Editor’s Note: This story originally published on September 6, 2018.

Sometimes a new job turns out not to be the dream job you thought it was. But you can’t always afford to walk away from a paycheck.

Unless the company pays you to leave.

Some companies are making it easier to part ways, paying unhappy workers to bow out gracefully.

At online retailer Zappos, new hires are offered a month’s salary to leave within three months of starting their position. Amazon offers some workers up to $5,000 once a year to leave.

Why would a company pay somebody to quit? Because it can be in the employer’s best interest, too.

“We want you here because you believe in the vision and the goals of the company and can make a difference,” said Megan Petrini, the director of Zappos’ new hire program.

Zappos isn’t your typical office.

“We often have parades,” she said. “If a parade comes down and you are on the phone and you can’t hear … and if that ruins your day, you aren’t going to be happy here.”

Zappo’s policy is officially called the Graceful Leave Policy, but is more commonly referred to as “The Offer.” It’s extended about halfway through the company’s four week training program. It’s good for three months from an employee’s start date.

“That way they can see what it’s like in training and get a feel for their position and really make sure it is the right fit for them to be happy,” she said.

Some years, no one takes The Offer. Other years, it’s more popular. So far this year, three people have taken the company up on it.

“It’s been higher than normal,” said Petrini. “But the cool thing is we know that the people who work here have been chosen to work here and that they have been offered money to quit.”

Amazon, piggybacking off the idea from Zappos (which it bought in 2009), offers a similar program called Pay to Quit. Once a year, workers at its fulfillment centers are offered a chance to leave the company. The offer is $2,000 the first year and goes up by $1,000 each year to a maximum of $5,000.

“We want people working at Amazon who want to be here. In the long term, staying somewhere you don’t want to be isn’t healthy for our employees or for the company,” an Amazon spokesperson told CNN.

The program has been around since 2013. “We tell them up front that we hope they don’t take the offer. In fact, we want them to stay.”

While offering employees cash to leave can help with productivity and morale, high acceptance rates might mean it’s time to reassess how a company recruits.

“Check with your recruiting process, who are we hiring, how are we developing them and are we matching jobs to skills,” said John Baldoni, an executive coach and author of “Moxie: The Secret to Bold and Gutsy Leadership.”

But the programs can also backfire and might not be effective at weeding out the bad apples.

“Very often, the people who might take advantage of it, might be your good performers who have options,” he said. “The people who have no options, who are the deadwood and clinging to a job, have no other place to go.”

Social Security may seem like a relatively easy program to navigate, and in many ways, it is. The application process for retirement benefits is quick and straightforward, and there’s little you need to do after you’ve applied, aside from keeping your bank account and address information current.

Having said that, there’s more to Social Security strategy than you may think. The wrong moves could cost you tens of thousands of dollars in potential benefits, and here are three missteps to avoid.

Americans who qualify can claim Social Security anytime between the ages of 62 and 70, and the vast majority of Americans claim at their full retirement age or sooner. In fact, 62 is the most common claiming age, by a significant margin. And to be fair, Social Security is designed so that the average person will get roughly the same amount of benefits (inflation-adjusted) regardless of when they claim.

It’s also true that once you’ve reached full retirement age, you are entitled to claim your entire Social Security benefit, no matter how much you earn from work.

However, if you’ve reached your full Social Security retirement age and are still working, it’s also important to remember that your earnings can still boost your Social Security benefit. Specifically, the Social Security formula takes your highest 35 years of inflation-indexed earnings into account. And, the later years of many American’s careers are also some of their highest-earning years.

Here’s the key point: A year of relatively high earnings will replace the lowest of the 35 years of earnings used in the Social Security benefit formula.

If you’re past full retirement age and are earning significantly more now than you were toward the beginning of your career, or if you have some gaps in your work record, holding off on claiming your Social Security retirement benefit could help boost your income in two ways. Not only will your benefit rise by 8% per year for waiting, but your 35-year average could also substantially improve, raising the base benefit amount to which those 8% delayed retirement credits are applied.

