Sentences with phrase «costs in pension benefits»

If we all live to 100, a scenario recently posed by The Atlantic, states and districts would likely face higher retirement costs in pension benefits, at least under current practices.

Not exact matches

The company has applied ASU 2017 - 07 retrospectively for the presentation of the service cost component and the other components of net periodic pension cost and net periodic postretirement benefit cost and prospectively for the capitalization of the service cost component of net periodic pension cost and net periodic postretirement benefit in assets.

Such risks, uncertainties and other factors include, without limitation: (1) the effect of economic conditions in the industries and markets in which United Technologies and Rockwell Collins operate in the U.S. and globally and any changes therein, including financial market conditions, fluctuations in commodity prices, interest rates and foreign currency exchange rates, levels of end market demand in construction and in both the commercial and defense segments of the aerospace industry, levels of air travel, financial condition of commercial airlines, the impact of weather conditions and natural disasters and the financial condition of our customers and suppliers; (2) challenges in the development, production, delivery, support, performance and realization of the anticipated benefits of advanced technologies and new products and services; (3) the scope, nature, impact or timing of acquisition and divestiture or restructuring activity, including the pending acquisition of Rockwell Collins, including among other things integration of acquired businesses into United Technologies» existing businesses and realization of synergies and opportunities for growth and innovation; (4) future timing and levels of indebtedness, including indebtedness expected to be incurred by United Technologies in connection with the pending Rockwell Collins acquisition, and capital spending and research and development spending, including in connection with the pending Rockwell Collins acquisition; (5) future availability of credit and factors that may affect such availability, including credit market conditions and our capital structure; (6) the timing and scope of future repurchases of United Technologies» common stock, which may be suspended at any time due to various factors, including market conditions and the level of other investing activities and uses of cash, including in connection with the proposed acquisition of Rockwell; (7) delays and disruption in delivery of materials and services from suppliers; (8) company and customer - directed cost reduction efforts and restructuring costs and savings and other consequences thereof; (9) new business and investment opportunities; (10) our ability to realize the intended benefits of organizational changes; (11) the anticipated benefits of diversification and balance of operations across product lines, regions and industries; (12) the outcome of legal proceedings, investigations and other contingencies; (13) pension plan assumptions and future contributions; (14) the impact of the negotiation of collective bargaining agreements and labor disputes; (15) the effect of changes in political conditions in the U.S. and other countries in which United Technologies and Rockwell Collins operate, including the effect of changes in U.S. trade policies or the U.K.'s pending withdrawal from the EU, on general market conditions, global trade policies and currency exchange rates in the near term and beyond; (16) the effect of changes in tax (including U.S. tax reform enacted on December 22, 2017, which is commonly referred to as the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act of 2017), environmental, regulatory (including among other things import / export) and other laws and regulations in the U.S. and other countries in which United Technologies and Rockwell Collins operate; (17) the ability of United Technologies and Rockwell Collins to receive the required regulatory approvals (and the risk that such approvals may result in the imposition of conditions that could adversely affect the combined company or the expected benefits of the merger) and to satisfy the other conditions to the closing of the pending acquisition on a timely basis or at all; (18) the occurrence of events that may give rise to a right of one or both of United Technologies or Rockwell Collins to terminate the merger agreement, including in circumstances that might require Rockwell Collins to pay a termination fee of $ 695 million to United Technologies or $ 50 million of expense reimbursement; (19) negative effects of the announcement or the completion of the merger on the market price of United Technologies» and / or Rockwell Collins» common stock and / or on their respective financial performance; (20) risks related to Rockwell Collins and United Technologies being restricted in their operation of their businesses while the merger agreement is in effect; (21) risks relating to the value of the United Technologies» shares to be issued in connection with the pending Rockwell acquisition, significant merger costs and / or unknown liabilities; (22) risks associated with third party contracts containing consent and / or other provisions that may be triggered by the Rockwell merger agreement; (23) risks associated with merger - related litigation or appraisal proceedings; and (24) the ability of United Technologies and Rockwell Collins, or the combined company, to retain and hire key personnel.

