Sentences with phrase «benefit pensions because»

Not exact matches

Putting all three public pensions together is important because, as I mentioned, higher CPP income can mean lower benefits from the income - tested Guaranteed Income Supplement.

He began buying property both as a hobby and because, as a recent immigrant, he couldn't rely on Old Age Security or Canada Pension Plan benefits.

About 90 % of my investible assets are in equities because I have a defined - benefit pension.

In short, because they pool longevity risk, can offer a well - diversified portfolio with longer - term investments, and are professionally managed, public pension funds deliver the same level of benefits as DC plans at only 46 percent of the cost.15 Any funds invested with the state pension fund would be kept in a separate investment pool from public sector funds.

Saunders, the president of the Vancouver and District Labour Council, says that Canadian workers and their pensions are more exposed to risk during market trouble because of the successful campaign over the past decades to move from defined benefit pensions, which guarantee a certain monthly amount when you retire, to defined contribution plans, promoted by market enthusiasts.

Bigger cuts to retiree healthcare were justified because that benefit, unlike pensions, was not protected under Michigan's constitution, he said.

Worst of all is the pension plan for MPs — both because its exceptionally lavish benefits are totally unfunded, and because it's the scheme for elected representatives who need to lead national reforms.

Congress is stepping in because the Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation (PBGC)-- the pension equivalent to the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC)-- is completely insPension Benefit Guaranty Corporation (PBGC)-- the pension equivalent to the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC)-- is completely inspension equivalent to the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC)-- is completely insolvent.

The government has said the expanded Canada Pension Plan (CPP) will help smaller firms compete with larger counterparts because there won't be as big a gap when it comes to pension benefits, saidPension Plan (CPP) will help smaller firms compete with larger counterparts because there won't be as big a gap when it comes to pension benefits, saidpension benefits, said Kelly.

Communities across Illinois are being forced to cut local services and raise taxes to afford their pension payments, putting residents who rely on local government services at risk because of the inherent failures of defined - benefit plans.

Very little makes it to the needy because of the large government salaries, lavish benefits, and large pension absorb it all.

I'll spare you all the details of this, because it's a little in the weeds, but suffice to say there are some who believe full disability pension benefits were being doled out to uniformed workers for things like heart disease and hypertension, under the claim that the stress of the job either caused these ailments, or exacerbated the effects for those who were preconditioned.

The Department for Work and Pensions (DWP) says that sanctions surged late last year because the department was clearing a backlog of cases, which had built up amid problems introducing the new benefit system.

With the city facing more budget cuts or even, as she suggested, «insolvency,» Miner was hoping for relief in an area where Albany is itself the prime culprit because of the exploding cost of pensions and benefits promised to public employees.

Our county police officers each cost us close to $ 200,000 a year in salary, benefits and pension payments because of mandatory arbitration.

«It will help us because the people against the convention are generally our people — the public sector unions like teachers, government workers and police» concerned the recent «radical wave could sweep a convention» and diminish or erase pension and health benefits, Schaffer said.

«However, I have repeatedly vetoed similar or identical bills because they offer additional pension benefits without any funding.»

Even though it is a part - time job, legislators qualify for pension benefits equal to full - time jobs because they file a form with the state comptroller's office each year that declares that they do in fact work more than 30 hours a week.

The treasury minister Lord Myners had indicated to RBS that there should be «no reward for failure», [49] but Goodwin's pension entitlement, represented by a notional fund of # 8 million, was doubled, to a notional fund of # 16 million or more, because under the terms of the scheme he was entitled to receive, at age 50, benefits which would otherwise have been available to him only if he had worked until age 60.

The college faces a number of financial challenges including an increase in employee benefits of $ 379,000 or 2 percent primarily because of pension costs, and an increase in contractual expenses and supplies of $ 351,000 or 4 percent.

He stressed that pension benefits would be scaled back only for employees «not even hired yet» — but then, almost in the same breath, proclaimed that pension reform can not wait because «we have taxpayers who need help today.»

