Finance Info
Calculate your Retirement Compensation
Settlement is the term used when an employee asks for voluntary resignation. And this settlement is a financial compensation received by the worker to end the employment relationship between the worker and the company.
This compensation is performed by means of a written, which in accordance with a firm terminates the employment relationship between a worker and the employer, to be signed this writing the employee is free to work under the orders of the employer, and is free to grant other amount the employee
In Mexico, when the resignation is voluntary settlement is not for the worker, only shares of wages, ie Constitutional lost compensation.
To calculate the settlement is necessary:
The last payroll |
In case of a variable salary payroll the last six
The settlement payment is made up as follows:
- Salary of days worked during the month of the resignation
- Payment of leave
- Vacation bonus
- Aguinaldo
When a settlement by voluntary resignation, we have to rely on what we established Federal Labor Law:
Article 76 .- Workers with more than one year of service will enjoy an annual period of paid leave, which in no case be less than six working days, and will increase in two working days, up to twelve, for every subsequent year of service
Article 80 .- The employees are entitled to a premium of not less than twenty-five per cent of the wages which they are entitled during the holiday period
Article 87 .- The employees are entitled to an annual bonus to be paid before the twentieth day of December, equivalent to fifteen days’ wages, at least.
Those who have not completed year of service, regardless of whether they are working or not the settlement date of the bonus shall be entitled to be paid proportionally the same, according to the time which they have worked, whatever it .
The plant workers are entitled to a seniority premium in accordance with the following standards:
I. Seniority premiums consist of the amount of twelve days’ pay for every year of service;
II. To determine the amount of salary, subject to the provisions in Articles 485 and 486;
III. Seniority premiums are paid to workers who voluntarily separate from employment, provided that persons under fifteen years of service, at least. Also be paid to those who are separated for cause and those who are separated from their employment, regardless of justification or unjustifiedness of dismissal;
IV. For payment of the premium in cases of voluntary withdrawal of the workers, the following rules:
a) If the number of workers who retire within one year does not exceed ten percent of all workers in the undertaking or establishment or in a particular category, payment is made at the time of retirement .
b) If the number of workers who retire exceeds ten percent will be paid to those who are first removed and may be deferred for the following year the workers paying in excess of that percentage.
c) If the withdrawal is made at the same time by a number of workers greater percentage required, the premium will cover those who have more seniority and may be deferred for the year following the payment of that corresponding to other workers;
It is advisable not to sign until it is conformity.
Private Pension Plan Protection
An unprecedented event, have recognized the workers of the Congress of Deputies. The first parliament of the United Left who have come to be credited to the Lower House have renounced the pension plan and casualty insurance including life, which is offered as deputies.
The first to do so have been the federal coordinator of training, Cayo Lara, and Rep.-elect of Malaga, Albert Garzon. IU Sources have made clear that there is no order in a specific order for deputies to party give up the private insurance is optional.
As has been pointed out from the left-wing federation, Lara and Garzón have done voluntarily, although they admit that it is likely that other members imitate the leader of IU and do the same.
This plan, they are entitled to deputies and senators is an insurance policy in case of accidents and death and a private pension plan. When Lara and have attended accredited Garzón this morning in Congress, have given, including all documentation, a form which provided that “corporate welfare plan” and have them explained that they met from the contributions that the Congress calls for each deputy to a financial institution.
Lara and Garzón decided to give it as it has announced a deputy for Malaga in his Twitter account: “Filling data in Congress. Just give up private pension plan. There is no precedent, they say.”
Enter The Retirement Age
Canada completely abolished mandatory retirement age, prohibiting employers who depended on setting a federal regulation, a law coming into force this week.
This bill, budget execution, repeals the provisions of Canadian law that left such a possibility, said Friday the Canadian Commission on Civil Rights, waving a “major victory in the field of human rights.”
By taking this initiative, the Conservative government had stressed that he wanted “to offer older workers the opportunity to stay in the labor market.”
Consistent with this decided “to prohibit federally-regulated employers to establish a mandatory retirement age, unless the work (their employees) actually requires.”
In Canada there was no general legal age to impose retirement. In practice, the retirement pension is paid from 65, but in some provinces, like Quebec, this feature can begin with 60.
According to the Civil Rights Commission, only the federal government and the New Brunswick remained in labor force mandatory retirement, all other provinces had already abolished.
