-bedroom house in the middle of Denver ten years ago for under $100,000. His mortgage is $950 per month, and he plans to stay there forever.

    Don says his original plan had been to buy one or two more properties to rent out. But once housing prices sky-rocketed—his own home is worth about four times what he paid for it—that plan dissipated. Don bought his home when he was earning $14 per hour; that just isn’t possible anymore. He gets calls and mail daily from flippers who want to buy his home, but he wouldn’t be able to afford anything else, he says.

    “The only reason I can live here in Denver is because of the timing when I bought my house,” he says. “I love my home. I feel so lucky and so blessed to live here right now.”

    Don loves working with his hands and finds fulfillment in his work. He can fix just about anything, he says, which comes in handy as a homeowner.

    “Yeah I’m poor, but there’s a certain happiness in being poor,” he says. “Even if I won’t retire ever, I’ve been in this lifestyle long enough that, hey, at least I know what I’m doing.”

    ‘We are on track to be financially independent at 55’

    Fred and his wife are on track to retire by 55.

    Name: Fred
    Age: 45
    Location: Cape Cod, Massachusetts

    Fred bought his first home in the U.S. in 2009 after working for a few years in Cape Cod as an electrical engineer. Having attended college in France, where he was born, he had no student loan debt and focused on paying off his mortgage for the next few years while simultaneously saving for his retirement.

    Paying off the house turned out to be a prudent move. When he married his wife in 2013, she had over $100,000 in student loan debt (she is a mental health therapist). In order to pay down her debt quickly, they put one of the spare rooms in the house on Airbnb. It also gave him the capital he needed to buy a new house in a tough market right before the COVID-19 pandemic hit and housing prices sky-rocketed. With a 2.7% mortgage interest rate, Fred and his wife aren’t planning to pay this house off anytime soon.

    Fred, who asked that his last name be withheld to freely discuss his finances, will have a few different income sources when he retires. His work offered a pension when he started, before switching to a 403(b), so he will receive money from that. He and his wife now max out their retirement accounts each year, and will also have Social Security payments. And Fred will also receive a pension from the French government (similar to the U.S. Social Security), as he has continued to pay into the system even while living in the U.S.

    “We are on track to be financially independent at 55,” Fred tells Fortune. “We are buying our independence.”

    If all goes to plan and Fred can cut his hours at age 55, he says he and his wife have discussed moving to France until their Social Security and Medicare benefits kick in in the U.S. It’s much cheaper to live there (particularly health insurance), he says, and they could travel more easily around Europe. His goal, he says, is to leave a nest egg for his two kids while “living freely and comfortably.”

    As a high earner who’s good with numbers, Fred says the retirement system in the U.S. works well for him. But he is constantly running projections and reading articles, he says; constantly making plans for 20 years from now. He’s lucky, he says, that he found a job he loves that also happens to pay a good salary. He and his wife also try to live simply (he drives a 2007 Prius) and focus on their health—they enjoy hiking together—to ensure they can live a comfortable life in retirement.

    “For us, it works better. But it’s not equitable,” he says. “I would have no problem cutting my retirement if it was contributed to a more equitable system.”

    ‘We assume we’ll probably work until we die’

    Marie Keyte is not pictured.

    Blend Images/Rick Gomez

    Name: Marie Keyte
    Age: 48
    Location: Statesboro, Georgia

    After living in South Florida since her kids—now 16 and 18—were young, Marie Keyte moved to Georgia two years ago when her husband found a new job. The couple was more than ready for a new pace and more affordable cost-of-living, and after her husband lost his job a few years ago, they decided it was the perfect time to follow through on their plans of leaving.

    So far, it’s been a great change; her husband earns more and everything, including their rental house, costs noticeably less. Keyte has worked as a bookkeeper for her entire career (though she is currently on leave to write a book), and her husband works in construction.

    Still, Keyte says retirement isn’t in the cards, at least not with their current finances. She’s been contributing to a 401(k) since she was 23, but says it’s still not enough. “We assume we’ll probably work until we die,” she says.

    In her ideal retirement, they’d retire around age 70 and move into a small cabin nearby and volunteer. She’s still holding out some hope.

    “It’s still far down the line, another 20 years of work,” she says. “You don’t know. Things could change.”

    ‘I feel like we’re doing relatively better than our peers’

    Michelle Milkowski and her husband Shawn Allen.

    Courtesy of Michelle Milkowski

    Name: Michelle Milkowski
    Age: 43
    Location: Renton, Washington

    Though she earned her undergraduate degree in music, Michelle Milkowski decided on a more traditional career are a health insurer, working her way up over the years to be a sales manager.

