Posts Tagged ‘retirement’

2012 401(k) Plan IRS Deferral Limits

Tuesday, November 22nd, 2011

The IRS has announced that the maximum employee deferral limit for the 2012 plan year will increase to $17,000. The maximum catch-up contribution limit for individuals who are 50 and older will remain at $5,500.

Generation X and those that follow, take note; investing for your own retirement, especially starting in your late 20s and / or early 30s, is your greatest opportunity to have the same lifestyle when you are older as you have today.

Live within your means, save for the future (but do a little something for today).

Life is not all about having the best of everything.

It is about making the best of everything you have.

Attacking Social Security

Thursday, August 19th, 2010

By PAUL KRUGMAN
Published: August 15, 2010

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/08/16/opinion/16krugman.html

A version of this op-ed appeared in print on August 16, 2010, on page A19 of the New York edition.

Social Security turned 75 last week. It should have been a joyous occasion, a time to celebrate a program that has brought dignity and decency to the lives of older Americans.

But the program is under attack, with some Democrats as well as nearly all Republicans joining the assault. Rumor has it that President Obama’s deficit commission may call for deep benefit cuts, in particular a sharp rise in the retirement age.

Social Security’s attackers claim that they’re concerned about the program’s financial future. But their math doesn’t add up, and their hostility isn’t really about dollars and cents. Instead, it’s about ideology and posturing. And underneath it all is ignorance of or indifference to the realities of life for many Americans.

About that math: Legally, Social Security has its own, dedicated funding, via the payroll tax (“FICA” on your pay statement). But it’s also part of the broader federal budget. This dual accounting means that there are two ways Social Security could face financial problems. First, that dedicated funding could prove inadequate, forcing the program either to cut benefits or to turn to Congress for aid. Second, Social Security costs could prove unsupportable for the federal budget as a whole.

But neither of these potential problems is a clear and present danger. Social Security has been running surpluses for the last quarter-century, banking those surpluses in a special account, the so-called trust fund. The program won’t have to turn to Congress for help or cut benefits until or unless the trust fund is exhausted, which the program’s actuaries don’t expect to happen until 2037 — and there’s a significant chance, according to their estimates, that that day will never come.

Meanwhile, an aging population will eventually (over the course of the next 20 years) cause the cost of paying Social Security benefits to rise from its current 4.8 percent of G.D.P. to about 6 percent of G.D.P. To give you some perspective, that’s a significantly smaller increase than the rise in defense spending since 2001, which Washington certainly didn’t consider a crisis, or even a reason to rethink some of the Bush tax cuts.

So where do claims of crisis come from? To a large extent they rely on bad-faith accounting. In particular, they rely on an exercise in three-card monte in which the surpluses Social Security has been running for a quarter-century don’t count — because hey, the program doesn’t have any independent existence; it’s just part of the general federal budget — while future Social Security deficits are unacceptable — because hey, the program has to stand on its own.

It would be easy to dismiss this bait-and-switch as obvious nonsense, except for one thing: many influential people — including Alan Simpson, co-chairman of the president’s deficit commission — are peddling this nonsense.

And having invented a crisis, what do Social Security’s attackers want to do? They don’t propose cutting benefits to current retirees; invariably the plan is, instead, to cut benefits many years in the future. So think about it this way: In order to avoid the possibility of future benefit cuts, we must cut future benefits. O.K.

What’s really going on here? Conservatives hate Social Security for ideological reasons: its success undermines their claim that government is always the problem, never the solution. But they receive crucial support from Washington insiders, for whom a declared willingness to cut Social Security has long served as a badge of fiscal seriousness, never mind the arithmetic.

And neither wing of the anti-Social-Security coalition seems to know or care about the hardship its favorite proposals would cause.

The currently fashionable idea of raising the retirement age even more than it will rise under existing law — it has already gone from 65 to 66, it’s scheduled to rise to 67, but now some are proposing that it go to 70 — is usually justified with assertions that life expectancy has risen, so people can easily work later into life. But that’s only true for affluent, white-collar workers — the people who need Social Security least.