The Private Pension System
The public and private pension systems, solidarity against the “capitalization.” Besides the public pension system, in Spain there are private pension schemes, with very different operation. The public system is based on compulsory contributions from employers and employees in terms of wages, so that these quotations is entitled to a future pension. A higher wage, higher and higher pension contributions in the future. However, the amount received is not the same as provided, may be smaller (for example, a worker who dies with 64 years will have been all his life and will have enjoyed quoting your pension) or higher (imagine a person living 100 years). This is because the system is based on “solidarity” so that a worker is assured that you will always have social security coverage. For example, a worker at two years of working contracts a disease that makes you unable to work shall be entitled to a pension for life despite not having contributed little.
By contrast, the private pension system is based on the capital contributed and is but a product of financial savings. The money provided by a worker during his working life, adding (or subtracting) the profitability, will be exactly the amount you will be entitled, either at once or monthly. In this case, if a worker has admitted to 60 000 euros over its life, shall be entitled to that amount regardless of whether they live to 80 or even 95 years, so the more alive you can enjoy a lower amount. And, of course, the above example worker gets an inability to work in his youth is completely forsaken by the private system.
The public system has a redistributive to reduce (not eliminate) the wage gap. By contrast, the private system leaves intact those inequalities.
The viability of the system according to the neoliberal
The problem “demographic” and the viability of the system according to the neoliberal Government, major trade unions and employers have adopted a reform of public pension system on the grounds that it is necessary to ensure the viability of long-term, risk as a result of increased life expectancy. That is, we assume the argument neoliberales1 who argue that the causes that require reform are “demographic”.
The longer life expectancy, they argue, means that increasingly there is a greater percentage of the population will be pensioners and therefore will reduce the number of workers per pensioner. Thus, a worker will have to bear a greater burden on their Social Security contributions in order to maintain the pensions of those who are retired. Therefore, the system is “unsustainable.”
Neoliberal Proposals
To ensure the “viability” of the public pension system have approved a reduction of pension expenditure in two ways: reducing the amount of pension receivable and reducing the number of years in which they receive a pension. That is, basically intended to strengthen the system impacting on expenditure and income.
The main action in this regard is the increased time for calculating the retirement age, currently located in the last 15 years and will increase gradually to 25 years, although the ultimate goal of the neoliberals would to be calculated on the entire working life. Each year extension represents a cut in pension spending 0.2% of GDP.
Another important step would be to increase the number of years needed to collect 100% of the pension, currently located in 35 years and has risen to 37 (when retirement occurs at age 67) or 38.5 years ( when retirement occurs at age 65), thereby reducing the pensions of many workers who will not reach the maximum set.
A proposal by the neoliberal finally not approved (at least for now) is to increase the minimum number of years to qualify for a pension, which is currently 15 years, although in the case of time workers part, which is applied a reduction coefficient, the required period reaches 20 years. This measure would deny the right to a contributory pension for many workers, especially women, since women workers have a percentage of part-time employment far superior to men. In addition, the machismo of our society has made them many women working lives (recognized) shorter as a result of care for children or dependents, so that these women workers have to endure a new discrimination at the end of their working lives .
The only action proposed by the Commission of the Toledo Pact aimed at increasing revenue was precisely the one which provides for increased spending. This is raising the maximum contribution base but change also raise the maximum pension that can be perceived, thus increasing inequality between and lower pensions and higher. However, nothing about it has been approved.
Prepare Pension Plans
Barcelona, on May 22, 1978. Today it has a capital of EUR 24,851,374.78 divided into 87,814,045 shares.
We all have many aspirations in life, and one of them is to keep the current standard of living for our retirement.
For this Bankpime offers a wide range of pension plans are among the best places of the ranking, by category, for its excellent returns.
Pension plans are a savings product for the creation of capital through contributions during working life, that will complement your pension from Social Security.
You can create this comfortable capital or periodic contributions by extraordinary contributions that will allow a tax benefit.
Bankpime offers a pension plan for each profile, with combined savings and investment, you can diversify their contributions among the different formulas q or change plans offer no additional cost.
Bankpime IV (dynamic): a plan that invests its assets mainly in equities, a minimum of 75%. Investments in stock markets long-term gain higher returns than fixed income. So Bankpime IV guidance to its investors to capitalize on the maximum long-term savings, so you can enjoy a better well-being after retirement.
Bankpime I (moderate) pension plan is a mixed income, which is intended to obtain an increase in purchasing power of savings accumulated through a balanced investment between fixed income assets and a maximum of 30% in Equities.
Bankpime III (conservative) is a pension plan that invests in fixed income, allowing you to get a stable return and long term, it is ideal for people who are not near retirement and do not want to be affected by the volatility of the markets.