In addition, as discussed in 3M's Form 8 - K dated March 15, 2018, the Company adopted Accounting Standards Update (ASU) No. 2017 - 07 relative to the presentation of pension and postretirement benefit costs in the first quarter of 2018 with retroactive impact to prior periodIn addition, as discussed in 3M's Form 8 - K dated March 15, 2018, the Company adopted Accounting Standards Update (ASU) No. 2017 - 07 relative to the presentation of pension and postretirement benefit costs in the first quarter of 2018 with retroactive impact to prior periodin 3M's Form 8 - K dated March 15, 2018, the Company adopted Accounting Standards Update (ASU) No. 2017 - 07 relative to the presentation of pension and postretirement benefit costs in the first quarter of 2018 with retroactive impact to prior periodin the first quarter of 2018 with retroactive impact to prior periods.

Among the factors that could cause actual results to differ materially are the following: (1) worldwide economic, political, and capital markets conditions and other factors beyond the Company's control, including natural and other disasters or climate change affecting the operations of the Company or its customers and suppliers; (2) the Company's credit ratings and its cost of capital; (3) competitive conditions and customer preferences; (4) foreign currency exchange rates and fluctuations in those rates; (5) the timing and market acceptance of new product offerings; (6) the availability and cost of purchased components, compounds, raw materials and energy (including oil and natural gas and their derivatives) due to shortages, increased demand or supply interruptions (including those caused by natural and other disasters and other events); (7) the impact of acquisitions, strategic alliances, divestitures, and other unusual events resulting from portfolio management actions and other evolving business strategies, and possible organizational restructuring; (8) generating fewer productivity improvements than estimated; (9) unanticipated problems or delays with the phased implementation of a global enterprise resource planning (ERP) system, or security breaches and other disruptions to the Company's information technology infrastructure; (10) financial market risks that may affect the Company's funding obligations under defined benefit pension and postretirement plans; and (11) legal proceedings, including significant developments that could occur in the legal and regulatory proceedings described in the Company's Annual Report on Form 10 - K for the year ended Dec. 31, 2017, and any subsequent quarterly reports on Form 10 - Q (the «Reports»).

In addition to the Canada Pension Plan Account, there was a Canada Pension Plan Investment Fund that would take the surplus that accumulated over and above administration costs and the amount of money required to pay immediate benefits (i.e. three months» worth) and invest it in provincial and federal securitieIn addition to the Canada Pension Plan Account, there was a Canada Pension Plan Investment Fund that would take the surplus that accumulated over and above administration costs and the amount of money required to pay immediate benefits (i.e. three months» worth) and invest it in provincial and federal securitiein provincial and federal securities.

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 fundIn 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 fundin a separate investment pool from public sector funds.

thanks, and yes, a pittance of a pension and regular checkups keep us on budget and head off any problems — best decision i ever made (financial or otherwise) was serving our country doing search - and - rescue, oil and chemical spill remediation, etc. (you can guess the branch of service)-- along the way, frugal living, along with dollar - cost averaging, asset allocation, and diversification allowed us to retire early — Vanguard has been very good over the years, despite the Dot Bomb, 2002, and the recession (where we actually came out better with a modest but bargain retirement home purchase)... it's not easy building additional «legs» on a retirement platform, but now that we're here, cash, real estate, investments and insurance products, along with a small pension all help to avoid any real dependence on social security (we won't even need it at full retirement age)-- however, like nearly everybody, we're headed for Medicare in several years, albeit with a nice supplemental and pharmacy benefits — but our main concern is staying fit, active, and healthy!

Total compensation per employee consists of many different elements, including not only negotiated / imposed wage settlements, bracket creep (employees moving up within their pay range), composition of employment (professional vs clerical), pay equity, pension and other future employee benefit costs driven in part by market conditions, Canada and Quebec Pension Plan contributions (which increase by the annual increase in the industrial wage), among pension and other future employee benefit costs driven in part by market conditions, Canada and Quebec Pension Plan contributions (which increase by the annual increase in the industrial wage), among Pension Plan contributions (which increase by the annual increase in the industrial wage), among others.