Building trades workers employed by the state might be paying twice for pension benefits, a union representative is contending, because of the 2011 law that eliminated the bulk of their collective bargaining rights.

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.

Update: Since this article was first posted, Sheila Gilmore, MP for Edinburgh East (Lab), Member, Work & Pensions Select Committee, has said that the 900,000 figure in this article was misleading because it conflated two related but separate processes, and that of the 600,000 claimants who have migrated from Incapacity Benefit to ESA since April 2011 only 19,700 have dropped their claim.

Raising the retirement age might be sensible with an ageing population, but it is a gimmick unless age discrimination and inequality are seriously tackled; because if the rate of unemployment is high among the elderly then a raised retirement age simply defers the point where working age benefits are replaced by pension benefits.

Influence generally increases with seniority for a variety of reasons, and these are enhanced in the case of pension politics, because the benefits of pensions are far more immediate and tangible for senior educators than for junior ones.

Current teacher pension plans back - load benefits to the last 5 to 10 years of service, mainly because benefit formulas are based on final average salary calculations that do not adjust for inflation.

Teacher turnover can be expected to increase with alternative benefits because employees will understand that their economic security is less well protected with a DC or cash balance plan than with a DB pension.

Defenders of the defined - benefit structure also argue that it can encourage teachers to enter and remain in the profession over the long term, because to maximize their future pension wealth, they must accrue the maximum years of service and reach the top of their district's pay scale.

States» own assumptions show that on average, more than half of teachers do not receive any employer pension benefits because they leave before they are eligible.

This is because they triple the pension benefit for teachers compared to the BLS measure, estimating it to be 32 percent of wages rather than 11 percent.

Most public school teachers participate in defined benefit (DB) pension plans, which because of different accounting rules contribute significantly less today for each dollar of future retirement benefits than private - sector DB pensions or defined contribution (DC) pension plans.

Teachers who retired early because of the ERI, however, could expect to receive pension benefits for more years than if they had retired later.

Even teachers who do qualify for a pension after just five years aren't likely to see much in benefits because benefits are heavily backloaded.

Moreover, the way that the U.S. Department of Labor measures those teacher pension benefits greatly understates this gap because the Labor Department underprices the teacher benefit.

That's because they violate the paramount principle upon which pension systems should be built: Benefits should be tied to contributions.

Approximately half of all Americans who begin teaching in public schools won't qualify for even a minimal pension benefit because it takes so long to earn one — it takes a full decade in 17 states.

However, public pensions in states without Social Security coverage offer more generous benefits because they were designed as a stand alone benefit.

This is a good thing for a principal's ability to lead a school, but makes his or her pension much more expensive because years spent teaching count toward pension benefit formulas.

Teachers qualify for very little in the way of retirement benefits during the first half of their career because pension benefits don't accrue evenly.

Because in California, under what's referred to as the «California Rule of Vested Rights», there are currently a very limited number of things that cities, counties, and the state of California can do to deal with the cost of pension benefits.

New teachers hired after 2011 face negative net benefits for the first two decades of work because the value of their contributions exceed their future pension benefits.

(Pension wealth actually declines if employees choose to continue working after becoming eligible for retirement, because every year they keep working is a year they could instead be receiving retirement benefits.)

Rather, they said, the benefits would be diminished without the changes, because the pension system would then become insolvent and retirees» benefits would be drastically cut.

This large jump (44 percent) in the value of her pension benefit occurs because she would collect 25 years worth of pension payments, up from 18.

And because pension plans are based on a formula that factors in salary levels, employees with higher salaries (like district superintendents and administrators) tend to earn disproportionately large benefits compared to teachers.

These teachers lose out because current public - sector defined benefit pension systems are heavily biased toward teachers with longevity and stability.

Because pension plans are back - loaded, attrition risk is the possibility that a teacher won't stick around long enough to qualify for the larger benefits waiting for those who stay.

Two, because 90 percent of teachers are enrolled in defined benefit pension plans that push out veteran teachers, these demographic trends have widened the gap in retirement ages.

This is how most people see teacher pension plans, because they equate «teacher pension contributions» with «teacher retirement benefits.»