I’m not just talking about the fact that it’s a lot easier to imagine working until you’re 70 if you have a comfortable office job than if you’re engaged in manual labor. America is becoming an increasingly unequal society — and the growing disparities extend to matters of life and death. Life expectancy at age 65 has risen a lot at the top of the income distribution, but much less for lower-income workers. And remember, the retirement age is already scheduled to rise under current law.

So let’s beat back this unnecessary, unfair and — let’s not mince words — cruel attack on working Americans. Big cuts in Social Security should not be on the table.

Outward bound: Conn. is losing residents

Sunday, January 24th, 2010

By Mary Ellen Godin
Record-Journal staff
mgodin@record-journal.com 
(203) 317-2255

As published in the Record Journal Sunday January 24, 2010

Follow all the news directly on the Record Journal Website for the most up to date information. www.myrecordjournal.com

Write a letter to the editor letters@record-journal.com

image

After nine years in retire­ment, James and Anne Marie Thadieo saw they were spend­ing more and enjoying it less.

So they shopped around and found a smaller home in North Carolina, where they say the taxes are lower and they don’t need winter coats. They sold their house on Catherine Drive and moved in October.

“We love it here,” James Thadieo said. “I live on a fixed income and I gotta go where my dollar can get the best value. I sold my house and bought another one and we’re mortgage free.”

It’s not just the snowbirds who are heading to warmer climes; its families and job seekers, and many are staying for good.

Connecticut has seen a steady outbound migration for several years, especially among 18- to 34-year-olds. But the exodus continued to add all ages, including retirees, at the start of the recession two years ago.
“They are trying to go some­where where there are job op­portunities, the states with the best employment,” said Janice Warro, office manager for Lit­tle John’s Moving & Storage in Meriden.

A recently released study by Atlas Van Lines on 2009 migra­tion trends reports that Con­necticut had the highest per­centage of moves out of state. Out of 2,031 shipments related to the state last year, 1,230 were outbound, or 60.5 percent, with the 801 inbound shipments comprising 39 percent.

New Jersey and South Dakota followed Connecticut in the percentage of people leaving home. The state con­tinued a nine-year pattern of being classified as an out­bound state, which means that more than 55 percent of ship­ments moved out.

The report shows that peo­ple are leaving Connecticut and the Rust Belt states and moving to the Southwest pocket— with Texas, New Mexico and, for the first time in five years, Oklahoma receiv­ing more than 55 percent of shipments related to their states. Other growth areas are in Washington, D.C. — with the highest percentage of in­bound traffic— and Maryland, which made the list for the first time since the company created it in 1993. North Car­olina has been an inbound state for the past six consecu­tive years.

But according to Kerri Hart, spokeswoman for Atlas, the survey doesn’t always reflect economic patterns. For in­stance, both North and South Dakota were outbound states and their employment num­bers are high.

Bargains in distressed hous­ing markets such as Florida and Las Vegas could be driving retirees into those areas. A $350,000 home in Florida two years ago can now be bought for about $180,000, agents said. But local real estate agents said the Carolinas have sur­passed Florida as a retirement destination and for job oppor­tunities, although those have slowed with the recession.

“They’re called half-backs,” said Sandy Maier Schede, an agent with Maier Real Estate, about people who move to the Carolinas instead of Florida. “It’s warm half of the time there.”

The Las Vegas area has also become a hot spot for bargain ­hunting retirees, but not so much for people in the job market.

Household moves cooled in­dustry- wide in 2009, according to the Atlas study. The com­pany reported a 16 percent drop from 2008, but the sum­mer months were higher than average.

Not surprisingly, Rust Belt states follow closely behind Connecticut. Michigan is num­ber four for most outbound moves, with Ohio and Indiana and Missouri also considered outbound states, and Illinois shifted into the outbound col­umn this year.

Western states such as Cali­fornia, Nevada and Oregon, which have suffered job losses in construction, manufacturing and tourism, have also become less popular destinations. But the first-time homebuyer’s tax credit helped move housing in­ventory at all levels.

Joseph Criscuolo, a broker for The Home Store Real Es­tate in Wallingford, said he’s had one of his best years ever. Out of 54 transactions, three or four were out of state, includ­ing the Thadieos. The rest were moves in different areas within the state, he said.

Peter Gioia, a vice president for the Connecticut Business & Industry Association, said the employment and housing problems in Florida and Cali­fornia have helped slow some of Connecticut’s outward mi­gration of young people, al­though as the stock market re­bounds more retirees will feel more comfortable leaving.