    When she started her career, Milkowski’s parents assured her she’d have a pension to rely on for her retirement savings; it took them a while, she says, to understand that the benefits landscape looked much different for their daughter’s generation than it did for them. She starting contributing $50 per paycheck to her 403(b) when she started working, and has incrementally increased that over the years as she has earned more. Milkowski recalls not knowing much about saving or investing when she started her career; in her 20s, she bought Kiplinger’s and other financial magazines to learn the basics.

    Milkowski and her husband, a teacher at a private school, own their home in Renton, near Seattle, and were able to refinance to a 2.375% mortgage interest rate. “I will never be selling this house,” she says. She notes that the past few years have taught her anything is possible; it’s hard to know what to prepare for. Things are going well now, she says, but that can change in an instant.

    “I think retirement is possible,” says Milkowski. “I feel like we’re doing relatively better than our peers in how much we’re saving, but I cannot find really accurate data anywhere to understand where we are.”

    Working in insurance has made Milkowski acutely aware of just how quickly things can change; she says retirement reform “needs to happen in this country” to help those who aren’t able to save through no fault of their own.

    “Growing up you are taught, be responsible, get a job, work hard, and then you’ll have your nest egg and everything will be fine,” she says. “But I found out people get disabled, people have strokes…if a parent has to step out of the workforce for any reason, good luck to that family.”

    Some years, Milkowski is able to max out her retirement accounts; other years, the family faces challenges and she needs to pull back her investments. But she feels pretty good about where their current financial situation.

    “I’m going to do the very best I can, but I cannot worry myself about that at a certain point,” she says.

    [ad_2]

    Alicia Adamczyk

    Source link

  • What is the CPP enhancement? – MoneySense

    What is the CPP enhancement? – MoneySense

    [ad_1]

    The second phase of the Canadian Pension Plan (CPP) enhancement program has come into effect as of January 2024, and with it, the final CPP contribution rate increase for most Canadians. In an effort to ensure adequate retirement pensions, this seven-year government initiative involving incremental raises to the contribution rate came into effect in 2019, and it involved incremental raises to the contribution rate.

    Now, the second CPP enhancement is introducing an additional “earnings ceiling,” which will affect some middle- and high-income earners. Does that include you? Learn everything you need to know about the CPP enhancement and the 2024 changes in this explainer.

    Why are CPP contributions increasing?

    The CPP is one of three primary government programs, along with Old Age Security (OAS) and the Guaranteed Income Supplement (GIS), designed to provide Canadians with income to last them throughout retirement. For some workers, this amount is supplemented by an employer-provided defined benefit (DB) plan, which guarantees a certain amount of income for life, while others save for retirement using vehicles like registered retirement savings plans (RRSPs).

    According to Evan Parubets, head of the advisory services team at Steadyhand Investment Funds Inc., this approach worked for many decades. “We used to have average savings rates of over 20% in Canada, back in the early ’80s,” he says, “but saving rates have basically been falling for decades.”

    Declining personal savings isn’t the only issue. “Over the last several decades, companies have let go of defined benefit plans and replaced them with defined contribution plans,” Parubets says. These packages have employers matching employee contributions for investment. “This brought in more unpredictability towards retirement.”

    By 2019, it became clear that many Canadians were not going to have sufficient savings or assets for their retirement, says Parubets. “The government made a decision to essentially enhance the government benefits to make up for the lack of private benefits.” 

    The CPP enhancement

    Introduced in 2016 and begun in 2019, the CPP enhancement is a seven-year program designed to boost retirement pensions by increasing the amount of CPP contributions.

    How CPP contributions are calculated

    Since the CPP was introduced in 1965, Canadian workers have contributed by way of payroll deductions or, in the case of self-employed people, at tax time.

    Each Canadian worker can earn up to $3,500 (the “basic exemption amount”) without paying into CPP. Think of this as your personal base rate when you file your taxes. Any money you earn after that is subject to CPP deductions—up to the year’s maximum pensionable earnings (YMPE). The YMPE is also called an “earnings ceiling”—that is, anything earned above this amount will not be subject to additional CPP contributions.

    In 2018, prior to the first enhancement, the rate for Canadian employees was 4.95% (with employers matching this contribution). Self-employed Canadians paid double—or 9.9%—because for these purposes, they serve as both the employer and employee. So, with a YMPE of $55,900 in 2018, an employed person earning that much or more would pay 4.95% in CPP on $52,400 ($55,900 minus the basic exemption amount of $3,500), for a total of $2,593.80. A self-employed person making $55,900 or more would pay double, for a total of $5,187.60.

