Welcome to AMS Blog

Let us know your thoughts, question and suggestions!



Thursday, July 10, 2008

Not Understanding At-Will Employment Puts Your Business at Risk




"At-will" employment refers to a common-law rule that the employment relationship may be terminated by the employer or the employee at any time, for any reason, with or without cause or notice. For employers, the ability to terminate an employee whenever they want and for whatever reason is invaluable. This perception, however, is not quite accurate. Over time, the establishment of various federal and state regulations and the application of certain employment law concepts have created conditions and layers much more in favor of today's employee. To minimize the risks of wrongful termination claims, every employer needs to understand at least the three big exceptions to the employment at-will concept:

Public Policy: A wrongful discharge when the reason for employment termination is contrary to an established state public policy (i.e. terminating a pregnant employee protected under the federal Family Medical Leave Act).

Implied Contract: A contract between the employer and the employee although no written documentation exists regarding the employment relationship (i.e. “Probationary Period” language in the Employee Handbook).

Covenant of Good Faith: An implied agreement the employer is to treat employees honestly and fairly (i.e. A “just cause” standard placing a burden of proof on the employer to justify the basis for discipline or discharge of an employee.)

Tool of the Month: HR Checklists

Whether faced with a hiring, performance management, or employment termination issue, the manager needs to make sure certain steps are covered. To help keep track, you may review and download various HR Checklists developed by HR professionals.To learn more about the HR Checklists, become a client of AMS and receive free HR support.

Wednesday, July 02, 2008

Are Regular Old 401(K)s Better Than Roth 401(K)s?

Conventional wisdom touts Roth 401(k) plans as the better choice for most taxpayers over regular 401(k) plans. But a paper in the July 2008 issue of the Journal of Financial Planning, published monthly by the Financial Planning Assn. (FPA), argues that not only are regular 401(k) accounts superior to Roth 401(k)s for all but the wealthiest of taxpayers, but they’ll also remain superior even if future tax rates rise.

The conventional wisdom is that, if a retiree’s tax rate is the same as the tax rate when they were contributing to a 401(k), it shouldn’t make any difference whether that person puts money into a regular 401(k), whose contributions are tax-deferred or a Roth 401(k), whose contributions are made with after-tax dollars. The retiree will end up with the same amount of after-tax money way.However, side fund analyses argue that it isn’t an apples-to-apples comparison. For example, an affluent taxpayer putting the maximum $41,000 into a 401(k) would actually need $56,944 in order to fund the Roth. That’s because the taxpayer would need to pay $15,944 in taxes on the $56,944 (at a 28% tax rate) in order to have $41,000 left to fund the Roth. A taxpayer using a traditional 401(k) would need only $41,000, as it’s not taxed upfront.

To make the comparison fair, side fund analyses create a taxable side account for the regular 401(k) contributor and fund it with an amount equal to the extra amount needed to fund the Roth 401(k)—in McQuarrie’s example, $15,944. They then compare the after-tax results, and the Roth version wins. McQuarrie illustrates that the supposed superiority of these analyses is flawed because so much depends on analysis assumptions such as the taxpayer’s age and asset allocation.But the more important argument McQuarrie makes for the superiority of the regular 401(k) is the difference between marginal and effective tax rates. Let’s say a taxpayer is in the 28% marginal tax bracket. That is, all or most of that taxpayer’s deferred contributions to a regular 401(k) account would probably have been taxed at that 28% rate if not contributed to the 401(k). That saves the taxpayer money upfront, but of course they have to pay taxes on the contributions and their earnings, when withdrawing funds during retirement. But that person doesn’t pay the 28% tax rate on every withdrawal dollar.

Under our progressive tax system, the first dollars of taxable income are assessed at the lowest tax rate (10%), then the next chunk of income is taxed at the next higher rate, and so on until the last chunk of dollars is taxed at the taxpayer’s highest rate. The result is an effective or average rate for the taxable income that’s lower than the top marginal rate. In McQuarrie’s example, the effective rate is 19.4%, not 28%. Workers using regular 401(k)s are deferring taxes at their marginal rate, but paying taxes at their lower effective rate when they withdraw the money during their retirement years, making them a superior choice for most taxpayers. McQuarrie also demonstrates that, the effective tax rates are likely to remain lower than the marginal rates for most taxpayers even if Congress increases future tax rates, leaving the regular 401(k) still the better choice.

For more information, visit: http://www.quotit.net/ams/pension.htm


Check the difference of: Taxable vs. tax-advantaged saving comparison

401(k)s Are More Important Than Ever

Employees who contribute to their 401(k) plan and who are willing to make small improvements to their saving and investing habits can increase their future income potential, according to a study by Hewitt Associates. When factoring in inflation and increases in medical costs, Hewitt predicts that employees will need to replace, on average, 126% of their final pay at retirement. That is significantly more than the traditional targets of 70% to 90% pay replacement.The Hewitt’s study examined the projected retirement levels of nearly 2 million employees at 72 large U.S. companies using actual employee balances and behaviors. Only 19% will be able to meet 100% of their estimated needs in retirement. On average, employees are projected to replace just 85% of their income in retirement, compared to the 126% they need. In other words, assuming inflation of 3% and a retirement age of 65, an average 40 year old with 10 years of service and earning $83,000 at retirement in today’s dollars would have saved enough to provide just $70,500 per year in retirement in today’s dollars -- a $34,000 annual shortfall. In fact, 67% of employees are expected to have less than 80% of their projected needs at retirement.The scenario is even more serious for employees who do not contribute to their 401(k) plans. Employees who contribute an average of 8% of pay to their 401(k) plan can replace 96% of their preretirement income at age 65, providing about 80% of what is needed to provide the same standard of living during retirement. That number drops to just 54% for employees who do not contribute, which equates to less than 40% of projected needs. Even employees who have a pension plan can expect to replace just 62% of their income at retirement if they do not contribute to their 401(k) plan, compared to 106% for those who do contribute. Recent Hewitt research shows that 26% of employees do not participate in their 401(k) plan, and of those that do, 61% contribute less than 7% a year. Hewitt’s study found that employer-subsidized retiree medical coverage has a dramatic affect on an employee’s ability to achieve adequate retirement savings. The good news is that people can take small actions in several areas and make a big difference. Gradual increases in savings rates, smarter investing, lower fees and delaying retirement can have a significant affect and enable most people to achieve a much more comfortable standard of living once they retire.

For more information, visit http://www.quotit.net/ams/pension.htm