Assured Future Plan (Conservative) is a savings linked insurance to retirement that guarantees 100% of capital and an attractive yield is a long term wealth with a pension to supplement the tax benefits of pension plans.
Insured Retirement Plan (very conservative) invests in fixed income security mixed with 100% of guaranteed capital and guaranteed annual minimum profitability.
Taxation in the plans:
The main advantage is to reduce the taxable amount of income tax, with the following maximum limits, depending on the age of the contributor:
If you have up to 50 years, the annual limit is 10,000 € (with the top 30% of the sum of income from work and economic activities)
If you are over 50 years, the limit is 12,500 € (with a ceiling of 50% of revenues).
These limits may go up and that, regardless of previous reductions, if your spouse receives income below € 8,000 per year, may reduce the contributions made on behalf of his spouse, the annual ceiling of 2,000 euros.
There are special cases for those with disability equal to or greater than 65%, which may contribute up to a limit of 24,250 euros. And if you are disabled family in direct line to the third degree collateral or spouse, and want to make contributions on behalf of it, may make a complement to his own, always with the $ 10,000 annual limit. In no event shall total exceed € 24,250 limit.
Make Money Tips
What work creates more money? It’s a question many people have in mind. The best way to address this concern would be looking for individuals with more money in the world and see what they have in common.
I will teach you an easy, what with the five richest people in the world according to Forbes magazine. I will teach you the three things that these people have in common.
They are business owners (the highest position that can be aspirated)
This is to say only one thing, if you follow up every day when your alarm goes off for work, nothing will ever change, everything will follow exactly the same. If you really want out of social status than you are now your biggest concern when you wake up each day must be thinking that changing your life to get out of the rat race.
The second element to consider is starting a business that leads to a need (ie providing a service to individuals or companies) or the discovery of a technique that will eventually provide income or interest.
Remember, never will, financial independence, only taking a job from 8:30 am to 6 pm that will only pay you for the time you are working.
Get Green Card in U.S
For any immigrant obtain U.S. citizenship is the great prize of the lottery. And the silver medal is to get the green card.
The residence card entitles you to work and live permanently in the United States. And you can be, if the owner so desires, a bridge on the road to obtaining a U.S. passport.
The green card can be obtained in several ways. Being the most common requests for the same for foreigners by a citizen or resident or family from an American business. But it is also possible to get through a financial investment. This last possibility has never been easier than before.
These are called EB-5 visas. To obtain in principle the alien is required to invest a million dollars in a business in the United States. However, since the 90′s allowed the reduced version of this visa: invest just $ 500,000 and create ten jobs.
But it is necessary that this investment takes place in rural or economically depressed urban area with an unemployment rate that is at least 50 percent higher than the national average.
But as has shown an investigation of The New York Times, the term “depressed area” is very flexible. In several states, including California, New York and Texas, state officials are defining those areas in a little “natural” linking areas rich and poor areas attractive to foreign investment, particularly in development of construction projects.
Thus, skyscrapers are being built in rich areas like Midtown Manhattan and Battery Park, the southern tip of Manhattan Island where the business district, with money given by groups of foreign investors in exchange for their financial contribution, have received the EB-5 visas, or whatever it is, the green card.
The modus operandi is as follows: a real estate developer has a project to build in the rich part of an area established by the authorities as “depressed.”
Dozens of investors participating in the project. Some are Americans or permanent residents are foreign investors and other fees that provide half a million dollars each.
These investors, who receive the EB-5 on their investment, they are often captured by agents of the real estate developer that holds conferences or traveling to countries where you know there is great interest in this type of visas, particularly China.
It is even common that foreign investors receive no return on your investment or that it is minimal. But they have obtained the green card for themselves and their family members, which is what really matters.
These people are rich, so they can make the investment, but want a future for your children that you think will be better in America.
In just two years, the United States immigration authorities have processed applications for such visas 3.800 EB-5, which gives an idea of its popularity.
Is this a case that is rewarded with a green card in U.S. investment and job creation or simply a case of buying a permanent residence card at a very expensive?
What Public Pension Offers?
What are we proposing?
We support good health and sustainability of public pension system, but that does not mean it can not be improved, especially in regard to its solidarity and redistributive component. Therefore, we propose a series of reforms to increase revenues and make spending more equitable.
• Increase social security contributions for temporary contracts, so that in addition to raising more you promote stable employment.
• Increase employee contributions with a higher salary cap by removing the base price, so as to contribute more those who have more.