Thanks to Social Security spousal benefits, spouses who didn’t work or earned comparatively little throughout their working life are entitled to much-needed retirement income.

If your calculated Social Security retirement benefit is less than half of your spouse’s, or if you don’t qualify at all, a spousal benefit will kick in to make up the difference. In other words, if your spouse is entitled to $1,600 per month at full retirement age, a spousal benefit would ensure that you received $800 per month at your full retirement age.

However, there are two very important points you need to know. First, unlike standard Social Security retirement benefits, spousal benefits don’t get any bigger after full retirement age. If your spouse’s full retirement age is 67, and they wait until 68 to claim a spousal benefit, their monthly check won’t get any bigger.

Second, the key requirement to be eligible for a spousal benefit is that the higher-earning spouse must have claimed their own benefit already.

The bottom line: If your spouse is entitled to a benefit on your work record, think twice before you delay retirement beyond their full retirement age.

The Social Security Administration, or SSA, keeps track of your Social Security taxable earnings every year, and you can take a look at your earnings record on your latest Social Security statement. (Note: Your Social Security statement is available on www.ssa.gov by creating a “my Social Security” account, if you haven’t already.)

Because your benefit will be based on the earnings data on your Social Security statement, it’s extremely important to make sure the information on the statement is accurate.

Errors in Social Security earnings records aren’t widespread, but they are more common than you may think. For example, in the 2012 tax year, the SSA said that $71 billion in wages couldn’t be matched to any earnings records, and that only about half of these mismatches were eventually corrected.

Related links:

• Motley Fool Issues Rare Triple-Buy Alert

• This Stock Could Be Like Buying Amazon in 1997

• 7 of 8 People Are Clueless About This Trillion-Dollar Market

Since your Social Security benefit is primarily derived from the amount of money you earn throughout your career, wouldn’t it make sense that you want credit for all of the money you’ve earned? A single missed earnings error could potentially cause you to miss out on $30,000 in lifetime benefits, according to Social Security Intelligence, so it’s certainly worth your time to make sure your earnings record is correct.

CNNMoney (New York) First published May 29, 2018: 10:26 AM ET

Britain plans to cut its corporate tax rate to 17% over the next three years. But many businesses say they’re happy with the current 19%, thank you very much.

Make no mistake: Business leaders want to reduce their total tax burden.

But they’re asking U.K. Treasury chief Philip Hammond to take another look at how that’s best achieved when he presents his budget on Wednesday.

The British Chamber of Commerce (BCC) has called on the government to maintain its current 19% rate, but instead cut property taxes and other lump-sum payments demanded of business.

“In trying to create a competitive business environment, the focus should be on reducing the burden of upfront business costs and taxes,” said Suren Thiru, head of economics and business finance at the BCC.

That would help startups and companies struggling to make a profit more than a cut in tax on their income.

Consulting firms EY and Deloitte agree.

The head of U.K. tax policy at Deloitte, Bill Dodwell, said there is “broad agreement” in the business community that providing targeted relief would be more beneficial than a lower corporate tax rate.

Questions about the U.K. policy reflect a broader debate within developed economies about the virtues of a lower headline corporate tax rate.

The average corporate tax rate across more than 30 countries monitored by the OECD has dropped by 7.5 percentage points since 2000 to below 25%. The rate in Ireland is now just 12.5%.

But the devil is often in the details.

In the United States, for example, Republicans are pushing to reduce the corporate rate to 20% from 35%. President Trump says the new rate should be “no higher” than that.

Supporters argue that 35% is one of the highest headline rates in the world, but many companies pay far less once deductions and special tax breaks are included.

Related: How would the U.S. middle class fare under the Senate tax bill?

Large, profitable U.S. corporations paid an average effective federal tax rate of 14% between 2008 and 2012, according to the U.S. Government Accountability Office.

Critics say that the Republican plan doesn’t go far enough in eliminating deductions and other tax credits that have been awarded to businesses over the decades.

