Sentences with phrase «benefit income lost»

Not exact matches

If you do claim Social Security benefits early, chances are you will take money from another source to make up for that lost income, Myers said.

Workers who lose their authorization are ineligible for unemployment benefits and could face a sudden loss of income.

But they aren't the only people who might benefit from a policy replacing your lost income.

Borrowers who refinance federal student loans with private lenders lose access to borrower benefits like access to income - driven repayment programs and the potential to qualify for loan forgiveness after 10, 20 or 25 years of payments.

This structure has been used in order to give clients maximum tax benefits: fees paid in this manner are deductable from income, whereas if paid via the fund, more favourable dividend and capital gain income would be lost to the client.

Federal loans lose any benefits under an income - driven repayment (IDR) plan when they are refinanced with private lenders.

Additionally, the Tax Policy Center has argued that many businesses with too little income or are losing money don't benefit from bonus depreciation, especially in times of economic recovery, and that it may not have much of an impact on long - term investment.

Refinancing government loans with a private lender isn't for everyone — you'll lose access to some borrower benefits, like income - driven repayment plans and the potential for loan forgiveness after 20 or 25 years of payments.

Family income splitting, costing $ 2 billion this year in lost revenues, will proceed as planned, again primarily benefitting the most affluent while making it much more difficult to balance the budget.

NFPs will lose their tax - exempt status if income is payable to or available for the benefit of members or shareholders, or if the entity has the ability to declare or pay dividends.

If you have federal loans and refinance them, you will lose out on benefits like access to income - driven repayment plans, deferment and forbearance, and some forgiveness plans.

Have federal student loans and don't plan to use federal benefits such as income - driven repayment and loan forgiveness (you'll lose access to those programs if you refinance)

She would lose 36 per cent of her age 65 CPP benefits for as long as she lives, but with the couple's income surplus over expenses, her CPP benefits could be diverted to her TFSA.

The benefits cover up to 75 per cent of lost income, compared to 55 per cent through EI, and can last for 55 weeks.

When Nick was struck with cancer in 1996, he had to suspend his column during his treatments, and since he was a freelancer here with no benefits, he would be losing his only source of income at a time when he needed it most.

All of these things would appear to happen at once: * Start paying the new 40p rate on further earnings (reducing the value of the additional income) * Lose child benefit (the amount will differ according to the number of children, but could be # 2500 for 3 children), esp if there is no taper.

The network has lost the contract to issue TV licences and the situation will be made worse when Post Office account cards, which allow people to collect their benefits in a bank account and provide valuable income for branches, are withdrawn in 2010.

Critics claim the move is unfair because it will allow a dual - income family to earn up to # 88,000 without losing the benefit while single - earners will be unfairly penalised.

Middle - earners face a «double whammy» as they are both pulled into the higher income bracket and subsequently lose their child benefits, Labour has claimed.

It joined other groups in questioning why the government felt unable to spend the money designing a fairer system that avoided punishing one income families living on a salary of # 44,000, who lost the benefit, and two income families where each workers kept their income below the higher rate threshold.

When the cut to child benefit for higher rate tax payers takes affect in 2013, it is clear many middle to high income earners will lose out.

Labour has attacked the coalition for the «unfairness» of the cut, pointing out that two parents with a combined income of # 87,998 can still receive the benefit if neither earns over # 44,000 - while a single parent earning just over the limit will lose all their child benefit.

The UK Women's Budget Group, a group of independent experts, released analysis by Howard Reed of Landman Economics, showing the poorest 10 % of households will, on average, lose 1.9 % of their weekly income, and the second poorest 10 % will lose 1.6 % from the benefits uprating squeeze.

According to our figures (and I keep asking you to use the figures set out in the Liberal Democrat and Labour document not the figures given by the IFS who state they got their figures from these documents but actually give different figures) to reverse the cuts to Universal Credit cost # 3.665 billion and as I pointed out above these are the reductions in the amounts a person can keep before they start to lose their benefit, which were set much higher than the old benefits, but the withdrawal rate seemed to be higher with Universal Credit (65 % [reduced to 62 %] than with Tax Credit (41 % on gross income).

