Pensions and Retirement Plans

Subterms

    Latest story

    175 Shares67 Views

    Tax Cuts Now Could Lead to Rising Rates Later. Here’s How to Protect Yourself.

    by

    The swelling budget deficit makes future tax increases likely, our columnist says, even if taxes are going down now. Hedge your bets with a concept from investing — diversification.Investors must deal with uncertainty every day. Without knowing what the markets will bring, they try to get good returns without bearing excessive risk.The classic solution is diversification — holding a broad array of global stocks and bonds. By spreading your risk, you obtain some protection against a disaster in any single holding. Even through the chaos in the markets brought about by President Trump’s on-again-off-again tariffs, well-diversified portfolios have been shielded from the wildest swings in the markets.This survival strategy makes sense in thinking about your taxes, too.Every taxpayer must deal with at least two kinds of uncertainty. First, you don’t know exactly what your income will be in the future. And far more irksome, you don’t know what the tax code will be next year, or over the next decade or two. That’s especially true now, because of the likelihood of a swelling budget deficit stemming from the Trump administration’s tax and budget policies.Consider the budget negotiations underway in Congress. Will they mean higher or lower taxes in the future? There are major disagreements and it’s not clear how they’ll turn out. Yet this much seems evident: There is little appetite in the White House or Congress for short-term tax increases. So you may conclude that your taxes will stay the same or even be lower, and plan accordingly.But not so fast. It’s easy to construct an argument suggesting that whatever happens this year, taxes must rise, and fairly quickly. After all, there are already signs that the bond market is reacting negatively to the prospect of ever widening federal budget deficits, which seem baked into every version of the Republican tax legislation now under consideration.The deficit may become so high in the years ahead, in fact, that the United States may not be able to finance all of its debt cheaply. Moody’s said as much earlier this month, when it downgraded the credit rating of the United States, warning that political dysfunction is imperiling the nation’s financial future. It’s easy to imagine a pushback by financial markets so powerful that tax rates will need to increase in the future — even if Congress reduces them for most people now.We are having trouble retrieving the article content.Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and log into your Times account, or subscribe for all of The Times.Thank you for your patience while we verify access.Already a subscriber? Log in.Want all of The Times? Subscribe. More

    More stories

    • 100 Shares104 Views

      in Elections

      Retirees Are Filing for Social Security Earlier. Why?

      by

      An additional 276,000 people filed for Social Security benefits so far this fiscal year, up 13% from a year ago. Anxiety appears to be a driver.The morning after his 67th birthday, Marty McGowan filed for Social Security. That wasn’t his original plan. He had intended to wait until he was 70 to claim benefits, in exchange for a heftier payment that would have yielded an extra $800 a month.But like other retirees in recent months, he was watching the Trump administration’s shake-up at the Social Security Administration during a time when the broader economic outlook appeared increasingly uncertain. Concerns about the economy and access to benefits nudged him to file earlier than he had anticipated, even if it might cost him over the long run.He wasn’t the only one: An additional 276,000 retirees claimed benefits on their earnings record this fiscal year through April, according to the Urban Institute, a research group, a 13 percent jump from the same period a year ago. Officials inside the Social Security Administration called the rise “dramatic,” and though there were some other reasons for the surge, program experts say anxiety appeared to play a meaningful role.“It is worrisome because for most people, claiming early is not a good decision,” said Jack Smalligan, a senior policy fellow at the Urban Institute. “They’re nervous about the threats to the Social Security Administration and their benefits, while simultaneously looking at their 401(k), if they have one, and worrying about that.”The Trump administration’s crusade to diminish the federal bureaucracy did not spare Social Security, which rattled insiders at the agency and Americans close to or in retirement. Many of them feared that job cuts and other policy changes could threaten their access to benefits, causing them to jam phone lines and overwhelm offices. Elon Musk, the tech billionaire whose Department of Government Efficiency drove many of the changes, continued to spread false claims about widespread fraud at the agency, which only added to the confusion.That situation, coupled with wider economic uncertainty, seemed to influence some retirees’ real-world financial decision-making. Agency officials acknowledged this during their recent operational meetings, along with other strains on the system.We are having trouble retrieving the article content.Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and log into your Times account, or subscribe for all of The Times.Thank you for your patience while we verify access.Already a subscriber? Log in.Want all of The Times? Subscribe. More

