just4moms.netExciting News Every Mom Should Know…

AS the global population ages, governments need to increase retirement ages and private superannuation contributions, says a report released by the OECD on Tuesday.

The Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development released its first Pension Outlook outlining how Australia compared with other developed nation's on its pension and retirement system.

it said as life expectancy would rise more than seven years in developed economies, 28 of the 34 OECD countries were planning or already had increased retirement age.

The report suggested connecting retirement ages with life expectancy as well as making private pensions mandatory, including up to 12% in Australia.

it also reiterated proposals from the Grattan Institute last week that lifting Australia's retirement age above the recently increased 67 years of age was a positive move.

But National Seniors Australia chief executive Michael O'Neill said before lifting the retirement age, the government needed to make some simple changes which were stopping older people entering the workforce.

He said there were several things, such as a lack of workers compensation for employees over 65 years that were acting as disincentives for people to keep working late in their life.

"these regulatory imposts have been known about for more than a decade, but governments don't seem to want to do anything about it.

"things like income protection and workers compensation should not change with the age of the employee.

"We now have an Age Discrimination Commissioner, which is a good thing.

"But how many reviews and inquiries do we need to do – we know what needs to be done first, before the retirement age is lifted, but it's not being done."

Only Queensland and Western Australia's do not have caps on the age of recipients for workplace compensation.

Age discrimination was another issue preventing some older people from getting jobs, but it would require long-term change, similar to that of the sex discrimination movement, he said.

"A 55-year-old who becomes unemployed faces an average 73 weeks out of work compared to person in their twenties who would be out of work for 23 weeks," he said.

"That's what needs addressing now. Increasing the pension age is a distraction.

"ABS figures show that almost 40 per cent of all discouraged job seekers, people who want to work but have given up looking, believe that employers consider them too old."  

Zig Inge helped pioneer a new style of retirement living in Australia. Photo: John Woudstra

ZIG INGE, MEMBER OF THE ORDER OF AUSTRALIA (AM)

THE founder and joint managing director of the group that bears his name, Zig Inge is the patriarch of one of Australia’s wealthiest families.

Mr Inge came to Australia from Latvia in 1949. He worked as a real estate agent in Melbourne’s eastern suburbs in the early 1950s before deciding to switch from selling homes to building them. The company he founded with his brother Alex, Inge Bros, soon developed a reputation for quality construction.

Advertisement: Story continues below

See the full Queen’s Birthday honours list

He then decided to make another switch and moved his focus to retirement villages, ”I built my first village in the ’70s and haven’t stopped working since then,” mr Inge says.

The retirement villages built by what later became the Zig Inge Group introduced innovations previously unseen in Australia. They were individually titled and resident-funded, and elderly people could live in their own home and benefit from communal facilities. They had regular social activities and had live-in managers. He also pioneered a deferred payment system in which residents only had to pay cost of living once they moved out of the village.

Mr Inge says improving living standards for the elderly became his purpose in life.

”Retirement living is my love. I love it. I love people and I love elderly people and I think they deserve a better lifestyle. One of the aims of our villages is to prolong the independent living of the average person,” he says.

Until the sale of the retirement village division of Zig Inge Group in 2007, his company operated 19 retirement villages, 3000 units and six serviced apartment complexes throughout Australia.

He has since bought back one village, Prospect Hill in Camberwell.

Mr Inge also has a passion for philanthropy. His Zig Inge Foundation, founded in 2008, has funded community groups including the Make-A-Wish Foundation, the Murdoch Childrens Research Institute and the Australian Indigenous Mentoring Experience.

”I wanted to give something back for what I’ve got. I’ve had a wonderful life here,” he says.

But mr Inge, 86, who has been described as the patriarch of retirement in Australia, has no plans to retire himself.

”I don’t think so. not for the time being. I’m trying to extend my own independent living as well.”

He says his Queen’s Birthday honour, which acknowledges his services to retirement village industry and philanthropy, was an unexpected surprise.

BOSTON (CBS) – Steve LeVeille, longtime personality on WBZ NewsRadio 1030, has decided to retire after thirteen years of hosting “The Steve LeVeille Broadcast.” WBZ NewsRadio Director of News and Programming, Peter Casey, made the announcement today. LeVeille’s retirement will become official at the end of the week.