Since the largest share of operating costs relate to employee compensation (wages, salaries, pensions, sickness benefits, etc.), there will need to be major structural reforms in this area.

In the future, pension benefits will become a major cost driver for the federal government, which could put pressure on the government to maintain a sustainable fiscal framework.

Important factors that may affect the Company's business and operations and that may cause actual results to differ materially from those in the forward - looking statements include, but are not limited to, increased competition; the Company's ability to maintain, extend and expand its reputation and brand image; the Company's ability to differentiate its products from other brands; the consolidation of retail customers; the Company's ability to predict, identify and interpret changes in consumer preferences and demand; the Company's ability to drive revenue growth in its key product categories, increase its market share, or add products; an impairment of the carrying value of goodwill or other indefinite - lived intangible assets; volatility in commodity, energy and other input costs; changes in the Company's management team or other key personnel; the Company's inability to realize the anticipated benefits from the Company's cost savings initiatives; changes in relationships with significant customers and suppliers; execution of the Company's international expansion strategy; changes in laws and regulations; legal claims or other regulatory enforcement actions; product recalls or product liability claims; unanticipated business disruptions; failure to successfully integrate the Company; the Company's ability to complete or realize the benefits from potential and completed acquisitions, alliances, divestitures or joint ventures; economic and political conditions in the nations in which the Company operates; the volatility of capital markets; increased pension, labor and people - related expenses; volatility in the market value of all or a portion of the derivatives that the Company uses; exchange rate fluctuations; disruptions in information technology networks and systems; the Company's inability to protect intellectual property rights; impacts of natural events in the locations in which the Company or its customers, suppliers or regulators operate; the Company's indebtedness and ability to pay such indebtedness; the Company's dividend payments on its Series A Preferred Stock; tax law changes or interpretations; pricing actions; and other factors.

Just for fun, try calculating the all - in labour cost for someone you know. I tried it on my spouse, who is a university professor. I added her healthy salary to her current service pension cost and other benefits and payroll taxes. I threw in an extra amount to reflect the pension deficit that her university is now grappling with (thanks to the market meltdown).

* Reflects the impact of the adoption of new accounting guidance on the presentation of net periodic pension cost and net periodic postretirement benefit cost in the first quarter of fiscal 2018.

Important factors that may affect the Company's business and operations and that may cause actual results to differ materially from those in the forward - looking statements include, but are not limited to, operating in a highly competitive industry; changes in the retail landscape or the loss of key retail customers; the Company's ability to maintain, extend and expand its reputation and brand image; the impacts of the Company's international operations; the Company's ability to leverage its brand value; the Company's ability to predict, identify and interpret changes in consumer preferences and demand; the Company's ability to drive revenue growth in its key product categories, increase its market share, or add products; an impairment of the carrying value of goodwill or other indefinite - lived intangible assets; volatility in commodity, energy and other input costs; changes in the Company's management team or other key personnel; the Company's ability to realize the anticipated benefits from its cost savings initiatives; changes in relationships with significant customers and suppliers; the execution of the Company's international expansion strategy; tax law changes or interpretations; legal claims or other regulatory enforcement actions; product recalls or product liability claims; unanticipated business disruptions; the Company's ability to complete or realize the benefits from potential and completed acquisitions, alliances, divestitures or joint ventures; economic and political conditions in the United States and in various other nations in which we operate; the volatility of capital markets; increased pension, labor and people - related expenses; volatility in the market value of all or a portion of the derivatives we use; exchange rate fluctuations; risks associated with information technology and systems, including service interruptions, misappropriation of data or breaches of security; the Company's ability to protect intellectual property rights; impacts of natural events in the locations in which we or the Company's customers, suppliers or regulators operate; the Company's indebtedness and ability to pay such indebtedness; the Company's ownership structure; the impact of future sales of its common stock in the public markets; the Company's ability to continue to pay a regular dividend; changes in laws and regulations; restatements of the Company's consolidated financial statements; and other factors.

