Dear People (Especially those in the US),
As I email here before, I am carrying out a web questionnaire.
I have asked you to comment on the questionnaire but I only received one
response.
I would like to thank that person who expressed very useful comments.
I took them into account.
However, I need some more views to make it sure that I am doing fine with
the language, design, etc.
In this message I present the instructions to the questions that will follow
(I will send them later to this group).
What I would like to ask:
1. Please have a look at the instructions below and please check my grammar,
and language.
Is everything understandable for the average US person?
2. I have asked this before but I still cannot make a decision: I provide
the labor and pension income as "net:" and I explain what "net" means below.
Some of you mentioned that the average US citizen would tell you their
"gross" income right off their mind but they would think about their "net"
income. Therefore you suggested to consider gross income in the questions
that I consider (not pasted here but I will paste later. But those questions
always include a table like one indicated below)
Please express your view: Should I indicate gross or net income? (pay
attention that it is monthly income not annual: maybe people know easily
their annual gross income but not monthly gross income but maybe they know
their net monthly income than their gross monthly income?). What would be
the most appropriate thing to do for the average US person? To present net
or gross income in such a setting below:
These are the two main issues for the moment. Thank you in advance for your
cooperation and time.
Instructions
In the following questions we describe a number of retirement plans of
hypothetical persons. These retirement plans are shown on a timeline. Here
is an example, the retirement plan of Nicole:
Work Gradual Retirement
Retirement
Work Hours 40 hours 24 hours 0
Income $3000 $1800
0
Pension 0 $1200
$2400
1. Above the colored lines you see the age of Nicole.
2. The colored lines indicate the labor market status at the indicated
ages. In particular:
· the blue line indicates that Nicole works full-time
· the red line indicates that Nicole works part-time
· the black line indicates that Nicole is fully retired
3. Under the colored lines we indicate, for the corresponding ages:
· the number of hours per week Nicole works
· the net labor income per month she earns
· the net pension income per month she receives
We realize that the retirement plans of this kind may be very different from
your own and that your employer may not even offer plans like this. Still,
we ask you to evaluate each retirement plan or choose between several
retirement plans, given your own preferences. When doing this please assume
that
· The described persons work in the same industry, in the same type
of job, and under similar work conditions as you do. They are as
satisfied with their work as you are.
· The described persons' social and family lives are similar to
yours.
· The described persons' employer fully cooperates with all the
options that are described.
· The stated (pension) incomes are in current prices. That is, the
incomes are adjusted for future price increases.
· 'Net income' means income after tax, social security
contributions, etc.
· The pension income includes Social Security income and
occupational pension provided by the employer.
· The period of full-time work (blue line) starts before age 62, and
the period of full-time retirement (black line) continues after age 72.
Hence, in the example, Nicole also earns net $3000 per month
before age 62, and receives a pension benefit of net $2400 per month
after age 72.
minimus - 20 Jan 2009 10:42 GMT
The table did not appear correct in the previous message. It should be as
follows:
-------------------Work----------Gradual Retirement-------Retirement
Work Hours------40 hours------------24 hours-----------------0
Income-----------$3000--------------$1800-------------------0
Pension--------------0----------------$1200------------------$2400
Don Phillipson - 20 Jan 2009 13:41 GMT
> The table did not appear correct in the previous message. It should be as
> follows:
[quoted text clipped - 3 lines]
> Income-----------$3000--------------$1800-------------------0
> Pension--------------0----------------$1200------------------$2400
Two things seem wrong in this table.
1. "Part time" is the usual description of a work week shorter
than normal (here 24 hours rather than 40 hours.) The point
is that this applies uniformly to everyone working 24 hours
rather than 40 regardless of the reason. ("Gradual retirement"
introduces an extra category, that may be unnecessary or not,
useful or not: lacking context, we do not know.)
2. This table suggests $1800 part time income + $1200 pension
equal regular earned income ($3000) This is unrealistic. No known
pension income, even supplemental, equals earned income
(except perhaps for some public office-holders and CEOs who
create their own pension arrangements.) Normal pensions
(total or partial) are less than earned income.

Signature
Don Phillipson
Carlsbad Springs
(Ottawa, Canada)
minimus - 20 Jan 2009 14:09 GMT
> Two things seem wrong in this table.
> 1. "Part time" is the usual description of a work week shorter
[quoted text clipped - 3 lines]
> introduces an extra category, that may be unnecessary or not,
> useful or not: lacking context, we do not know.)
You are right but I have to call it gradual retirement because I motivate
the survey in the begining of the questionnaire as such.
Part-time work was standing as a loose term for my purposes.
> 2. This table suggests $1800 part time income + $1200 pension
> equal regular earned income ($3000) This is unrealistic. No known
> pension income, even supplemental, equals earned income
> (except perhaps for some public office-holders and CEOs who
> create their own pension arrangements.) Normal pensions
> (total or partial) are less than earned income.
The labor income earned during part-time work is 1800 and the partial
pension income recieved during the part-time work is 1200 and it does not
exceed 3000 (3000>1200).
I don't see your point.
Mike Lyle - 20 Jan 2009 15:26 GMT
[...]
> You are right but I have to call it gradual retirement because I
> motivate the survey in the begining of the questionnaire as such.
[...]
"Motivate"? Is this the South African use of "motivate" to mean
"explain"? If so, the rest of us don't use it in exactly that way, and
if not, I don't understand it.

Signature
Mike.
minimus - 20 Jan 2009 11:03 GMT
I am terribly sorry. Read the table as follows please (please ignore my
message just above):
..........................62..63..64............65...66...67...68...69......70...71...72
-------------------Work----------Gradual Retirement-------Retirement
Work Hours------40 hours------------24 hours-----------------0
Income-----------$3000--------------$1800-------------------0
Pension--------------0----------------$1200------------------$2400
tony cooper - 20 Jan 2009 14:02 GMT
>2. I have asked this before but I still cannot make a decision: I provide
>the labor and pension income as "net:" and I explain what "net" means below.
[quoted text clipped - 9 lines]
>the most appropriate thing to do for the average US person? To present net
>or gross income in such a setting below:
An identical post is in alt.english.usage. This should be
cross-posted, and not multiple posted. We should be able to look in
either group to see if the question has been answered or if an answer
is something that we feel needs expounding on.

Signature
Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida
minimus - 20 Jan 2009 14:10 GMT
> An identical post is in alt.english.usage. This should be
> cross-posted, and not multiple posted. We should be able to look in
> either group to see if the question has been answered or if an answer
> is something that we feel needs expounding on.
You are right. I missed that point. It could be then synchronized...
My mistake.