This month's column starts with two questions on similar topics and a request from our columnist for your ideas, too.

Questions:

■ I would like to teach my children, an 11-year-old boy and 8-year-old girl, to be responsible with finances. What are your suggestions on what is an appropriate allowance for them, and how much work should I require around the house for them to earn that?

■ I have a 13-year-old son who's starting to yearn for some more expensive items in life. I want him to realize that he needs to work to be able to buy what he wants.

What kind of jobs would you suggest I think about for him to earn this extra spending cash? There's always the old standby of mowing some lawns, but are there more creative things that can get him working on skills other than just manual labor?

Answer: When I saw each of your questions, I smiled. How refreshing to see parents seriously thinking how to teach their kids about money and work.

I was lucky. In the summer between third and fourth grades, I was hired to be an "electrician helper" to my dad by his boss, a job that I continued in the summers until college.

I very clearly remember feeling different about money that I "made" compared to money I was "given." I remember how good being "productive" made me feel.

When I look back on it, I was probably not worth the hourly wage my dad's boss, Mr. Oscar, paid me that first summer. And I am not sure I ever formally thanked him, or my father. But his hiring a kid to work with his dad has done more for that kid than he will likely ever know.

But I am now a parent. I have three rugrats — a 6-year-old, a 4-year-old and a 1-year-old who only sees money as something to put into his mouth — and how to teach them about money and work has been on my mind. What is the best approach? What works? What doesn't?

I have quite a few thoughts and have read some of the literature, which seems conflicting. But, in a first for this column, I am going to solicit readers' thoughts. What do you say? What advice would you give? Tell me the good and the bad. E-mail your thoughts to hlbusiness@herald-leader.com and write "John Perry personal finance advice" in the subject line.

I look forward to hearing your suggestions and taking this topic up in December.

Question: I have worked for the federal government for 27 years. I am 62½ . I have also worked additional jobs and paid into Social Security. I quit for five years and went back to work for the government in 2002.

I can draw $1,600 from my fed retirement, and if I retired at 63, I can draw $1,021 from Social Security. Both amounts will be reduced by as much as $280 because I have paid into two retirement systems. Is there a way to max my retirement income?

I have always made more money working for myself selling real estate or as an appraiser than I made for the government. Now I am told by Social Security and by fed retirement that both will be less because I have two retirements. This doesn't seem fair when you consider that last year was the first year I have made over $40,000 working for the government.

I was told by Social Security that I can make as much as $14,000 extra because my real estate is reported on an IRS Form 1099, so it will be counted as net income whereas if I work for someone drawing a salary it would be gross income. This is if I want to continue to work selling real estate. I'm in good health.

I want to know, if I work to 66, would my retirement be a lot higher, or would I be better off to hang it up and enjoy the rest of my life while I am still healthy enough to do so?

Answer: I am pretty sure that you have heard the phrase "life is not fair." Well, now you are living it.

You are caught in very specific governmental rules.

The first is what the IRS calls the Windfall Elimination Provision. The idea behind WEP is to prevent people who had incomes that were only partially subject to the Social Security tax from getting "too much" Social Security.

This reveals the generally unknown fact that Social Security is in large part a welfare program. Social Security was designed to replace a certain fraction of your pre-retirement income. Interestingly, the higher your income, the lower the fraction of income it was meant to replace.

The Social Security Administration states that the average fraction of income replaced for low-income workers is about 55 percent but only 25 percent for high-income workers.

When you have income that is not subject to Social Security, you "look" like you are a lower-income person than you really are. Since Social Security doesn't want to replace too much of your income, they reduce your payment. Fair or not.

The other snare you are in is the Civil Service Retirement System Offset, which has to do with how Social Security interacts with your federal CSRS pension. Federal employees after 1983 were subject to the Social Security Tax — interestingly, before 1984, federal employees were excluded.

The details get technical pretty quickly, but the short story is that to prevent you from "getting too much," the CSRS Offset reduces your payment.

Your situation is complicated, but there is not much to be done about being subject to the WEP or the CSRS Offset. If you keep working, your pension and Social Security will go up.

Is it enough to keep you from hanging it up? That is a personal choice. I think you would be well served, given how big and complicated this decision is, to sit down with a professional financial planner who specializes in federal employees to get a clear idea of the numbers and options involved.