Latest news with #retirementbenefits
Yahoo
11-07-2025
- Business
- Yahoo
MP pensions have increased 11.4% over past two years, according to new Treasury Board report
New numbers from the federal Treasury Board indicate that annual MP pensions averaged $81,140 last year. That's up 11.4 per cent, compounded over the last two years due to inflation indexing, according to Blacklock's Reporter. The indexation covers retirement allowances, survivor benefits, and disability pensions based on cost-of-living increases. There are 1,193 MPs, retirees and family members enrolled in the benefits plan. Payments last year included benefits to 192 widows and orphans. 'A plan member's benefits are based on the number of years of pensionable service at retirement, where that service was accrued, the age at which they start receiving benefits and whether they retire because of a disability,' says the Treasury Board report. To qualify for a pension, MPs must serve for at least six years. Six MPs fell short of that after losing in April's federal election. They are former Liberals Han Dong (Don Valley North, Ont.) and Irek Kusmierczyk (Windsor—Tecumseh, Ont.), and New Democrats Taylor Bachrach (Skeena—Bulkley Valley, B.C.), Laurel Collins (Victoria), Matthew Green (Hamilton Centre, Ont.) and Lyndsay Mathyssen (London—Fanshawe, Ont.). In 2000, Parliament mandated all MPs to enroll in the pension plan. Then in 2005, Parliament passed An Act To Amend The Parliament Of Canada Act mandating automatic annual pay hikes for MPs based on inflation and a labour department index of wage settlements in the unionized private sector. Cabinet has waived the automatic April 1 raises only once, for three years following the 2008 financial crisis. Here are the 80 MPs set to qualify for a pension with the help of a Liberal rule change Justin Trudeau set to earn more than $8 million in government pensions and severance Our website is the place for the latest breaking news, exclusive scoops, longreads and provocative commentary. Please bookmark and sign up for our daily newsletter, Posted, here.
Yahoo
30-06-2025
- Business
- Yahoo
The Social Security crisis is coming one year earlier than we thought
The Social Security shortfall date just moved a little nearer. New federal projection released June 18 show the combined Social Security trust funds will pay 100% of benefits until 2034 before becoming depleted. That date is one year earlier than the Social Security Administration reported a year ago. 'As in prior years, we found that the Social Security and Medicare programs both continue to face significant financing issues,' program trustees wrote in a summary of their 2025 annual report. The Social Security Administration faces a funding crisis. Trustees say the projected shortfall in retirement benefits has risen to $25.1 trillion through 2099, up from $22.6 trillion a year ago. The Old-Age and Survivors Insurance (OASI) Trust Fund, which pays benefits to retirees and their families, is projected to pay total scheduled benefits until 2033, the report shows. 'At that time, the fund's reserves will become depleted and continuing program income will be sufficient to pay 77% of total scheduled benefits,' the report says. The separate Disability Insurance Trust Fund is fully funded through at least 2099, the agency reports. The combined programs, however, can pay 100% of benefits only through 2034. At that point, the program's reserves would be advocates sounded alarm at the findings. The new projections "show the trust fund for Social Security is going to be depleted one year sooner than was projected last year, which means that Social Security recipients may see a 19% reduction in their Social Security income one year sooner," Myechia Minter-Jordan, CEO of AARP, said in a statement. "Congress must act to protect and strengthen the Social Security that Americans have earned and paid into throughout their working lives. More than 69 million Americans rely on Social Security today and as America's population ages, the stability of this vital program only becomes more important." Social Security faces a shortfall because the program spends more than it takes in. In 2024, the OASI Trust Fund cost $1,327 billion to administer, but income totaled only $1,224 billion, a shortfall of $103 billion. The notion that Social Security faces a shortfall suffuses the national conversation about preparing for retirement. Older Americans wonder if their monthly checks will go down midway through their golden years. Younger Americans have doubled down on retirement savings, partly out of fear that Social Security won't fully support them. In more bad tidings, the trustees reported that a crucial Medicare trust fund will face a shortfall in 2033, three years earlier than projected a year ago. The Hospital Insurance Trust Fund pays for health care services at hospitals and nursing homes, among other categories. By 2033, the fund will cover only 89% of all scheduled benefits, according to the report. The trust funds' financial health "remains a top priority for the Trump Administration," Frank Bisignano, the Social Security commissioner, said in a statement. (This story was updated to add new information.) This article originally appeared on USA TODAY: The Social Security shortfall is coming one year sooner
CNN
11-05-2025
- Business
- CNN
Trump isn't the only one targeting federal employees. House Republicans are pushing cuts to pension benefits
Source: CNN After months of contending with the Trump administration's multi-pronged effort to downsize the federal workforce, government employees are now facing the possibility of another major change that could push even more of them out the door. House Republicans are looking to make several big adjustments to federal workers' retirement benefits to help pay for the party's sweeping tax and spending cuts package. The House Oversight Committee last week approved a plan that would squeeze $50 billion in savings out of the retirement system over the next decade. 'They're going to charge people more for the benefit, and then they're going to reduce the benefit by changing the formula for how the benefit is calculated,' Jacqueline Simon, policy director of the American Federation of Government Employees, the largest federal workers union, told reporters on Monday. The cuts could lead workers eligible for retirement to head for the exits in an effort to lock in their current benefits, union leaders say. Congressional Republicans have long wanted to overhaul federal staffers' pension system, as did President Donald Trump during his first term. But their efforts typically did not advance far. In the current political environment, however, the policy push may have a greater chance of succeeding. Republicans' 'big, beautiful bill' has not yet been finalized and must still be approved by the full House and the Senate. Rep. James Comer, the committee's chair, described the effort as a way to save Americans money. 'The simple truth is that a significant amount of the costs associated with all of these benefits are funded by hardworking taxpayers in the private sector and increasingly now federal government borrowing,' Comer said in his opening remarks when the committee examined the plan. At least one House Republican has already come out against the measure. Ohio Rep. Mike Turner joined Democrats in voting against the committee's plan last week. 