The job market in the Texas, Oklahoma and New Mexico market is brighter because of its strong export-based econ­omy with Latin America, the petroleum industry and mili­tary- industrial operations.

William Villano, executive director of Workforce Al­liance, the private firm that contracts with the state De­partment of Labor for job de­velopment in New Haven and Middlesex counties, said the contrast with the state is sig­nificant. Connecticut has lost around 90,000 jobs since the start of the recession. And al­though the numbers have lev­eled off, hiring has not picked up in any significant way. Man­ufacturing has shifted to southern states and offshore. Union construction jobs are also feeling the pinch.

“On some levels, it’s not sur­prising,” Villano said about the state’s ranking. “If you’re laid off…or if you’re going to take a pay cut, it makes sense to do it where it costs less to live.”

But the state’s unemploy­ment rate of 8.9 percent con­tinues to lag the national rate of 10 percent, and the number of initial unemployment claims decreased by more than 200 from November to De­cember— a 10 percent decline over last year, according to sta­tistics from the state DOL. However, only two major sec­tors have shown growth over the past year — health and ed­ucation.

Opportunities for young people may not be as strong in California or Florida in the past two years, but other cities in the country are doing more to attract young talent.

Affordable housing and cul­tural activities are driving young people to cities such as Austin, Texas. AT&T has in­vested millions to build and equip a technology center at the University of Texas there and maintains a strong part­nership with the school.

The company has added hundreds of jobs in Austin, Oklahoma and Nevada. In the past decade AT&T cut about 1,000 well-paying jobs in its landline customer service and repair sectors in Connecticut, but added more openings in the state for its broadband In­ternet and wireless products.

Pratt & Whitney is in a legal battle to eliminate 1,000 high ­paying jobs in its jet engine re­pair divisions in Cheshire and East Hartford. If it wins, the work will shift to Georgia and Singapore.

“The availability of quality jobs has been diminishing,” Villano said. “There are some opportunities for people who have significant skills and tal­ent. The problems with the types of jobs we’re growing (is that they) are lower-end jobs.” Paul Ott is a veteran real es­tate agent with William Raveis Real Estate in Cheshire. He’s now working with three clients in foreclosure who have moved to Texas, Florida and North Carolina, respec­tively, in the hopes of finding jobs or to be with family. In the case of one client who walked away from his home on Pad­dock Avenue in Meriden, it was for warmth.

The client, who did not want to be interviewed for this story, was laid off of from his job at Atlas Container last summer, Ott said. (The company is not related to Atlas Van Lines). He collected unem­ployment but fell behind in his payments and owed more than the home was worth.

“He said ‘It’s better to be homeless in a warmer cli­mate,’” Ott recalled. “That’s scary stuff. The jobs are not here to keep them here.”

Kathleen Quinn, operations director for the CT Works ca­reer centers, said the agency and the state labor department are working overtime to keep up with the need for services for the unemployed and un­deremployed.

“The first thing that comes to my mind is they have ex­ceeded their benefits,” Quinn said.

Connecticut has a 21-month time limit for receiving cash assistance, while the federal limit is 60 months. Often, peo­ple who have exhausted their 21-months will travel to an­other state where the limit isn’t as severe and can con­tinue to collect. “It could be people are exhausting their benefits,” Quinn said.

2010 401(k) Contribution Limit Won’t Be Adjusted / 2010 IRA will also stay the same

Sunday, October 25th, 2009

The 2010 contribution limit for 401(k) accounts will remain at $16,500.00.

The additional catch-up limit for workers 50 years old and order will also be the same as in 2009 and that was $5,500.00. So these workers could make up to the maximum contribution limit of $22,000.00.

The 2010 contribution limit for IRA and ROTH IRA accounts will remain at $5,000.00.

The additional catch-up limit for workers 50 years old and order will also be the same as in 2009 and that was $1,000.00. So these workers could make up to the maximum contribution limit of $6,000.00.

For some more details on this read 2010 401(k) Contribution Limit Won’t Be Adjusted

You can get the formal changes from the IRS website IRS Announces Pension Plan Limitations for 2010

Technorati Tags: ,,,,