“Steve called yesterday and informed me of his decision. Although it came as a surprise, I do know Steve enjoys his time in Maine and had always thought that he would retire there sometime. I just didn’t think it would be this soon. Steve has been a tremendously creative broadcaster and friend to the overnight audience here at WBZ, and he will be missed.”

LeVeille, 57, said it had always been his goal to retire early: “This is a quality of life decision for my wife, Diane, and me. we have been making moves during the past number of years to be able to do this without any particular date in mind. we have just reached a point where we said the time is right now. After spending most of our weekends and vacation time in Maine for the last fifteen years we are looking forward to making it our year round home.”

LeVeille is a native of the Boston area and was familiar with WBZ NewsRadio as a teenager saying, “I grew up in the Boston area listening to Larry Glick on WBZ. and as cliché as it sounds, it was the dream of a teenager to do the overnight show on WBZ and I am proud to be able to retire from that position.”

LeVeille has worked in radio for more than 35 years and has been with WBZ since 1991. LeVeille began his career at all-news WEEI in 1977 as a news writer and producer. He worked for ABC News in New York as an assignment editor and writer from 1980 to 1986. from 1991 to 1997, LeVeille worked for Monitor Radio as a program host and news anchor on nationally and internationally broadcast programs. He was also heard frequently as a news anchor on WBUR in the 1990s. Of the awards he has won for excellence in broadcasting Steve’s favorite is the 1988 Associated Press Massachusetts Broadcasters award for best Sports Commentary for pieces he did for WAAF.

WBZ NewsRadio 1030 is owned by CBS RADIO, a division of CBS Corporation. CBS RADIO, one of the largest major-market radio operators in the United States, operates 130 radio stations including Boston’s WBMX-FM (MIX 104.1), WBZ-AM (NewsRadio 1030), WBZ-FM (98.5 the Sports Hub), WODS-FM (103.3), and WZLX-FM (Classic Rock 100.7).

Flicker/Wessex Archaeology

IBM CEO Virginia Rometty is way out in the woods, employees say.

  IBM’s weird early retirement offer kind of sounded like a good deal—work less, make more per hour! But it wasn’t, IBM employees tell us.

And eligible IBM employees are not falling for it, we’re told—in part because they believe the “work less” part won’t actually happen.

“Very few are taking the early retirement package. you would still be expected to get your job done as everyone is expected to work seven days a week, but now for less money,” one long-time IBM employee told us.

As we reported last month, IBM asked employees to declare plans to retire on or before  Dec. 31, 2013. In exchange, they’d get to  cut their hours by 40 percent and their pay by 30 percent.

IBM promised that those who take the deal will not be laid off before their declared retirement date. (Read the email here.) Taking this deal, though, means that an employee can’t work and get full pay until retirement.

But employees say the deal isn’t that straight-up. IBM might force an early retiree to change jobs—pushing a broom, say. Workers still have to meet performance targets. and IBM can trick them into leaving by relocating their jobs.

That’s according to a commenter on the IBM workforce watchdog site Alliance@IBM

Getting laid off is “a better deal as you get paid to leave now, and then collect unemployment before retiring, then get your pension,” an employee told us.

An IBM spokesperson wouldn’t give us numbers on how many IBMers are taking the offer but insists, “The interest is strong. Like our other ‘Transition’ programs – Transition to Teaching and Transition to Service – it’s a innovative choice we can provide IBMers as they look and plan ahead,” a spokesperson told us.

A bigger issue is that workers think IBM is targeting older workers. “What is not being said here is that it is age discrimination. Older employees cost more,” said the employee.

We’ve heard from lots of people laid off from IBM in the past few weeks. One of them was 55 years old and said, “I was told ‘this is not based on performance, you were doing a good job.’ I had received a ’2′ solid performer rating on my performance review in Jan. 2012.”

“IBM is cutting some of the top, most experienced talent. All in the name of earnings per share. nothing personal, it’s all about the stock price,” this person said.

IBM has been cutting its U.S. and Canadian workforce as part of its “Roadmap 2015” plan to increase earnings per share to $20 by 2015.

Internally, employees call the plan “Road kill 2015.”

In 2012 so far, IBM has quietly laid off over 1,800 people in the U.S. and Canada, according to  Alliance@IBM.