'I oppose any and all efforts to reduce federal spending by taking money from the hard-earned pensions of federal workers,' he said in a statement. 'These pensions are not giveaways – they are promises to federal workers in exchange for their dedicated service.' The most significant measure approved by the committee would raise the Federal Employees Retirement System contribution rate for many current civilian and postal employees to 4.4% of their salary. Those hired prior to 2014 generally contribute either 0.8% or 3.1%, while more recent hires typically already contribute 4.4%. For new retirees who are too young to collect Social Security benefits, the plan would eliminate an additional payment that's currently available to retired federal workers until they turn 62. The plan would also base retirees' pension payments on their average highest five earning years, instead of highest three years, which could reduce benefits by thousands of dollars annually. Certain employees, including those in law enforcement, Customs and Border Protection officers and air traffic controllers, would not be subject to these provisions, though they would not be eligible for the additional pension payment until after their mandatory retirement age of 56 or 57, depending on their position. Plus, the plan would impose an additional 5% pension contribution for new employees who don't agree to serve 'at will,' a status that would give them fewer job protections. The proposed plan has sparked a fresh round of concerns among federal workers, particularly among older employees, union leaders say. 'People are very frustrated at the moment, thinking that it's kind of like a bait and switch,' said Brandy Moore White, president of the AFGE's Council of Prison Locals, which represents more than 30,000 correctional officers and staff at federal prisons. Although her members are not subject to many of the provisions, those who retire before they turn 57 would not receive supplemental payments until they hit that mandatory retirement age. The loss would be 'devastating' for a share of the prison workforce since it's not uncommon for employees to retire in their 40s or early 50s after years of service. At the Social Security Administration, a quarter of the staff are eligible for retirement, said Jessica LaPointe, president of AFGE's Council 220, which represents workers in the agency's centers, field offices and other units. Some are calling her to say they want to put in their retirement papers now so they can lock in their pension benefits. 'There's no way that I would be able to absorb that hit,' she said her colleagues are telling her. See Full Web Article
CNN
10-05-2025
- Business
- CNN
Trump isn't the only one targeting federal employees. House Republicans are pushing cuts to pension benefits
After months of contending with the Trump administration's multi-pronged effort to downsize the federal workforce, government employees are now facing the possibility of another major change that could push even more of them out the door. House Republicans are looking to make several big adjustments to federal workers' retirement benefits to help pay for the party's sweeping tax and spending cuts package. The House Oversight Committee last week approved a plan that would squeeze $50 billion in savings out of the retirement system over the next decade. 'They're going to charge people more for the benefit, and then they're going to reduce the benefit by changing the formula for how the benefit is calculated,' Jacqueline Simon, policy director of the American Federation of Government Employees, the largest federal workers union, told reporters on Monday. The cuts could lead workers eligible for retirement to head for the exits in an effort to lock in their current benefits, union leaders say. Congressional Republicans have long wanted to overhaul federal staffers' pension system, as did President Donald Trump during his first term. But their efforts typically did not advance far. In the current political environment, however, the policy push may have a greater chance of succeeding. Republicans' 'big, beautiful bill' has not yet been finalized and must still be approved by the full House and the Senate. Rep. James Comer, the committee's chair, described the effort as a way to save Americans money. 'The simple truth is that a significant amount of the costs associated with all of these benefits are funded by hardworking taxpayers in the private sector and increasingly now federal government borrowing,' Comer said in his opening remarks when the committee examined the plan. At least one House Republican has already come out against the measure. Ohio Rep. Mike Turner joined Democrats in voting against the committee's plan last week. 'I oppose any and all efforts to reduce federal spending by taking money from the hard-earned pensions of federal workers,' he said in a statement. 'These pensions are not giveaways – they are promises to federal workers in exchange for their dedicated service.' The most significant measure approved by the committee would raise the Federal Employees Retirement System contribution rate for many current civilian and postal employees to 4.4% of their salary. Those hired prior to 2014 generally contribute either 0.8% or 3.1%, while more recent hires typically already contribute 4.4%. For new retirees who are too young to collect Social Security benefits, the plan would eliminate an additional payment that's currently available to retired federal workers until they turn 62. The plan would also base retirees' pension payments on their average highest five earning years, instead of highest three years, which could reduce benefits by thousands of dollars annually. Certain employees, including those in law enforcement, Customs and Border Protection officers and air traffic controllers, would not be subject to these provisions, though they would not be eligible for the additional pension payment until after their mandatory retirement age of 56 or 57, depending on their position. Plus, the plan would impose an additional 5% pension contribution for new employees who don't agree to serve 'at will,' a status that would give them fewer job protections. The proposed plan has sparked a fresh round of concerns among federal workers, particularly among older employees, union leaders say. 'People are very frustrated at the moment, thinking that it's kind of like a bait and switch,' said Brandy Moore White, president of the AFGE's Council of Prison Locals, which represents more than 30,000 correctional officers and staff at federal prisons. Although her members are not subject to many of the provisions, those who retire before they turn 57 would not receive supplemental payments until they hit that mandatory retirement age. The loss would be 'devastating' for a share of the prison workforce since it's not uncommon for employees to retire in their 40s or early 50s after years of service. At the Social Security Administration, a quarter of the staff are eligible for retirement, said Jessica LaPointe, president of AFGE's Council 220, which represents workers in the agency's centers, field offices and other units. Some are calling her to say they want to put in their retirement papers now so they can lock in their pension benefits. 'There's no way that I would be able to absorb that hit,' she said her colleagues are telling her.