“This is not tax reform. This is a tax cut. This is fool’s gold,” Starbucks (SBUX) executive chairman Howard Schultz said earlier this month.

In Britain, there have been calls for dramatic cuts to the corporate tax rate following Brexit in order to keep businesses from moving abroad. Critics say doing so would only accelerate a race to the bottom.

CNNMoney (London) First published November 21, 2017: 12:03 PM ET

Even though 90% of the earthquakes that strike the United States are located in California, only about 10% of homeowners there have earthquake insurance. What gives?

Here are three reasons why many quake-prone Californians shun insurance:

1) Quake damage rarely exceeds deductibles.

Some argue the insurance is not worth the money for homeowners. Earthquake insurance generally comes with a deductible of 15% of the home’s value, according to John Rundle, a professor of physics at the University of California, Davis.

“Most homeowners will never exceed the deductible even if they do get damage,” he said.

Related: Natural disaster — the riskiest spots in the USA

Most policies are purchased from the California Earthquake Authority, a privately funded, publicly managed organization that was created by the state legislature after severe losses in the Northridge quake threatened to send private insurers packing.

Glenn Pomeroy, CEO of CEA, said he would love to have a zero deductible, but that would make the premiums unaffordable for homeowners. Check out what you would pay on the CEA calculator.

The big deductibles mean money that would have gone to paying insurance premiums might be better spent being invested in temblor resistant home retrofits, according to Rundle. Homeowners could get their houses bolted to bedrock, for example, or braced and reinforced to prevent them from shaking apart.

Related: The 10 most expensive U.S. earthquakes

2) Californians were slammed by the housing bust.

Many Californians were hurt by the real estate crisis and have little or no home equity — or are underwater on their mortgages.

Jason Simpson, a computer programmer in Sherman Oaks, Calif., outside Los Angeles, bought his $690,000 home with a 3% down mortgage in 2008. The housing bust pushed him underwater — he soon owed more on his loan than his home was worth.

Related: Mansion that measures earthquakes

“With no equity, there was no reason to drop $1,200 a year,” he said.

If the big one had hit, he would have simply walked away from his mortgage. Now, however, as home prices have rebounded and he has added on to the house, he’s preparing to buy insurance.

3) Mistrust of the California Earthquake Authority’s support.

Another factor discouraging homeowners from buying coverage is that the CEA would stop paying claims if catastrophic earthquake losses exceed the the Authority’s reserves.

Pomeroy said that homeowners shouldn’t worry. Even though, just like any insurer, CEA would stop paying claims once its ability to pay was exceeded, it won’t happen. CEA is very well capitalized, he said.

“We could handle two Northridges,” he said, about the costliest earthquake in U.S. history.

“I don’t lose sleep worrying whether we have enough money to pay claims, I worry because so many people don’t have coverage.”

CNNMoney (New York) First published August 25, 2014: 5:30 PM ET

I have made five years of income-based student loan payments under the Public Service Loan Forgiveness plan during my residency and fellowship. But now I owe close to $450,000 even though I only borrowed $320,000. I would like to continue paying under this plan, but the interest would explode. I am starting a new job at a non-profit hospital with a $356,000 salary. What do I do? — Anonymous

Choosing the best student loan repayment plan can feel like gambling with your future.

Those with big debts, especially doctors and lawyers, may be tempted to lower their payments by enrolling in one of the government’s income-driven plans. Not only does this offer immediate relief, but some plans will forgiven any remaining debt after at least 20 years.

But there’s a catch. It’s possible you’ll pay more over the life of the loan because your payments will be spread out over a longer period of time and you’ll be paying more interest.

“Sometimes we see borrowers so focused on the fact that they could get forgiveness, they don’t realize they may still end up paying back more,” said Betsy Mayotte, the president and founder of The Institute of Student Loan Advisors.

The overall goal is to pay the least amount over time, she said.

How much you end up paying overall can depend on some unknowns, like your future income, future job, and how many children you might have one day.

It can get confusing because there’s not just one income-driven plan. If you have federal loans, there are seven different variations. Plus, some people who work in public service will get their debt wiped away after 10 years of payments.