    • 63 Shares169 Views

      in Elections

      Belgian Prince Seeks Pension Benefits

      by

      A court case by the Belgian king’s younger brother argued that he was entitled to a state pension to keep his wife and adult children financially safe.For attending galas, cutting ribbons and meeting diplomats, a Belgian prince takes home a royal allowance of 100,000 euros, nearly $110,000, a year. But what will happen when he stops working? For that, Prince Laurent of Belgium is seeking government benefits.A court this week agreed in part, recommending that the country’s lawmakers consider drawing up regulations for a federal pension for the prince, even as it dismissed his argument that his royal duties were in essence a job and that his incurred expenses were comparable to being self-employed.His lawyer, Olivier Rijckaert, said in an interview Tuesday that the court had effectively placed the prince in a special category, akin to a “super public servant.” Only one other person is in that category, his lawyer said: the prince’s older sister, Princess Astrid.The prince, who is 61, will now decide whether to wait for the law to be passed or to challenge the court’s ruling, hoping to speed the process, his lawyer said.Prince Laurent, the younger brother of King Phillippe, brought the case in 2023, suing Belgium’s National Institute for the Social Security of the Self-employed. He argued in court that without a pension, his wife, Princess Claire, and their three adult children would be left financially vulnerable upon his death or if he halted his duties, according to court documents.The prince receives a stipend of €400,000 a year, three-quarters of which is used to cover his staff’s salaries plus various trips and entertainment expenses, according to his lawyer. Prince Laurent is required to provide supporting documents for all of those expenses, Mr. Rijckaert said.We are having trouble retrieving the article content.Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and log into your Times account, or subscribe for all of The Times.Thank you for your patience while we verify access.Already a subscriber? Log in.Want all of The Times? Subscribe. More

    • 113 Shares179 Views

      in Elections

      Pension Funds Push Forward on Climate Goals Despite Backlash

      by

      At a time of resistance to environmental, social and governance goals, pension funds have become a bulwark against efforts to sideline climate risks.In the past few months, some of the largest banks and asset managers in the United States have quit net zero networks, the climate groups that encourage their members to set ambitious carbon reduction targets and collaborate internationally on sustainability efforts.But the week after Donald J. Trump won re-election in November, NYCERS, a pension fund for New York City employees, went in the opposite direction. It joined a United Nations-affiliated climate action group for long-term investors, the Net Zero Asset Owner Alliance.The timing wasn’t intentional, said Brad Lander, the comptroller who oversees the city’s finances, including the pension fund, and is now running for mayor. But, he added, “we were pleased that the timing sent an important signal.”“It is far more important than it was for pension funds and other big asset owners to take collective action at this moment,” Mr. Lander said.At a time of growing backlash to environmental, social and governance goals and investment strategies, pension funds, particularly in blue states and Europe, have emerged as a bulwark against efforts to sideline climate-related risks.The funds, which sit at the top of the investment chain, have stepped up engagement with asset managers and companies on climate goals and have kept public commitments to use their fiscal might to reduce carbon emissions. In some cases, that has meant shifting to European asset managers, which have not backed off on climate commitments as much as their American counterparts have.We are having trouble retrieving the article content.Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and log into your Times account, or subscribe for all of The Times.Thank you for your patience while we verify access.Already a subscriber? Log in.Want all of The Times? Subscribe. More

    • 100 Shares99 Views

      in Elections

      How Donald Trump’s Presidency Could Impact Retirement Rules

      by

      Readers had questions about individual retirement accounts, distributions and access to brokerage accounts if they moved away from the U.S. Here are some answers.Your retirement accounts may be the biggest component of your net worth. Or maybe those large balances are still only a goal, and you want to know if any changes coming in the next four years will help you get there — or get in your way.Of the 1,200 or so money-related questions we’ve received from readers in the days since the presidential election, many have been about retirement. We have some answers for what we know and context for what we don’t yet know. Most of them have nothing to do with Social Security; my colleague Tara Siegel Bernard answered questions about that program last week.But first, here’s an important caveat that is true in any administration, but especially in one like this: For things to change, President-elect Donald J. Trump has to want things to change, act on that desire and then succeed. If lawmakers are involved, they also have to have the desire, follow through and pass legislation.There will be plenty of noise, but in this particular category, it’s possible that not much of substance will look different four years from now.What did Mr. Trump say he wanted to change about individual retirement accounts or 401(k)s?Not much. Neither Mr. Trump’s campaign website nor the Republican Party platform that it pointed to said anything about I.R.A.s or workplace retirement accounts like 401(k)s, with one exception that probably wouldn’t affect many people.On his campaign website, Mr. Trump sounded off about environmental, social and governance, or E.S.G., funds and their place in workplace retirement plans. During his first term, the Labor Department issued a rule related to what sorts of funds an employer — which must act in employees’ best interest as a so-called fiduciary — can use in those plans.We are having trouble retrieving the article content.Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and log into your Times account, or subscribe for all of The Times.Thank you for your patience while we verify access.Already a subscriber? Log in.Want all of The Times? Subscribe. More