That this House declines to give a Second Reading to the Welfare Benefits Up - rating Bill because it fails to address the reasons why the cost of benefits is exceeding the Government's plans; notes that the Resolution Foundation has calculated that 68 per cent of households affected by these measures are in work and that figures from the Institute for Fiscal Studies show that all the measures announced in the Autumn Statement, including those in the Bill, will mean a single - earner family with children on average will be # 534 worse off by 2015; further notes that the Bill does not include anything to remedy the deficiencies in the Government's work programme or the slipped timetable for universal credit; believes that a comprehensive plan to reduce the benefits bill must include measures to create economic growth and help the 129,400 adults over the age of 25 out of work for 24 months or more, but that the Bill does not do so; further believes that the Bill should introduce a compulsory jobs guarantee, which would give long - term unemployed adults a job they would have to take up or lose benefits, funded by limiting tax relief on pension contributions for people earning over # 150,000 to 20 per cent; and further believes that the proposals in the Bill are unfair when the additional rate of income tax is being reduced, which will result in those earning over a million pounds per year receiving an average tax cut of over # 100,000Benefits Up - rating Bill because it fails to address the reasons why the cost of benefits is exceeding the Government's plans; notes that the Resolution Foundation has calculated that 68 per cent of households affected by these measures are in work and that figures from the Institute for Fiscal Studies show that all the measures announced in the Autumn Statement, including those in the Bill, will mean a single - earner family with children on average will be # 534 worse off by 2015; further notes that the Bill does not include anything to remedy the deficiencies in the Government's work programme or the slipped timetable for universal credit; believes that a comprehensive plan to reduce the benefits bill must include measures to create economic growth and help the 129,400 adults over the age of 25 out of work for 24 months or more, but that the Bill does not do so; further believes that the Bill should introduce a compulsory jobs guarantee, which would give long - term unemployed adults a job they would have to take up or lose benefits, funded by limiting tax relief on pension contributions for people earning over # 150,000 to 20 per cent; and further believes that the proposals in the Bill are unfair when the additional rate of income tax is being reduced, which will result in those earning over a million pounds per year receiving an average tax cut of over # 100,000benefits is exceeding the Government's plans; notes that the Resolution Foundation has calculated that 68 per cent of households affected by these measures are in work and that figures from the Institute for Fiscal Studies show that all the measures announced in the Autumn Statement, including those in the Bill, will mean a single - earner family with children on average will be # 534 worse off by 2015; further notes that the Bill does not include anything to remedy the deficiencies in the Government's work programme or the slipped timetable for universal credit; believes that a comprehensive plan to reduce the benefits bill must include measures to create economic growth and help the 129,400 adults over the age of 25 out of work for 24 months or more, but that the Bill does not do so; further believes that the Bill should introduce a compulsory jobs guarantee, which would give long - term unemployed adults a job they would have to take up or lose benefits, funded by limiting tax relief on pension contributions for people earning over # 150,000 to 20 per cent; and further believes that the proposals in the Bill are unfair when the additional rate of income tax is being reduced, which will result in those earning over a million pounds per year receiving an average tax cut of over # 100,000benefits bill must include measures to create economic growth and help the 129,400 adults over the age of 25 out of work for 24 months or more, but that the Bill does not do so; further believes that the Bill should introduce a compulsory jobs guarantee, which would give long - term unemployed adults a job they would have to take up or lose benefits, funded by limiting tax relief on pension contributions for people earning over # 150,000 to 20 per cent; and further believes that the proposals in the Bill are unfair when the additional rate of income tax is being reduced, which will result in those earning over a million pounds per year receiving an average tax cut of over # 100,000benefits, funded by limiting tax relief on pension contributions for people earning over # 150,000 to 20 per cent; and further believes that the proposals in the Bill are unfair when the additional rate of income tax is being reduced, which will result in those earning over a million pounds per year receiving an average tax cut of over # 100,000 a year.

The Treasury acknowledged the cut would lead to the anomaly of a two - income family earning as much as # 86,000 not losing the benefit while a family with the father earning more than # 44,000 and the wife staying at home will lose all of it.