• Increase the minimum pension at the same time reduces the maximum as the current differences are unfair. Our commitment is for a solidarity system that redistributes wealth so there should be no difference or they would have to be the lowest possible rates. Is deeply rooted among the workers the idea that if an employee is listed more than another is just to have a higher pension. However, a person who pays more taxes more preference in the care or the square of a public school to another that pays less, so it need not be different with pensions. In the final analysis, both taxes and the prices it is logical that who else can contribute more but this is going to have more rights.
• If in the future would not have enough money from dues, nothing would happen to fund pensions also imposed through the national budget, as already happens in some countries, like Denmark.
In addition to possible reforms that can be done in the public system to strengthen and improve, there is an issue that also affects pensions and the neoliberals would rather not talk: the number of contributors. And there’s no better way to strengthen the pension system by increasing the number of contributors, for which you have to raise the population, especially among women, reduce unemployment and fight the shadow economy and contracting fraud through grants that are not quoted. To do this, we make the following proposals:
• Encourage the incorporation of women into the labor force occupied by schemes to facilitate the reconciliation of work and family life. Currently it is very difficult to combine work with caring for children or a dependent person, a task that as a result of sexism there still lies with the woman. Therefore, the best way to increase the participation rate of women, in addition to promoting the distribution of household chores is by improving social policy (public network of schools from 0 to 3 years, flexible hours in the companies for parents, etc.).
• Encourage the creation of youth employment. What sense does it raise the retirement age when we suffer a 40% youth unemployment? Would not it be logical that the greatest achievements well deserved rest while young people have the opportunity to start their career path and thus develop their life projects autonomously?
• To combat the underground economy. Finance technicians estimate the shadow economy in 23% of GDP. Can be estimated at 800,000 the number of workers who are not discharged from Social Security.
• strictly limit contributions subsidies agreed in the various programs for job creation because, assuming a huge public spending, have proved ineffective.
• Transform all scholarships are not strictly of studies, including the Administration, Contracts for Training with the corresponding high in Social Security.
• Fight fire practice radically to 11 months in fraud, making the holiday month I pay the Public Employment Services.
• more flexible retirement age on a voluntary basis in certain activities, encouraging in that case the board, under the principle of retirement and, therefore, the pension is a right and not an obligation.
The Neo Liberals Offers
Deconstructing the argument “demographic”
The demographic argument raised the neoliberals is simply an excuse to justify reforms, not to guarantee the sustainability of public pension system, but to favor capital.
Professor Vicente Navarro explains very well the neoliberal fallacy of the argument. First, the fact that it has increased life expectancy (4 years in the last 20 years) is due largely to demographic effect caused by the reduction of infant mortality, so this increase in the hope life does not mean that people die 4 years later, in fact, discounting the effect of child birth, die on average 2.3 years later.
It is a mistake to assume that since people live longer, so people can continue working after 65 years with the same capacity and vitality of job you have at 65. It is assumed therefore that age live longer also slows aging. Hence it is considered (wrongly) that if now people reaching the age of 65 live 2.3 years more than twenty years ago, such people will have 2.3 years more of healthy life, delaying old age of 2.3 years. But this unfortunately is not.
Furthermore, this increase in life expectancy is not equal but depends on social class, so that, for example, a businessman living 10 years more than a precarious worker. Therefore, the extension of retirement age it does is force the precarious worker to work two more years to enable the employer to collect their pension over 10 years.
Neoliberals say that the current pension expenditure represents 9% while in 2050 will account for 15%, resulting unsustainable. However, this expense in 1970 represented only 3% of GDP, but not for having tripled the percentage of current spending is unsustainable, quite the contrary since the Social Security even has a surplus. How is this possible? In much of the increased productivity that makes each worker generates more wealth. Therefore, the future productivity gains will be sustainable spending 15% of GDP. Moreover, according to the estimation of V. Navarro, an increase of 2% annual productivity would cause GDP in 2050 was more than double the current spending so that even a 15% pension would leave a greater amount than the current available for other expenses. What is more, at present the pension expenditure in Italy and represents 15% of GDP in France and Austria is about 14%, and by no means have broken their public as threatening will happen in Spain (in fact If the above entities as BBVA forecasts had been true, the Spanish public system should have already broken).
Now, what happens is that capital wants to fully exploit the benefits of increased productivity, ie the surplus generated by the work. This is simply the class struggle and has nothing to do with demographics but with political will. And here is the debate, where we want to spend the wealth generated by the work, to further enrich a minority or ensure a dignified life to the whole population? While the PSOE, the PP, the economic and neoliberal international organizations (EU, IMF, OECD) bet on the first option, since the Communist Party and from the United Left Clearly we will always defend the interests of the working class, although this not “reassure” the markets.