logo
ENع
#

Latest news with #contributions

Maxine Waters campaign to pay $68K for violating campaign finance laws
Maxine Waters campaign to pay $68K for violating campaign finance laws

Fox News

timea day ago

  • Business
  • Fox News

Maxine Waters campaign to pay $68K for violating campaign finance laws

Progressive California Rep. Maxine Waters' campaign has agreed to pay a $68,000 fine after an investigation found it violated multiple election rules. The Federal Election Commission (FEC) said the longtime House lawmaker's 2020 campaign committee, Citizens for Waters, ran afoul of several campaign finance laws in a tranche of documents released Friday. The FEC accused Citizens for Waters of "failing to accurately report receipts and disbursements in calendar year 2020," "knowingly accepting excessive contributions" and "making prohibited cash disbursements," according to one document that appears to be a legally binding agreement that allows both parties to avoid going to court. Waters' committee agreed to pay the civil fine as well as "send its treasurer to a Commission-sponsored training program for political committees within one year of the effective date of this Agreement." "Respondent shall submit evidence of the required registration and attendance at such event to the Commission," the document said. Citizens for Waters had accepted excessive campaign contributions from seven people totaling $19,000 in 2019 and 2020, the investigation found, despite the maximum legal individual contribution being capped at $2,800. The committee offloaded those excessive donations, albeit in an "untimely" fashion, the document said. Waters' campaign committee also "made four prohibited cash disbursements that were each in excess of $100, totaling $7,000," the FEC said. The campaign committee "contends that it retained legal counsel to provide advice and guidance to the treasurer and implemented procedures to ensure the disbursements comply with the requirements of the Act." Leilani Beaver, who was listed as Citizens for Waters' attorney, sent the FEC a letter last year that maintained the campaign finance violations were "errors" that "were not willful or purposeful." Waters, the top Democrat on the House Financial Services Committee, has served in Congress since 1991. The new movements in the probe were first reported by OpenSecrets. It is not the first time, however, that Waters has generated public scrutiny. In 2023, a Fox News Digital investigation found that Waters' campaign paid her daughter $192,300 to pay for a "slate mailer" operation between Jan. 2021 and Dec. 2022. It was reportedly just one sum out of thousands that Waters had paid her daughter for campaign work. A complaint that Waters' campaign had accepted illegal campaign contributions in 2018 was overwhelmingly dismissed by the FEC in a 5-1 vote. Fox News Digital reached out to Beavers, Waters' congressional office and Citizens for Waters for comment.

Why isn't 8% of my salary going into my pension like it's meant to? STEVE WEBB replies
Why isn't 8% of my salary going into my pension like it's meant to? STEVE WEBB replies

Daily Mail​

time2 days ago

  • Business
  • Daily Mail​

Why isn't 8% of my salary going into my pension like it's meant to? STEVE WEBB replies

At my place of work, a big retail chain, the agreement for workplace pension contributions is 8 per cent, including 4 per cent from the employee. I work in the warehouse as a warehouse operator (not management). When I questioned HR on why 4 per cent of my wage was not being taken out, I was informed that there is a £480 (per 4 weeks) threshold and that the pension contributions start after this £480. Whenever I read up on work place pension contributions, I see it stated about the minimum 8 per cent but in reality this not correct, due to this threshold figure. My questions are: why is 8 per cent given as a minimum, and why and when did the £480 threshold come into effect? Steve Webb replies: The often-quoted figure of 8 per cent minimum workplace pension contributions is, as you rightly say, not quite what it seems. I'm happy to explain what is going on, why it was set up in this way and how it might change in future. To understand what is going on, it's worth going back to basics about what pensions are trying to achieve. One of the main reasons why we have a pension system is to help ensure that people's standard of living does not drop sharply when they no longer have a wage. To achieve this, we often talk about a target, for people on modest incomes, of securing around two thirds of pre-retirement income once you stop working. People should not need 100 per cent of their pre-retirement income because they typically no longer have 'working age' costs such as mortgage, travel-to-work or childcare costs, and also no longer pay National Insurance on their income. But a target of around two thirds would enable most people to enjoy a similar standard of living when retired to the standard they were used to when in work. The next thing is to look at how much of this will come from the state pension. As a very rough benchmark, the new state pension will replace a little under one third of the average worker's wage. This means that they need a similar amount from a private pension to bring them up to the two thirds target. When automatic enrolment was being designed, it was assumed that the first slice of earnings was fully replaced by the state pension and that what was needed on top of this was a percentage of the 'next slice' of earnings. For this reason, when the law was written to require workers and firms to make pension contributions at a set percentage rate, this percentage was applied to earnings above a floor, currently £6,240 per year. Earnings above this level (up to a ceiling of £50,270) are described as 'qualifying earnings', and the mandatory 5 per cent from the employee (or 4 per cent net of tax relief) and 3 per cent from the employer are applied to this band. I should stress that we are talking here about the legal minimum rates of contribution and that many employers and workers do more than this, including some who apply contributions from the first pound of earnings, not just on 'qualifying' earnings. Over time there has been growing concern over this system, particularly because of the impact on lower earners. To give an example, for someone who works part-time and earns (say) £12,480 – double the floor for qualifying earnings- the mandatory pension saving rate is applied to just half of their wage. By contrast someone working full time on £31,200 – five times the floor – is making contributions based on four fifths of their total wage. In response to this, a Government review of automatic enrolment published back in 2017 recommended that the starting point for contributions should be reduced to zero, so that the 8 per cent headline figure would apply to all earnings up to the ceiling, currently £50,270. Despite the general consensus about this recommendation, nothing has so far changed. In the last parliament a law was passed which paves the way for this change, but it has yet to be implemented. Unfortunately, it seems that progress on this front is probably now further away than it has ever been. The reason for this is that any widening of the band of 'qualifying earnings' would cost both workers and employers more. With concerns over an ongoing 'cost of living' crisis for many lower paid workers, and with a very substantial increase in employer National Insurance in the Autumn 2024 Budget, there is very little appetite in Government for further measures that would hit paypackets or employer costs. In short, therefore, although we urgently need to get more money going into pensions, the chances of reform any time soon look very small. The one glimmer of hope is that the Government is expected shortly to announce the second phase of its major review of pensions, and this will include the adequacy of existing pension saving rates. It is possible that such a review will eventually (again) recommend applying mandatory contributions to the first pound of earnings, not just those above a floor. But, even if it did so, I suspect that the implementation process would be protracted and could even fall outside the current parliament. Ask Steve Webb a pension question Former pensions minister Steve Webb is This Is Money's agony uncle. He is ready to answer your questions, whether you are still saving, in the process of stopping work, or juggling your finances in retirement. Steve left the Department for Work and Pensions after the May 2015 election. He is now a partner at actuary and consulting firm Lane Clark & Peacock. If you would like to ask Steve a question about pensions, please email him at pensionquestions@ Steve will do his best to reply to your message in a forthcoming column, but he won't be able to answer everyone or correspond privately with readers. Nothing in his replies constitutes regulated financial advice. Published questions are sometimes edited for brevity or other reasons. Please include a daytime contact number with your message - this will be kept confidential and not used for marketing purposes. If Steve is unable to answer your question, you can also contact MoneyHelper, a Government-backed organisation which gives free assistance on pensions to the public. It can be found here and its number is 0800 011 3797.

DOWNLOAD THE APP

Get Started Now: Download the App

Ready to dive into the world of global news and events? Download our app today from your preferred app store and start exploring.
app-storeplay-store