Ask yourself these three questions before deciding what student loan repayment plan to select

If you’re in a low-paying job, you might have to lower your payments in order to be able to make them. Depending on your income, your monthly payment could be as low as $0 on some plans.

That may sound great while you’re struggling financially, but you might not be paying enough to cover the interest. That means your balance will keep getting bigger.

Income-driven plans can make sense if you have either a lot of debt, a low income, several children — or some combination.

Many are based on your discretionary income, which considers your pay, your family size, and the state you live in.

Related: Is anyone actually getting public service loan forgiveness?

On many plans, your monthly payment will be a percentage of your income. So even though your payments may seem low at first, you’ll owe more as your income goes up.

Mayotte suggests using the government’s online repayment estimator at least once a year, or whenever you get a raise, get married, or have a child. (If you’re married and filing jointly, your spouse’s income will be considered when your monthly payment is calculated.)

It should tell you how much your monthly payments would be, the total amount you’ll pay back over the lifetime of the loan, how long it will take, and if you’ll be eligible for any debt forgiveness.

This can help you figure out if it’s worth increasing your payments. Remember, the longer it takes you to pay off, the more interest you end up paying.

Related: Should he pay off his student debt faster or invest?

If you’re hoping to receive loan forgiveness, use the estimator to crunch your own numbers first. There is a chance that you might be finished paying off your debt before you’re due any forgiveness.

You must pay for at least 20 years on an income-driven plan before you’ll receive forgiveness. If you have loans for graduate school, you’ll have to pay for 25 years.

There’s another thing to consider. The forgiven debt will be taxed if you live in a state with income tax — unless you receive forgiveness from the Public Service Loan Forgiveness Program.

Related: Millennials explain why they have nothing saved for retirement

Those who work for a non-profit or the government may be eligible for forgiveness after paying for just 10 years on an income-driven plan.

Even with her new six-figure salary, the doctor who asked the question above could stand to save as much as $299,000 by staying enrolled in an income-driven plan.

But she must work for a qualifying employer all 10 years.

Have a money question for Money Moves? Ask us here to be included in a future column.

CNNMoney (New York) First published April 19, 2018: 11:29 AM ET

A growing percentage of middle-class Americans say they have saved so little for retirement that they expect to work into their 80s or even until they either get too sick or die, according to a recent survey.

Nearly half of middle-class workers said they are not confident that they will be able to save enough to retire comfortably, according to a Wells Fargo survey of 1,000 workers between the ages of 25 and 75, with household incomes between $25,000 and $100,000.

As a result, 34% said they plan to work until they’re at least 80 — that’s up from 25% in 2011 and 30% last year. An even larger percentage, 37%, said they’ll never retire and plan to either work until they get too sick or die, the survey found.

Driving these concerns is that many of the respondents said they simply can’t afford to pay their monthly bills and save for retirement at the same time.

Money 101: Planning for retirement

“For the past three years, the struggle to pay bills is a growing concern and the prospect of saving for retirement looks dim, particularly for those in their prime saving years,” Laurie Nordquist, head of Wells Fargo Institutional Retirement and Trust, said in a statement.

The concerns come as many middle-class families are trying to make do with less. The country’s median annual household income is down by more than 8% since 2007. And many of the jobs lost during the recent recession have been replaced with lower wage positions.

With minimal savings built up, a third of those surveyed said Social Security will be their primary source of income during retirement. Of those making less than $50,000, nearly half said they will rely mainly on Social Security.

In August, the average Social Security recipient received around $15,000 a year in retirement benefits, according to the Social Security Administration.

Related: Don’t let the government’s drama derail your 401(k)

Another factor holding back middle-class savers is a fear of investing in the stock market, said Nordquist.

Across workers of all ages, only 24% said they were confident in the stock market as a place to invest for retirement. And slightly more than half said they don’t invest in the stocks because they are afraid to lose their savings in the ups and downs of the market.