(Money magazine) — "What’s a realistic retirement age? how much longer will most of us have to work?" — Charles Maimone, Wilmington, N.C.

The answer depends on how successful you’ve been at saving, how cushy a lifestyle you would like to have and, of course, when you prefer to disengage.

That said, after the battering 401(k)s took during the financial crisis, a lot of people feel they’ll have to stay on the job beyond the traditional age of 65.

In a recent Wells Fargo survey, 12% of affluent Americans estimated that they’d have to work until age 80 to live comfortably in retirement. Okay, that’s extreme. but when SunAmerica Financial Group surveyed pre-retirees last year, it found that workers were expecting to exit at 69 on average, up five years from a decade earlier.

The upside to waiting

There’s no doubt that if you’ve fallen behind in your retirement planning, staying in the workforce longer can dramatically improve your chances of achieving a secure post-career life.

You’ll have more years to contribute to your retirement accounts, and your investments have more time to grow. And the combination of extending your career and postponing Social Security can often boost the size of your benefit by 8% or more for each additional year you toil. every extra year you work is also one fewer that your savings will have to support. That alone reduces the chances that your savings will run out.

Those are just the financial benefits: Research shows that as long as you’re not slogging away at a job you abhor, working can improve your physical and psychological well-being and keep you more socially engaged.

The choice isn’t yours

As helpful as postponing your exit can be, relying on a longer stint at work to improve your retirement prospects can backfire. why? just because you want to stay on the job doesn’t mean you’ll be able to.

A survey last year by the Society of Actuaries shows a big disconnect: While only 37% of workers said they expect to retire before age 65, more than 80% of current retirees left their jobs before that age. Undoubtedly, some got out early because they had the financial wherewithal to do so. but according to the Employee Benefit Research Institute’s 2012 Retirement Confidence Survey, about half of retirees leave the workforce earlier than planned. Top reasons: health problems, being forced out of a job, or having to care for a spouse or other family member.

Similarly, even though polls report that 70% to 80% of preretirees plan to include part-time or some other type of work in their retirement routine, EBRI found that only 27% of current retirees have done so. Future retirees may buck the trend — or find that landing a job isn’t so easy.

Have a backup plan

When you base your planning around the premise that you’ll have lots of time on the job and those extra work years don’t materialize, you could find yourself with a nest egg that’s too small to support you — and very few options for growing it.

I think the smarter strategy is to set a reasonable retirement age — say, 65 or your age for collecting full Social Security benefits (66 to 67 these days) — understanding that you may not hit it exactly. then periodically check your progress using an online tool like the T.Rowe Price Retirement Income Calculator.

You can move up that goal if you’re doing well. but if within 10 to 15 years of your planned exit you find you’re behind, ratchet up retirement contributions as much as possible. as the graphic shows, that may not improve your prospects quite as much as working a few more years, but it’ll leave you in much better shape should you find yourself unable or unwilling to stay on the job.

If waiting turns out to be your only option, fine. You do what you have to do. Retirement life will be a lot more enjoyable, however, if working longer is something you do because you want to, not because you have no choice.

MONEY magazine is celebrating people, both famous and unsung, who have done extraordinary work to improve others’ financial well-being. Send an email to nominate your Money Hero.  

Vinny, 53, and Jen, 56, aren’t looking for a lavish retirement. the couple is getting married soon and they’re starting to merge their finances and their goals. They want to buy a modest vacation home and spend time with their children and grandchildren.

“Where do we invest in addition to 401(k)s to ensure we have enough to retire?” Vinny asks. “Also, what age makes the most financial sense for me to retire? I’d like to retire at 63.”

Vinny and Jen, whose names have been changed, have set aside $243,000 in 401(k) plans, $280,400 in IRAs, $6,000 in a brokerage account, $5,000 in savings and $8,000 in checking. They own their home outright and have no other debt, and Vinny will receive a small pension upon retirement.

The Star-Ledger asked Douglas Duerr, a certified financial planner and certified public accountant with U.S. Financial Advisors in Montville, to help Vinny and Jen assess their retirement options.

“They are at a critical age in retirement planning,” Duerr says.

The immediate concern is to adjust their new budget to having only expenses for one primary household. Plus, Jen is in the process of selling her home, which will give the couple an additional $100,000 of assets.