Important factors that may affect the Company's business and operations and that may cause actual results to differ materially from those in the forward - looking statements include, but are not limited to, increased competition; the Company's ability to maintain, extend and expand its reputation and brand image; the Company's ability to differentiate its products from other brands; the consolidation of retail customers; the Company's ability to predict, identify and interpret changes in consumer preferences and demand; the Company's ability to drive revenue growth in its key product categories, increase its market share or add products; an impairment of the carrying value of goodwill or other indefinite - lived intangible assets; volatility in commodity, energy and other input costs; changes in the Company's management team or other key personnel; the Company's inability to realize the anticipated benefits from the Company's cost savings initiatives; changes in relationships with significant customers and suppliers; execution of the Company's international expansion strategy; changes in laws and regulations; legal claims or other regulatory enforcement actions; product recalls or product liability claims; unanticipated business disruptions; failure to successfully integrate the business and operations of the Company in the expected time frame; the Company's ability to complete or realize the benefits from potential and completed acquisitions, alliances, divestitures or joint ventures; economic and political conditions in the nations in which the Company operates; the volatility of capital markets; increased pension, labor and people - related expenses; volatility in the market value of all or a portion of the derivatives that the Company uses; exchange rate fluctuations; risks associated with information technology and systems, including service interruptions, misappropriation of data or breaches of security; the Company's inability to protect intellectual property rights; impacts of natural events in the locations in which the Company or its customers, suppliers or regulators operate; the Company's indebtedness and ability to pay such indebtedness; tax law changes or interpretations; and other factors.

All other department and agency expenses increased by $ 1.6 billion (3.2 %), largely reflecting an increase in actuarial liabilities for claims and employees» pension and other future benefit costs, the latter reflecting the impact of low interest rates on plan assets.

The chart below from the Congressional Research Service describes the costs to taxpayers of the four former presidents and one widow, Nancy Reagan, who were given pensions and benefits in fiscal year 2015.

Settlements, as they occur, are covered in complete detail with pertinent information on wage adjustments, paid holidays, vacations with pay, shift premiums, medical benefits, dental plans, weekly indemnity, life insurance, pension plans, cost - of - living allowances and rates of pay.

Benefits have also been trimmed in recent years by switching from defined contribution pensions to 401 (k) s and increasing employee contributions to health care costs.

Not fully funding pension obligations now costs taxpayers more in future years to pay for the pension benefits of employees, he said.

Former Suffolk Conservative chairman Edward Walsh, recently convicted on federal corruption charges, has failed to qualify for an immediate state pension in a ruling that could cost the former corrections lieutenant thousands of dollars in lost benefits.

In the 1990s, Sweden reformed its pension system away from an expensive defined - benefit system to a defined - contribution system in order to contain costs amid concerns that the former system would be unsustainable as the population ageIn the 1990s, Sweden reformed its pension system away from an expensive defined - benefit system to a defined - contribution system in order to contain costs amid concerns that the former system would be unsustainable as the population agein order to contain costs amid concerns that the former system would be unsustainable as the population aged.

According to the AARP, changing the way the consumer price index is calculated would cost seniors and veteran pension recipients in Erie County $ 476 Million in future benefits.

More than 90 pension - and benefit - sweetener bills have been introduced in the state Legislature that could cost state and local governments at least $ 200 million.

New York has been far ahead of other states in compressing the cost of pension benefits by creating multiple tiers of pension benefits.

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.

A $ 17 million increase in fringe benefit costs, which is driven by an 8 % increase in health insurance expenses, an 11.3 % increase in pension payments, and an increase in workers compensation expenses;

The current increases in pension costs don't result from increased pension benefits.

To take one example, the cost of pensions and health benefits for active and retired state employees will increase to $ 6.2 billion in 2013 - 14 from $ 1.3 billion in 1998 - 99.

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.