    The first enhancement (CPP1)

    The federal government introduced the CPP enhancements as a seven-year plan with two phases, each with escalating YMPEs and CPP contribution rates. This way, Canadians wouldn’t have to absorb the new costs all at once.

    The first enhancement, CPP1, went into effect in 2019 with a YMPE of $57,400 and a CPP contribution rate of 5.1% (10.2% for self-employed people). Over the next five years, both the YMPE and the contributions rates increased marginally. In 2023, the YMPE was $66,600 with a contribution rate of 5.95% (11.9% for self-employed people).

    The second enhancement (CPP2)

    The final phase of the CPP enhancement starts in January 2024. Instead of raising the rates further, this phase adds a year’s additional maximum pensionable earnings (YAMPE), or second earnings ceiling, with a contribution amount of 4% for employees and 8% for freelancers and other self-employed Canadians. In other words, the second earnings ceiling is meant to capture a portion of the income of higher-earning Canadians.

    To understand how the CPP enhancements work, let’s use an example of someone with an annual salary of $100,000, to make the math clear. 

    Jameela from Edmonton earns $100,000 annually as an employee. Under CPP1, with the 2023 rates of 5.95% and a YMPE of $66,600, she would owe $3,754.45, based on the following formula: ($66,600 minus the basic exemption amount of $3,500) x 5.95%. Jameela would pay nothing on any amount she makes over $66,600.

    In 2024, with a YMPE of $68,500 and a YAMPE of $73,200, Jameela’s CPP contributions are a bit different. She will pay 5.95% on the first $68,500 (minus $3,500), for a total of $3,867.50. In addition, she owes 4% on the money she earns between the first and second earnings ceilings (or between the YMPE and YAMPE), which is: $73,200 – $68,500 = $4,700. Multiplied by 4%, that comes out to $188. Her contributions will total $4,055.50.

    How much are CPP contributions going up in 2024?

    As of 2024, the CPP contribution rates for employees and the self-employed are the same as in 2023: 5.95% and 11.9%, respectively, unless they make more than the YMPE, which is $68,500 in 2024 and an estimated $69,700 in 2025.

    Workers who make more than the YMPE will contribute more—at a rate of 4% for employees and 8% for freelancers. This rate will only apply to the earnings between the first and second earnings ceilings.

    How does the CPP enhancement affect freelancers?

    Self-employed Canadians have always had to pay both the employer and employee portions of their CPP contributions, and it’s no different with these enhancements.

    “Compared to employed individuals, they are certainly at a disadvantage in the sense they have to pay double,” Parubets says. “Nevertheless, it is a form of savings. You’re getting that money back.” Plus, everyone can claim a federal tax credit of 15% of their CPP contributions. Self-employed contributors can also deduct the employer portion of their CPP contributions yielding tax savings at their marginal tax rate.

    As with Canadian employed workers, just how much a Canadian freelancer will pay depends on their income. For example:

    James is a freelancer in Quebec City who makes $55,000 per year, so his earnings fall under the first earnings ceiling. He will pay 11.9% on his eligible income. However, in 2025 he takes on a new client and his earnings jump to $80,000. Therefore, he will pay 11.9% up to the YMPE and 8% on the money between the YMPE and the YAMPE.

    It bears mentioning that in the example of James, living in Quebec, he will be contributing to the Quebec Pension Plan (QPP). The QPP mirrors the CPP in terms of contributions and earnings thresholds, as well as pension payments.

    What about low-income Canadians?

    Most Canadians, no matter their incomes, will benefit from the raised CPP rates when they retire due to a higher pension, with one notable exception—retired workers who qualify for the GIS.

    “Say you’ve been working low-income jobs all your life and contributing to CPP. Eventually you’ll get your money back,” says Parubets. “But if you’re still low-income and on GIS, they’ll claw back the GIS pension money that you would have otherwise been entitled to.” (A clawback is a means-tested reduction in government benefits.) The clawback rate hovers somewhere between 50% and 75%. “A person who’s never worked and never contributed to CPP will likely get most if not all their GIS benefits.”

    Read more about CPP:

    The post What is the CPP enhancement? appeared first on MoneySense.

    [ad_2]

    Keph Senett

    Source link

  • PolitiFact – Trump ad says Nikki Haley’s plan would cut Social Security for 82% of Americans. That’s False

    PolitiFact – Trump ad says Nikki Haley’s plan would cut Social Security for 82% of Americans. That’s False

    [ad_1]

    Former President Donald Trump continues to attack Nikki Haley’s position on Social Security as he tries to siphon support from her in New Hampshire ahead of the state’s Jan. 23 presidential primary. 