“There overall goal is to use these additional funds to purchase a vacation home,” Duerr says. “While this is a reasonable goal that should be attainable, they need to ensure they stay within their budget of $100,000.”

When they do make a purchase, their budget will need to change once again. Duerr says they will need to factor in the annual expenses related to owning a vacation home – something that many people underestimate until it’s too late.

Both Vinny and Jen contribute 20 percent of their salaries to their respective 401(k) plans. Duerr says they should boost this amount to the maximum. Vinny is close, but Jen has a long way to go.

“This was not feasible prior to them getting married but once they combine households, it makes sense to contribute as much as possible to her retirement account,” he says.

Increasing contributions will do a lot to grow their nest eggs. for example, increasing Jen’s contribution by $5,000 a year, if it earns 5 percent, they’d have an additional $65,000 in 10 years. a $10,000 per year increase in contributions would add $130,000 to the pot over the same time frame.

Given their target retirement age, Duerr says they should stay with an asset allocation of approximately 70 percent equities and 30 percent fixed income, and if they’re feeling more conservative, a 60/40 split would be appropriate. as they near their retirement years, they should re-evaluate their allocation to make sure it’s still within their tolerance level and time frame.

Vinny and Jen each have two children from previous relationships, and they each currently list their children as their beneficiaries on their insurance policies. They plan to change the beneficiaries to each other once they are married.

“It is critical that they address their estates and how they would like to plan for each other as well as their children,” Duerr says.

He recommends they meet with an estate planning attorney to update their wills, powers of attorney, living wills and other documents. They also need to change the beneficiaries listed on their retirement accounts and IRAs.

Vinny has a pension with a former employer. he needs to decide by the end of 2012 whether to take a lump sum distribution of about $30,000 or elect to receive an annuity payment of $300 per month. Duerr says several items need to be addressed in making this decision.

Duerr says Vinny needs to ask himself if he invested the funds on his own, would he be able to get a comparable return that would eventually get him a similar monthly benefit to the pension in retirement.

He also needs to ask whether the pension’s monthly benefit would continue for Jen should he die prematurely.

“There is no right or wrong answer to these questions,” Duerr says. “Vinny needs to determine what are the most important items and accordingly make the appropriate choice.”

Duerr says if the couple continues to focus on saving and if they remain diligent and keep expenses in check, it’s realistic for Vinny to retire at age 63. Still, this is something the couple will need to re-evaluate as they get closer to their target date.

“They can always work an extra year or two if they need to at that time,” Duerr says. “It is certainly more prudent to do this than be forced to attempt to find employment later in life.”

Finally, the couple had concerns about health insurance upon their retirement because they won’t yet be eligible for Medicare. Private policies are costly, and if Vinny’s employer doesn’t provide retiree health care, the couple will have to pay out-of-pocket for coverage.

“Given the state of flux in health insurance currently in the U.S., this is an item that cannot be truly covered at the current time,” Duerr says.

Get with the plan is designed to illuminate personal-finance concepts and isn’t a substitute for actual financial planning or dedicated professional advice. To participate, contact Karin Price Mueller at kmueller@starledger.com.

With all the news about rising student loan debt and disappointing investment returns, this may be a question on your mind if you have tuition bills coming up, whether for you or one of your children. I know it’s a question I’ve received both on our financial helpline and from a friend of mine who was recently accepted to grad school. So let’s take a look at some of the factors to consider before raiding your retirement account?

How would you access the money?

There are 3 main ways to get money out of a retirement plan. The worst way is a hardship withdrawal from your current employer’s plan. That’s because the withdrawal would be subject to a 10% penalty if you’re under age 59 1/2 and you make not be able to contribute to your plan for as long as 6 months, which means you could miss out on part of your employer’s match too.

Instead of taking a withdrawal, you might be able to borrow from your plan. The advantage here is that you can repay the money back and avoid taxes and penalties and the interest goes back into your own account. The disadvantage is that the loan usually has to be paid back within 5 years so those payments can be pretty steep. if you leave your job, any remaining loan balance after 60 days could also be considered a withdrawal and subject to taxes and penalties.

If you have IRAs (or previous employer plans that can be rolled into an IRA), this may be your best bet. That’s because IRAs can be used for higher education expenses penalty-free and don’t need to be paid back. You may still have to pay taxes on the withdrawal but if you take the withdrawal in a year that you reduce your work hours, you could end up paying little or no taxes on it since you’ll likely be in a lower tax bracket. (Roth contributions can be withdrawn tax-free for any purpose, including education expenses.)