    • 138 Shares99 Views

      in Elections

      Why States Are Offering Workers at Private Companies Access to I.R.A.s

      by

      With the plans, workers are automatically enrolled and contribute through payroll deductions. The goal is to help more Americans save for retirement.Traditional pensions are increasingly rare. About half of employees at private companies don’t have access to a retirement plan. And retirees themselves say they haven’t saved enough.That is why states have decided to step in and offer retirement accounts for private-sector employees, helping workers to save more and, new research shows, perhaps even spurring companies to offer their own workplace retirement plans.Automatic individual retirement account programs, known as “auto-I.R.A.s,” typically require private employers that don’t offer workplace retirement plans like 401(k)s to register for state-run plans.Workers are automatically enrolled in I.R.A.s, often with 3 to 5 percent of their income deducted from their paychecks, but can change the amount or opt out if they prefer. The employers — typically small businesses and nonprofits — provide access to payroll deductions to ease worker contributions, but don’t oversee the plan or pay fees.Auto-I.R.A.s are now available in 10 states, including New Jersey and Delaware, which started plans this summer, and soon will be in seven more, according to the Georgetown University Center for Retirement Initiatives. At the end of October, there were more than 930,000 accounts with $1.7 billion in savings for the eight plans for which data was available, according to the Georgetown center.Workers can, of course, open an I.R.A. on their own at a bank or brokerage. But few workers do so, perhaps because of inertia or because they are intimidated about making investment choices.We are having trouble retrieving the article content.Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and log into your Times account, or subscribe for all of The Times.Thank you for your patience while we verify access.Already a subscriber? Log in.Want all of The Times? Subscribe. More

    • 125 Shares99 Views

      in Elections

      Older Workers to Get ‘Super’ 401(k) Catch-Up Contributions in 2025

      by

      Workers who are 60 to 63 will be able to put in up to $11,250 in extra contributions, if they can afford it.Will you be age 60 to 63 next year? Lucky you! You have the option to contribute several thousand dollars more to your workplace retirement plan.That’s if you can afford it, and many workers will find it’s a stretch.Federal tax law already allows people 50 and older to make extra contributions, above the annual deferral limit, to a 401(k) or similar employer retirement plan. This year and next, that standard “catch-up” contribution is $7,500.But starting next year, the catch-up contribution limit will be higher for people in their early 60s, as part of the federal Secure 2.0 tax law passed in 2022. They can contribute up to $11,250 next year — an additional $3,750 in catch-up contributions — beyond the general 2025 deferral limit of $23,500, the Internal Revenue Service said. That means they can potentially contribute up to $34,750 in total to a workplace retirement account.This additional contribution — sometimes called an “enhanced” or “super” catch-up option — is available to workers ages 60, 61, 62 and 63. You’re eligible if you reach that age during the calendar year, said Dan Snyder, director of personal financial planning for the American Institute of Certified Public Accountants. (Once savers turn 64, they’re no longer eligible for the extra savings but can contribute the standard catch-up amount.)The idea is to give people who are nearing retirement age, but are behind in savings, the chance to accumulate more money for their post-work lives. “This is an opportunity to make up for mistakes from the past,” said David John, senior strategic policy adviser at the AARP Public Policy Institute, which focuses on issues relevant to older Americans.Getting Americans to save more for retirement is a concern as the population ages, especially as the number of companies offering pensions dwindles. The typical household headed by people ages 55 to 64 has just $10,000 saved in a retirement account, according to an analysis of federal data by the Economic Policy Institute and the Schwartz Center for Economic Policy Analysis.We are having trouble retrieving the article content.Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and log into your Times account, or subscribe for all of The Times.Thank you for your patience while we verify access.Already a subscriber? Log in.Want all of The Times? Subscribe. More