This is despite the fact that financial planners say that investing in stocks is the best way to grow a nest egg that will be large enough to cover decades of retirement. Over years of savings, short-term losses are overtaken by the long-term gains that years of compounded returns offer.

“There is a striking amount of fear about the stock market among all investors,” she said. “The middle class just isn’t making the link between being invested and the potential growth of their savings.

CNNMoney (New York) First published October 23, 2013: 2:00 PM ET

In Europe, gender quotas are old news.

In 2003, Norway became the first country in the world to institute a gender quota for boards of directors, requiring listed companies to add female members to make up at least 40% of overall board representation. Other countries followed suit, including Belgium, France and Italy.

But in the United States, companies are loathe to institute gender and diversity requirements for membership, even as representation numbers continue to lag.

Margarethe Wiersema, professor of management at the University of California-Irvine, says the reason behind the hesitancy is very simple: Americans don’t like being told what to do.

“Europe is so far ahead of us. It’s like we’re in the Dark Ages on this,” she says. “I think it has to do with the mentality.”

A bill making its way through the California legislature could make the Golden State the first in the country to mandate gender quotas on corporate boards. If Governor Jerry Brown signs it into law, publicly-traded companies headquartered in California would have to place at least one woman on their board by the end of next year, or face a penalty.

“Unfortunately, they do need this pushing and prodding because apparently, it was necessary,” says Paula Loop, assurance partner and leader at PwC’s governance insights center. “You need to push and nudge these folks to get there, but there’s an overwhelmingly positive result once they’re there.”

In Norway, the country judges its law to have been a success. With female members now making up 40% of board seats, overall diversity has increased as the disparity in board members’ pay decreased.

As for the effects on financial performance and other measures of success, some experts say more time is needed to assess.

In the United States, however, the stats are clear: while a majority of companies in the S&P 500 have at least one woman on their boards, only 25% have more than two, according to a study from PwC.

“I think we’re way out of step with the rest of the world and it would be great if we could make more progress on it,” Wiersema says. “Having spoken to a lot of female CEOs, they just can’t believe how little traction there is. This is not acceptable in their eyes, that we’re at this level. Especially when you look at other countries. It’s no longer just Scandinavia, it’s Spain, it’s Italy. It’s countries the US thinks we’re better than, and we’re not.”

Opponents fear pressure from quotas will promote unqualified female members to prestigious seats, or even potentially discriminate against male candidates.

But there is no precedent for that, according to Ariane Hegewisch, program director for employment and earnings at the Institute for Women’s Policy Research.

“That definitely has not happened,” she says. “There’s no indication that that has happened and that it has in any way made governance worse … [but] there is research to show that companies with no women on their boards do not perform as well.”

Appointing merely one woman to the board isn’t enough to create progress, however, according to Alison M. Konrad, author of a 2006 study “Critical Mass on Boards.” Without female representation already in place on a board, some women are hesitant to be the first, she said.

“They didn’t want to go through the stigma of being the symbol,” Konrad says. “They wanted to be adding to the board because of their ability to contribute. From their experiences, the stigmatizing dynamic does occur. It’s hard enough to just be the first woman, without being the first woman who is slapped with a label that you’re there as a symbol.”

CNNMoney (New York) First published September 7, 2018: 11:42 AM ET

Saving $1 million for retirement may sound like an impossible task that not many people have achieved.

But about 157,000 people have saved at least $1 million in their 401(k)s with Fidelity, according to the company.

Another 148,000 had saved that much in an IRA.

Of those, 2,400 people had saved $1 million in both types of accounts.

So what’s the secret to becoming one of them? Time.

Most of these people are Baby Boomers who have saved for at least 30 years.

“I think the most important behavior is to start saving early,” said Katie Taylor, vice president of thought leadership at Fidelity.

That’s good news for Millennials. If you’re still in your 20s or 30s, you can set yourself up now to meet that goal with much less effort than an older person getting a later start.

People who’ve reached the $1 million mark also are saving a bigger percentage of their salary. Those with $1 million in their 401(k) are saving 24% of their salary each year — including both employer and employee contributions. Overall, the average 401(k) participant is saving 13%, according to Fidelity, the biggest plan provider by assets.