What else would this cost you?

If you’re not paying a tax penalty, it may seem like the answer is nothing, especially compared to the interest you’d pay on a student loan. However, there is also something economists call opportunity cost, which is the gain that you’re giving up by not having that money invested in your retirement plan. while that opportunity cost may not have been very high over the last few years (or even negative if you lost money in the market), future returns are a different story. In fact, periods of below average returns in the stock market tend to be followed by period of above average returns (economists call this “reversion to the mean.”) How much depends on how aggressively you invest. as a rule of thumb, I estimate aggressive portfolios (about 80% or more in stock) to earn about 8% over the long run, moderate portfolios (about 60% in stock) to earn about 6%, and conservative portfolios (about 40% or less in stock) about 4%.

Of course, the other side of the equation is what you’d be otherwise paying in student loan interest. This also depends on what you can qualify for, although student loans are relatively low across the board and may also be tax-deductible. That’s why it’s generally considered “good debt,” along with mortgage and car loans, and preferable to depleting a retirement account for most people.

How would this affect your retirement?

Will this mean having work longer or retire with less income? This factor really applies more if you’re a parent of a child. if it’s for your own education, you can always use the savings from lower loan payments to contribute more to your retirement plans and make up the difference (assuming you have the discipline to do that).  On the other hand, I wouldn’t count on junior contributing to your retirement fund. if you’re thinking of using your retirement account for your child’s education, you might want to run a retirement estimator and see what difference it would make to your retirement.

This brings us to another issue. no matter how much we love our children, we should always make sure our retirement is on track before contributing to their education. think of how airplanes tell us to secure our own oxygen mask in an emergency before we help our children with theirs. if your own finances are in good shape, you can always help your kids pay back their loans but unfortunately, there’s no financial aid for retirement.

****** Are you looking for an unbiased answer to your own financial question? Once a week, we’ll be responding on this blog to questions from our Financial Helpline or posted on our Twitter or Facebook site.

Erik Carter, JD, CFP® is a resident financial planner at Financial Finesse, the leading provider of unbiased financial education for employers nationwide, delivered by on-staff CERTIFIED FINANCIAL PLANNER™ professionals. For additional financial tips and insights, follow Financial Finesse on Twitter and become a fan on Facebook.

Dear Readers:

Last week I had the opportunity to participate in the Daily Breeze’s fourth annual Successful Aging Expo. It was a great success.

Health and fitness were strong themes, as were financial, social, residential and educational opportunities. It was great to see nonprofit organizations represented.

My presentation went well, so I thought I would share some highlights with you. the theme was “What’s New About Retirement?”

Here are some relatively new aspects:

Retirement is hard to define. Sociologists don’t agree on the definition. At one time retirement meant that you left your job and no longer earned income. That’s not the case today. At one time age determined retirement status. again, not the case for most jobs since the mandatory retirement age was eliminated in 1986. perhaps the most agreed upon sign of retirement is when an individual receives a pension from an employer, the military or the government.

Retirement means more time. That’s true. Increased life expectancy and retiring “on time” or taking early retirement can lead to 20 to 30 years of retirement living. Note, at age 65, on average, a man can expect to live about 17 more years; a woman almost 20.

Retirement means less time. This sounds like a contradiction, yet it is possible. If life expectancy stays the same and people continue to work in their later years, the traditional retirement years may be history. many boomers indicate they never will be able to afford retirement and will “die with their boots on.”

Work is part of retirement. Work and retirement are no longer mutually exclusive. A new group has emerged – the working retired. these individuals work to stay engaged and, of equal or more importance, work for income.

Retirement (and aging) is big business. the 50-plus population has been identified as the older-consumer market, worth between $2 trillion and $3 trillion. for example, Rogaine is a $42 million industry; grandparents spend $50 billion a year on their grandchildren. Hearing aids are a $4.6 billion-a- year industry.

Retirement is the new social capital. There is no single definition of “social capital.” In the broadest sense, it includes volunteerism. It’s about social connections and making a difference.

Civic Ventures, a nonprofit think tank in San Francisco that focuses on the 50-plus demographic, has promoted encore careers as a way to use a valuable human resource and provide meaningful roles for older adults. An encore career occurs after one’s primary career; it consists of purpose, passion and a paycheck.