John Ball, head of defined benefit pension consulting at Towers Watson — a global company that specialises in risk and financial management, estimates the cost of this policy to be # 2bn a year by the end of the next parliament.

Bloomberg administration officials attribute increased cost in uniformed services to the rising cost of health care and pension benefits.

Malloy wants to transfer hundreds of millions in teacher retirement costs to many towns but gives those same towns no say in pension benefits.

Cuomo credits the budget, as well as agreements approved in mid-March, for implementing new teacher evaluations, pension changes that create a new tier of lowered benefits for public employees, and helping local governments with Medicaid costs.

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 governor was reminded by a top aid that he and the legislature approved a new pension tier, so that future workers will receive fewer benefits, saving the state, as well as local governments, billions of dollars in costs in coming decades.

The lag in pay is also costing city teachers in pension benefits.

S&P cited the County's «strong budgetary flexibility that has remained consistent over time,» «very strong liquidity, with strong access to external liquidity,» «strong management, with good financial policies and practices in place,» and the County's «strong debt and contingent liability profile, with limited exposure to fixed costs associated with pension and other postemployment benefit libation (OPEB) liabilities.»

He contrasted the mayor's desire to let the millionaire's tax sunset this year — which he said would blow a $ 5 billion hole in the state budget — with the mayor's insistence in his State of the City address that the city needed to be able to reduce pension benefits and lay off «more expensive» senior teachers to cut costs.

The governor's move could force some towns, cities, counties and school districts to borrow money in the short term in order to cover their costs, which include salaries, benefits and a large payment for their retirees» pensions.

The amounts listed in the report DO NOT include fringe benefits such as health insurance or employer pension contributions, which can add 35 percent or more to the cost for taxpayers.

This is unfortunate given the fact that the costs of current pension plans are a huge source of fiscal stress in many states, and that a more modern, mobile, and cheaper retirement benefit plan could better help public schools compete for academically talented young (and mobile) college graduates.

It is in no state's individual interest to facilitate mobility out of the state; to the contrary, states are inclined to keep average pension costs down by skimping on benefits for those who depart.

In 1999, Saint Louis offered retroactive improvement in pension benefits that cost the city $ 166 million, or $ 52,000 per teacher, in 2013 dollars, and promised far more valuable pension benefits for future hireIn 1999, Saint Louis offered retroactive improvement in pension benefits that cost the city $ 166 million, or $ 52,000 per teacher, in 2013 dollars, and promised far more valuable pension benefits for future hirein pension benefits that cost the city $ 166 million, or $ 52,000 per teacher, in 2013 dollars, and promised far more valuable pension benefits for future hirein 2013 dollars, and promised far more valuable pension benefits for future hires.

Space limits an extended discussion here, but we note two conclusions from a 2012 article by Economic Policy Institute researcher Monique Morrissey, who explains that «the logical implication of Richwine and Biggs's [pension] position is that public employers and taxpayers would be indifferent between current pension funding practices and investing in Treasury securities, even though this would triple the cost of pension benefits» and that R & B «selectively alternate between the cost of benefits to employers and the value to workers, and inappropriately equate the latter with the often much higher cost to individuals of obtaining equivalent benefits.»

Allegretto and Mishel calculate the value of the pension benefits that teachers earn in a given year based on how much their employers contributed to their retirement plans in that year, using data from the Bureau of Labor Statistics» Employer Costs for Employee Compensation (ECEC) survey.

In the area of teacher pension reform, however, it is important to recognize that school administrators reap the largest net benefits from the current system, which has rising costs and clear inefficiencies.

In a recent Education Next article, «Golden Handcuffs,» we talked about winners and losers in teacher pension systems, and about the huge costs these systems impose on mobile teachers due to the back - loading of benefitIn a recent Education Next article, «Golden Handcuffs,» we talked about winners and losers in teacher pension systems, and about the huge costs these systems impose on mobile teachers due to the back - loading of benefitin teacher pension systems, and about the huge costs these systems impose on mobile teachers due to the back - loading of benefits.