«Paras can lose a lot of income and benefits while they're student teaching.

While below - proficient students are believed to benefit the most from a lower suspension rate, those who have the most to lose are the above - proficient, low - income strivers.

While doing so could increase costs, providing waivers or benefits only to Identified Students would result in children who were receiving such benefits before the adoption of community eligibility losing them because they are from low - income households but are not Identified Students.

Among them are deleterious effects on children of unregulated and often substandard childcare; [9] lost productivity for employers due to parents missing work to handle gaps in childcare or to care for a sick child; [10] lost wages and reduced retirement benefits for parents who have to drop out of the labor market to provide at - home care for their young children; [11] a substantial downward pressure on the wages of childcare workers with effects on the quality and stability of the childcare workforce; [12] and lost opportunities for further education, [13] college savings, and other investments that working parents could make in themselves and their children but can not afford because they are spending most or all of their disposable income on childcare.

My only hope is that those who benefit the most from charters — low - income families of color — don't buy into these falsehoods and lose an opportunity to get off the waiting lists and find a better school for their children.

It gives you all the benefits of having a publisher without losing control, ownership or a cent of your income.

For instance, depending on your total income, you might have to pay taxes on your Social Security benefit, you could lose various tax credits and you might have to pay state income taxes.

She would lose 36 per cent of her age 65 CPP benefits for as long as she lives, but with the couple's income surplus over expenses, her CPP benefits could be diverted to her TFSA.

Additionally savings of up to $ 100,000 total can be accumulated and the beneficiary will not have to fear losing access to vital public benefits such as Supplemental Security Income (SSI).

Some borrowers will benefit by seeing their income driven repayment amount drop to 12.5 %, while others will lose by seeing it rise from 10 %.

«Why would people pay tax needlessly and lose government benefits needlessly because their level of income is too high,» he says.

They can use this benefit as a replacement for your lost income, to make mortgage payments or for other financial needs.

If your current student loan debt exceeds 8 % of your income or if you have borrowed more then $ 5,000 in private loans and are struggling financially, a consolidation loan can help you avoid loan default, which negatively impacts your credit rating.You can not You can not consolidate private and federal student loans into a single consolidation loan because you lose the benefits of your federal loan.

One of the biggest benefits of term life insurance is that it helps your family replace your lost income upon your death.

For the Deferred Income Annuity in Option 2, there is absolutely nothing he can do to risk or lose this benefit.

If you have federal loans, you will lose out on benefits offered by them such as loan forgiveness or income - based repayment plans.

Keep in mind that if you refinance your federal student loans, you'll lose out on federal benefits, such as income - driven repayment plans and forgiveness programs.

Before considering student loan refinancing, be aware you will lose certain benefits that accompany federal student loans including Income - Based repayment.

Keep in mind that when refinancing with a private lender, you lose federal borrower benefits such as access to income - driven repayment programs, forbearance, or deferment, and the potential to qualify for loan forgiveness after 10, 20 or 25 years of payments.

Similarly, people with higher incomes who are heading toward retirement face the risk of losing their Old Age Security (OAS) benefits, which are paid out to qualifying Canadians beginning at age 65.

But that isn't necessarily true because late filers, especially those who are low to middle income, risk losing government benefits such as child tax credits, access to provincial assistance programs and GST rebates if they don't file on time.

Income from an RRSP in retirement may also cause you to lose income - tested benefits like the Guaranteed Income Supplement Income from an RRSP in retirement may also cause you to lose income - tested benefits like the Guaranteed Income Supplement income - tested benefits like the Guaranteed Income Supplement Income Supplement (GIS).

Are you looking to have the death benefit pay off all your debts (mortgage, loans, etc.) and pay for your final expenses (tax, funeral costs) or do you want it to provide a stream of income to your loved ones to replace your lost income?

Refinancing with a private lender is not for everyone — those who take this route will lose borrower benefits that only come with federal loans, such as access to income - driven repayment programs and the possibility of loan forgiveness after 10, 20 or 25 years.