Civic Ventures launched the Purpose Prize that recognizes those age 60 and older who have solved major social problems. the good news is that older adults are being recognized and rewarded as social entrepreneurs – having a significant impact locally and globally.

Learning, creativity and passion are lifelong. According to the late Dr. Gene Cohen, noted geriatrician and psychiatrist, age adds an important dimension to creativity.

Ethel Percy Andrus founded AARP at age 74; Henri Matisse, bedridden with disease, produced brilliantly colored cutouts from his bed; Martha Graham danced until she was 75 and choreographed her last work at 96; and Winston Churchill won the Nobel Peace Prize for literature at 79. According to the late cartoonist Charles Schultz, “Life is a 10-speed bicycle … most of us have gears we never use.”

We have influence over how we age. According to Dr. John Rowe and Robert Kahn, authors of “Successful Aging” (Pantheon Books, 1998), 75 percent of our physical aging is influenced by our lifestyle; only 25 percent is determined by genetics. When it comes to cognitive aging, there is an even split: 50 percent is lifestyle, 50 percent genetics.

The new retirement reflects our increased life expectancy, our knowledge, influence and opportunities to live that next chapter of life as the best chapter.

Helen Dennis is a specialist in aging, with academic, corporate and nonprofit experience. Send her your questions and concerns in care of the Daily Breeze, 21250 Hawthorne Blvd., Torrance, CA 90503, or email to helendenn@aol.com.

Saipan – The NMI Retirement Fund is trying to recoup an estimated $5 million in over-payments from 120 retirees arising from the pension agency’s own misapplication of a law prior to 2001.

The Saipan Tribune reported, however, that affected retirees are planning to meet tomorrow to discuss the possibility of a class action suit against the Fund.

Dim lights Embed Embed this video on your site

The Fund sent the letters on or about May 8, 2012, addressed to retirees who separated from government as far back as 19 years ago or longer.

One of those letters was addressed to former police officer and former quarantine officer Frederick C. Ngeskabei, 52, who is being asked to return $225,000 to the Fund by having up to 50 percent cut in his bi-monthly pension until the full amount is recovered.

The Fund has also asked retired police major Antonio O. Kiyoshi to pay back $93,000. Kiyoshi said the Fund should not punish retirees for the agency’s own mistakes.

The Fund said the 120 members that are being asked to return some $5 million to the pension agency were given benefits were calculated taking overtime and compensatory time into consideration in violation of law.

NEW YORK (TheStreet) — Income. It’s the holy grail of retirement and there’s not much of it. Master limited partnerships are a nice exception. their yields of 6%-plus look fabulous compared to anemic Treasury bond and CD rates. No wonder they’re attracting retirement investors in droves. Unfortunately, there’s a catch. MLPs can be a great retirement investment but a terrible retirement account investment. put an MLP in your IRA or 401(k) and you’ll miss out on some great tax breaks. What’s more, you might get charged with additional taxes you weren’t expecting. Here’s the good news. MLPs don’t pay corporate taxes. instead, taxes are considered “pass through,” meaning liabilities and expenses are passed on to investors. MLP investors may write off partnership expenses — depreciation, etc. — against income on their tax returns. Quarterly income distributions from an MLP are often considered a “return of capital,” which means no taxes until the investor sells the MLP. What’s more, there’s still plenty of growth potential left for MLPs. Here’s the not-so-good news. these breaks aren’t allowed if the MLP is held in a retirement account. “If you put an MLP in an IRA or your 401(k), which is already tax advantaged, you miss out,” says Mary Lyman, executive director of the National Association of Publicly Traded Partnerships. Here’s why MLPs have a good news/bad news story. like a limited partnership, an MLP is a business conducted by two or more lead partners and several other partners acting as investors. unlike most limited partnerships, MLPs trade “units” on an exchange. in order to be considered an MLP, the partnership must earn 90% of its revenue from activities relating to natural resources, commodities or real estate. most MLPs these days concentrate on transportation and storage of oil and natural gas. that big jolt of yield comes from the fact that MLPs pass cash flow onto a steady stream of income for investors. that structure is also what gives MLPs their tax advantages and why they don’t work so well with retirement accounts.