CNN
10-05-2025
- Business
- CNN
Trump isn't the only one targeting federal employees. House Republicans are pushing cuts to pension benefits
After months of contending with the Trump administration's multi-pronged effort to downsize the federal workforce, government employees are now facing the possibility of another major change that could push even more of them out the door. House Republicans are looking to make several big adjustments to federal workers' retirement benefits to help pay for the party's sweeping tax and spending cuts package. The House Oversight Committee last week approved a plan that would squeeze $50 billion in savings out of the retirement system over the next decade. 'They're going to charge people more for the benefit, and then they're going to reduce the benefit by changing the formula for how the benefit is calculated,' Jacqueline Simon, policy director of the American Federation of Government Employees, the largest federal workers union, told reporters on Monday. The cuts could lead workers eligible for retirement to head for the exits in an effort to lock in their current benefits, union leaders say. Congressional Republicans have long wanted to overhaul federal staffers' pension system, as did President Donald Trump during his first term. But their efforts typically did not advance far. In the current political environment, however, the policy push may have a greater chance of succeeding. Republicans' 'big, beautiful bill' has not yet been finalized and must still be approved by the full House and the Senate. Rep. James Comer, the committee's chair, described the effort as a way to save Americans money. 'The simple truth is that a significant amount of the costs associated with all of these benefits are funded by hardworking taxpayers in the private sector and increasingly now federal government borrowing,' Comer said in his opening remarks when the committee examined the plan. At least one House Republican has already come out against the measure. Ohio Rep. Mike Turner joined Democrats in voting against the committee's plan last week. 'I oppose any and all efforts to reduce federal spending by taking money from the hard-earned pensions of federal workers,' he said in a statement. 'These pensions are not giveaways – they are promises to federal workers in exchange for their dedicated service.' The most significant measure approved by the committee would raise the Federal Employees Retirement System contribution rate for many current civilian and postal employees to 4.4% of their salary. Those hired prior to 2014 generally contribute either 0.8% or 3.1%, while more recent hires typically already contribute 4.4%. For new retirees who are too young to collect Social Security benefits, the plan would eliminate an additional payment that's currently available to retired federal workers until they turn 62. The plan would also base retirees' pension payments on their average highest five earning years, instead of highest three years, which could reduce benefits by thousands of dollars annually. Certain employees, including those in law enforcement, Customs and Border Protection officers and air traffic controllers, would not be subject to these provisions, though they would not be eligible for the additional pension payment until after their mandatory retirement age of 56 or 57, depending on their position. Plus, the plan would impose an additional 5% pension contribution for new employees who don't agree to serve 'at will,' a status that would give them fewer job protections. The proposed plan has sparked a fresh round of concerns among federal workers, particularly among older employees, union leaders say. 'People are very frustrated at the moment, thinking that it's kind of like a bait and switch,' said Brandy Moore White, president of the AFGE's Council of Prison Locals, which represents more than 30,000 correctional officers and staff at federal prisons. Although her members are not subject to many of the provisions, those who retire before they turn 57 would not receive supplemental payments until they hit that mandatory retirement age. The loss would be 'devastating' for a share of the prison workforce since it's not uncommon for employees to retire in their 40s or early 50s after years of service. At the Social Security Administration, a quarter of the staff are eligible for retirement, said Jessica LaPointe, president of AFGE's Council 220, which represents workers in the agency's centers, field offices and other units. Some are calling her to say they want to put in their retirement papers now so they can lock in their pension benefits. 'There's no way that I would be able to absorb that hit,' she said her colleagues are telling her.