    • 125 Shares119 Views

      in Elections

      Boeing Will Sell $19 Billion in Stock Amid Costly Strike

      by

      The aerospace company, locked in a standoff with striking workers, is seeking to shore up its balance sheet and avoid a credit rating downgrade.Boeing on Monday began to raise roughly $19 billion by selling stock, an attempt to shore up its finances as a costly and disruptive worker strike weighs on the plane maker’s balance sheet.The sale comes shortly after the aerospace giant reported a $6.1 billion loss in the last quarter and said it was cutting about 17,000 jobs. A weekslong strike by Boeing machinists is costing the company tens of millions of dollars each day, according to analyst estimates, adding to the financial strain created by long-running production and quality issues.The fund-raising aims to stave off a potential credit rating downgrade, which could make it more expensive for the company to borrow money. Boeing has about $58 billion in debt. S&P Global Ratings said this month that it was considering lowering Boeing’s credit rating to “junk” status, depending on how long the strike continues.Boeing’s shares fell about 1 percent Monday morning. The company’s stock has fallen more than 40 percent this year.Last week, Boeing’s largest union, which represents about 33,000 workers, rejected a tentative labor contract, extending a strike that began last month and has halted airplane production at crucial plants in the Seattle area. The proposed agreement did not address a frozen pension plan that workers were seeking to restore.Boeing indicated in regulatory filings this month that it planned to raise as much as $25 billion by selling stock or debt over the next three years, and the company entered into a $10 billion credit agreement with a group of banks. It described the plans as “two prudent steps to support the company’s access to liquidity.”The plane maker hasn’t reported an annual profit since 2018. Before the machinists’ strike started to weigh on the company, two fatal crashes of Boeing’s 737 Max in 2018 and 2019 cost it billions of dollars and severely damaged its reputation. Concerns about the safety of Boeing’s commercial planes resurfaced in January, when a door panel on a 737 Max 9 jet blew open during an Alaska Airlines flight.The stock sale on Monday covers only the company’s near-term needs, “without an extended strike or further production disruptions,” analysts at Wells Fargo said in a research note. More

    • 63 Shares169 Views

      in Elections

      Boeing Union Workers Reject Contract

      by

      The vote, hours after Boeing reported a $6.1 billion loss, will extend a monthlong strike at factories where the company makes its best-selling commercial plane.Boeing’s largest union rejected a tentative labor contract on Wednesday, a blow to the aerospace manufacturer and the Biden administration, which had intervened in the hopes of ending an economically damaging strike that began more than five weeks ago.The contract, the second that workers have voted down, was defeated by a wide margin, with 64 percent of those voting opposing the deal, according to the union, the International Association of Machinists and Aerospace Workers. The union represents about 33,000 workers, but it did not disclose how many voted on Wednesday.“This wasn’t enough for our members,” said Jon Holden, president of District 751 of the union, which represents the vast majority of the workers. “They’ve spoken loudly and we’re going to go back to the table.”The vote is a setback for Boeing’s new chief executive, Kelly Ortberg, who is trying to restore Boeing’s reputation and business, which he described in detail earlier on Wednesday. In remarks to workers and investors, Mr. Ortberg said Boeing needed to undergo “fundamental culture change” to stabilize the business and to improve execution.“Our leaders, from me on down, need to be closely integrated with our business and the people who are doing the design and production of our products,” he said. “We need to be on the factory floors, in the back shops and in our engineering labs. We need to know what’s going on, not only with our products, but with our people.”Mr. Ortberg delivered that message alongside the company’s quarterly financial results, which included a loss of more than $6.1 billion. This month, Boeing also announced plans to cut its work force by about 10 percent, which amounts to 17,000 jobs. Boeing also recently disclosed plans to raise as much as $25 billion by selling debt or stock over the next three years as it tries to avoid a damaging downgrade to its credit rating.We are having trouble retrieving the article content.Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and log into your Times account, or subscribe for all of The Times.Thank you for your patience while we verify access.Already a subscriber? Log in.Want all of The Times? Subscribe. More