    “Americans were promised a secure retirement. Nikki Haley’s plan ends that,” a narrator says in a new Trump campaign ad airing in the Granite State. “Haley’s plan cuts Social Security benefits for 82% of Americans.” 

    The 30-second spot features older people and a clip of Haley, Trump’s former U.N. ambassador, responding to a question about how she would address entitlement programs. “We say the rules have changed,” Haley says in the ad. “We change retirement age to reflect life expectancy. What we do know is 65 is way too low, and we need to increase that.”

    A still from Donald Trump’s 2024 campaign ad “Threat from Within.” (Screenshot from YouTube)

    We know from a previous fact-check that this excerpt of Haley’s quote is missing context; Haley specified that the rules should change for younger Americans, not current or imminent beneficiaries.

    But would her plan, as this new Trump ad claims, cut Social Security benefits for 82% of Americans — or roughly 272 million people? 

    No. The Trump ad is an extreme exaggeration of how many Americans would be affected by Haley’s plans for Social Security. It would not affect retirees or people nearing retirement.

    Trump’s campaign didn’t respond to PolitiFact about its statistic’s source. The ad cites a CNN article that doesn’t support the claim.

    The 82% appears to reference a rough estimate of the total Americans eligible for Social Security benefits. (Some people are not included because they receive Social Security disability insurance or are ineligible for Social Security, such as infrequent workers, for example.)

    Haley has never advocated cutting all Social Security benefits for everyone currently in that 82%. Trump’s ad gives the false impression that Haley’s plan would end or cut into older Americans’ Social Security retirement. Haley’s more limited plan wouldn’t apply to current beneficiaries or anyone nearing retirement.

    Haley has repeatedly said she would support increasing the age for Americans in their 20s, which she explained in the same interview that Trump’s ad misleadingly clipped. “The way we deal with it, is we don’t touch anyone’s retirement or anyone who’s been promised in,” Haley said in the Aug. 24 Bloomberg News interview. “But we go to people like my kids in their 20s, when they’re coming into the system, and we say the rules have changed.”

    How the retirement age affects Social Security benefits

    The retirement age for collecting full Social Security benefits is 67 for Americans born in 1960 and later and age 65 for people born before.

    Americans who choose to collect their benefits early (which they can do at 62) receive smaller monthly payments. This offsets the additional checks they’ll receive over their lifetimes. For example, people who collect Social Security benefits at age 64 instead of 67 receive 80% of their full monthly benefit. People who retire at 62 receive 70% of their full monthly benefit. 

    Raising the full retirement age means people who retire before the new cutoff would receive smaller benefits, and people who opt to wait for full benefits will have to retire later. 

    “As the system’s retirement age increases, everyone’s benefits fall a bit, depending on the age you start collecting,” said Richard Johnson, director of the Urban Institute’s program on retirement policy.

    It’s not clear what year or age Haley’s proposal would kick in. But based on population estimates from the 2022 U.S. Census, if people ages 25 and older were excluded from a retirement age increase, which is in line with Haley’s pitch, her plan would likely reduce benefits for 26% of Americans alive today — decades from now. 

    Haley’s proposal ties the increased age requirement to gains in average U.S. life expectancy, which ticked up in 2022 after two years of decreases. (Not everyone is expected to live longer, though — research shows that life expectancy is shorter for people with lower socioeconomic status, — so, raising the retirement age based on that metric would reduce the years they’d receive Social Security benefits.) 

    The kicker in Trump’s attack 

    Trump is hitting Haley for a similar position that he once held. In his 2000 book “The America We Deserve,” Trump warned that the Social Security trust fund would run out in decades (which was accurate then and now). He suggested raising the retirement age to 70.  

    “A firm limit at age seventy makes sense for people now under forty,” Trump wrote. “We’re living longer. We’re working longer. New medicines are extending healthy human life. Besides, how many times will you really want to take that trailer to the Grand Canyon? The way the workweek is going, it will probably be down to about twenty-five hours by then anyway. This is a sacrifice I think we all can make.”

    Trump no longer supports raising the retirement age and has vowed he wouldn’t make any cuts to the program. But he hasn’t offered a plan that would keep the Social Security trust fund solvent. 

    Johnson said that “doing nothing at all” would mean “all beneficiaries, including those with disability benefits, would suffer.”