“The beauty of the 401(k) is that it takes the emotion out of investing,” said Chuck Cumello, president and CEO of Essex Financial.

Since money is taken out of your paycheck automatically, you’re less likely to try to time the market.

Less than 3% of Baby Boomers with a 401(k) at Fidelity have reached $1 million.

In 2016, working households aged 55 to 64 with retirement accounts had saved a median of $120,000, according to the Investment Company Institute.

It’s no surprise that those with higher salaries have saved more. Those older households who earned more than $171,000 a year had saved a median of $600,000 while those who earned less than $35,000 a year had saved a median of $18,000. (The report considered assets in all defined contribution accounts, including both 401(k) and IRAs.)

Related: Are you behind on your retirement saving?

Not everyone will need $1 million for retirement, Taylor said. One rule of thumb is to save 10 times your ending salary. If you’re far away from retirement age, use an online calculator like this one to get an idea of how much you might need.

There are three common traits shared by those who have saved a lot of money in their 401(k)s, said Cumello.

1. Start saving early.

If you start at age 25, you’ll need to save $650 a month to have $1 million by age 65. But you’d need to save $1,200 a month if you wait to start saving until age 35 (assuming a 5% average return).

Calculator: When will I be a millionaire?

2. Work toward saving the maximum allowed.

First, save at least as much to get the full company match, Cumello said.

Then increase your savings rate until you hit the federal limit. This year it’s $18,500.

3. Pay attention to your investments.

Most 401(k)s have low-cost fund investment options. Cumello suggests investing in those to create a diversified portfolio. Avoid being too heavily invested in one stock.

Are you on track to save $1 million for retirement? Share your story with CNN Money.

CNNMoney (New York) First published May 29, 2018: 10:56 AM ET

Donald Trump vowed during the campaign to get rid of a tax loophole used by some millionaire and billionaire investors to slash their bills.

“The hedge fund guys won’t like me as much as they like me right now. I know them all, but they’ll pay more,” he said during a Republican debate sponsored by CNN in 2015. “I know people that are making a tremendous amount of money and paying virtually no tax, and I think it’s unfair.”

But the tax break, known as the “carried interest” provision, remains essentially intact in both the House and Senate tax bills now under consideration.

Related: Here’s what’s in the tax reform bill the Republicans just passed

Despite the popular impression that the carried interest provision is a break for hedge fund managers, it’s really private equity managers and real estate managers who benefit from it. It lets them pay a lower rate of just 20% on investment profits that are paid to fund managers, instead of the standard rate of nearly 40% for anyone in the top tax bracket.

Trump himself said that those benefiting from the break were “getting away with murder.”

“They pick a stock and all of sudden they make a lot of money. I want the hedge fund guys to pay more taxes,” he said.

But so far there is only one change in the carried interest provision in either bill. The proposed tax reforms stipulate that in order to qualify for the lower rate, the investments must be held for three years instead of the current requirement of one.

But anyone who benefits from the carried interest provision typically holds their investments for much longer than three years, said Steven Rosenthal, a senior fellow at the nonpartisan Tax Policy Center.

Related: How tax reform could affect families paying for college

“That’s a travesty,” he said. “It is a cosmetic change to make it seem like something is being done with carried interest when nothing is being done.”

The nonpartisan Joint Committee on Taxation, which tracks the impact of legislation, estimates that the change would increase revenue by only $1.2 billion over the 10-year period from 2018 to 2027, or $120 million a year.

The JCT estimate confirms that change in the law “on carried interest is a bad joke,” tweeted University of San Diego law professor Victor Fleischer. He made the tongue in cheek suggestion of having just a few of the top private equity mangers pay the top rate of 39.6%.

By comparison, a recent Democratic proposal to close the carried interest loophole was estimated to increase tax collections by $17 billion over 10 years, netting $1.6 billion in its first year alone.

CNNMoney (New York) First published November 27, 2017: 10:13 AM ET