    Gary Burtless, Brookings Institution economist and senior fellow, said Haley’s plan wouldn’t reduce costs until today’s 20-somethings reach their early 60s, so it would have no impact on Social Security’s funding shortfall in the next 10 years, when the reserve fund is expected to be depleted.

    Our ruling

    A Trump campaign ad claimed Haley’s plan “cuts Social Security benefits for 82% of Americans.”

    The number is wrong. Haley’s plan wouldn’t affect current beneficiaries or Americans anywhere close to retiring, let alone 82% of the U.S. population. 

    While most proposals that call for increasing the retirement age represent a benefit cut for Social Security beneficiaries, Haley’s plan would apply to Americans in their 20s and younger. If people ages 25 and older were excluded from her proposed retirement age increase, that would represent benefit cuts for around 26% of Americans alive today — 40 years from now.

    We rate Trump’s claim False. 

    PolitiFact Copy Chief Matthew Crowley contributed to this report.  

    Related: Who’s right on life expectancy, Ron DeSantis or Nikki Haley? Both 

    Related: Donald Trump omits context on Nikki Haley’s comments about US retirement age being too low,

    Related: Trump suggested raising Social Security retirement age in 2000, but hasn’t backed it since

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • PolitiFact – Donald Trump omits context on Nikki Haley’s comments about US retirement age being too low

    PolitiFact – Donald Trump omits context on Nikki Haley’s comments about US retirement age being too low

    [ad_1]

    Days before voting starts in the Iowa caucuses, former President Donald Trump has his eyes trained on Nikki Haley, his closest Republican rival in the 2024 presidential campaign. 

    Trump targeted the former South Carolina governor during a Jan. 6 campaign stop in Newton, Iowa, and claimed she wants to cut Social Security and Medicare and raise the retirement age. 

    “Nikki says the retirement age at 65 is way too low, it must be much higher,” Trump said of his former U.N. ambassador.

    That characterization lacks context. Haley has recently said the federal U.S. retirement age, at which Americans would receive Social Security and Medicare benefits, is “way too low.” But she said it should be raised in line with longer life expectancy, and she did not support changing the age for current beneficiaries or those nearing retirement.

    In an Aug. 24 Bloomberg Markets interview, Haley said the U.S. should increase the retirement age to help prevent Social Security and Medicare from becoming insolvent. 

    “The way we deal with it, is we don’t touch anyone’s retirement or anyone who’s been promised in, but we go to people like my kids in their twenties, when they’re coming into the system, and we say the rules have changed,” Haley told Joe Mathieu, a Washington correspondent for Bloomberg TV and radio. “We change retirement age to reflect life expectancy. Instead of cost-of-living increases, we do it based on inflation. We limit the benefits on the wealthy and we expand Medicare advantage plans.”

    When Mathieu asked which “right age” she would recommend, Haley said it would need to be calculated, but that 65 “is way too low,” and needs to be increased according to life expectancy. 

    Although Haley cited 65 as the retirement age, that’s for people born before 1960. In 1983, Congress upped the age when Americans can receive full retirement benefits through Social Security from 65 to 67 for those born in 1960 or later.

    U.S. life expectancy dropped during the COVID-19 pandemic, but has shown signs of rebounding, increasing from 76.4 years in 2021 to 77.5 in 2022, according to federal data.

    Here are other instances in which Haley discussed the U.S.’ retirement age during her presidential campaign:

    • Sept. 22 at the New Hampshire Institute of Politics in Manchester, New Hampshire: “I’ll raise the retirement age — only for younger people who are just entering the system. Americans are living 15 years longer than they were in the 1930s. If we don’t get out of the 20th century mindset, Social Security and Medicare won’t survive the first half of the 21st century.”

    • Nov. 8 at the third Republican presidential debate in Miami: “Those that have been promised, should keep it. But for, like my kids in their 20s, you go and you say, ‘We are going to change the rules.’ You change the retirement age for them.” 

    On Medicare, Haley has proposed expanding Medicare Advantage, a type of Medicare health plan offered by approved private companies. The government pays the companies to cover Medicare benefits.

    Our ruling

    Trump claimed that Haley “says the retirement age at 65 is way too low.”

    This is missing context. When Haley said the federal retirement age of 65 was “way too low” she wasn’t talking about current Social Security beneficiaries or people who are close to retiring. She would propose raising the retirement age for younger people, in line with longer life expectancy. 

    Trump’s statement is partially accurate but leaves out important details or takes things out of context. We rate his claim Half True.

    [ad_2]

    Source link