Of course, since this is "must pass" legislation, they could pass the Senate bill which is focused on actual highway funding and extends the funding for 2 years rather than a 90 day extension w/ unrelated provisions...but that wouldn't be dramatic enough for the attention seeking, self-important, underhanded House.
-
The Forum works well on MOBILE devices without an app: Just go to: https://forum.tsptalk.com
-
Please read our AutoTracker policy on the IFT deadline and remaining active. Thanks!
div>
$ - Premium Service Content (Info) | AutoTracker Monthly Winners | Is Gmail et al, Blocking Our emails?
Find us on: Facebook & X | Posting Copyrighted Material
Join the TSP Talk AutoTracker: How to Get Started | Login | Main AutoTracker Page
The Forum works well on MOBILE devices without an app: Just go to: https://forum.tsptalk.com ...
Or you can now use TapaTalk again!and the HITS just keep on coming!
- Thread starter James48843
- Start date
James48843
Well-known member
OK- I found the offending passages. There are several pieces to the puzzle-
H.R. 3813 is the offensive FERS cut/boost employee provisions.
That has been tacked on to H.R. 7, which is the Transportation bill.
It looks like the House MAY OR MAY NOT vote on H.R. 7. If they do, then they should do a separate vote on H>R. 3813.
It is possible they may do a short term extension instead. That is what appears to be cued up right now, and it being debated this morning on the House floor.
I'll try and keep my eye on it, but it is not looking good.
Just so you know- the H.R. 3813 bill that
1. increases employee contributions by 1.5%
2. changes from a High Three to a High Five,
3. LOWERS the calculation from 1% for each year of government service, to 0.7% for each year of government service
4. and, by the way, ELIMINATES THE FERS SUPPLEMENT for those retiring before age 62.
The sponsor of this wonderful piece of ...piece of legislation, is Representative Dennis Ross, of Florida.
James48843
Well-known member
For the record- Representative Dennis Ross, the sponsor of that fine piece of ...legislation, appears to be the leader in fund raising members of the 15-member TEA PARTY CAUCUS, having been newly elected in Florida, and was the biggest reporter of special interest money after election.
The Center for Public Integrity: 15 Tea Party Caucus freshmen rake in $3.5 million in first 9 months in WashingtonIf they pass it the Pres should veto.
If the house doesn't want to pay transportation workers then they should take the medicine.
If the House wants to break it's contractual pension obligations to the civilian work force they should do it in a straightforward manner and take that medicine too. If they want to be "bold and courageous" they should quit hiding.
For what it's worth the Senate bill already caves on the high 3 to high 5 provision. So again, compromise (in the Senate bill) is flouted for the sake of unbending ideology (in the House bill) at the expense of American workers (one way or another).
James48843
Well-known member
No- not just new hires. MOST but not all of the provisions effect everyone.
The higher deduction from your paycheck affects everyone.
The reduction from FERS being 1.1% to 1% (for those retiring over age 62) is for everyone.
The elimination of the FERS supplement for those less than age 62 is for everyone.
only some provisions affect newly hired employees. Many of the provisions adversely affect everybody.
Go to THOMAS (Library of Congress) and type in H.R. 3813 , and you can read the bill for yourself.
dhstdog
Member
the FERS supplement doesnt change for those of us that are LEOs etc and have early retirement.
PessOptimist
Well-known member
I did that and James I think you may be wrong about some of the provisions. I hope so.
Before I get to that, there was an article in govexec yesterday that says the house passed pay freezes, increased contributions and downsizing. Of course it never mentions what was passed and what it said. It does mention it is not a law yet. What was passed in the house only was H.CON.RES.112 which is just IMHO more BS by a congresscritter. More BS and hype by the media too.
Go to thomas.loc and read it. I was unable to sleep last night so turned on the TV and found CSPAN was televising debate on H.R.7 which is where those tricky people stuffed H.R.3813 so it sounds like they are fixing pot holes and by the way, screwing .gov employees. All of the speakers were busy brokering their time, down to 15 seconds, to others and dissing others and claiming it was screwing the "worker". no one said which worker. It did cure the insomnia.
I did a little digging about what changes to Title 5 USC Section 84 chapters 01, 15, 21, and 22 this legislation would make. It's not easy as the legislation only mentions striking and changing paragraphs without showing the actual words. So you have to reference your own copy of those sections to make sense of it. All you feds have a copy of 5 USC Section 84 so you understand how and why you get paid, right?
A lot of it seems to depend on what the definition of "is you a 'Secure Annuity Employee' is" to paraphrase a former POTUS.
This is what my digging found:
Sec. 8401. Definitions For the purpose of this chapter--
(1) * * * * * * * * * *
(3)(A) the term `average pay' means the largest annual rate resulting from averaging an employee's or Member's rates of basic pay in effect over any 3 consecutive years of service or, in the case of an annuity under this chapter based on service of less than 3 years, over the total service, with each rate weighted by the period it was in effect; except that
(B) in the case of a secure annuity employee, the term `average pay' has the meaning determined applying subparagraph (A)--
(i) by substituting `5 consecutive years' for `3 consecutive years'; and
(ii) by substituting `5 years' for `3 years'.
(37) the term `secure annuity employee' means an employee or Member who--
(A) first becomes subject to this chapter after December 31, 2012; and
(B) at the time of first becoming subject to this chapter, does not have at least 5 years of civilian service creditable under the Civil Service Retirement System or any other retirement system for Government employees.
Those asterisks appear to mean they are going to leave it as it is or possibly leave it as some previous legislation hidden elsewhere would change it. This does appear to be the proposed definition of "secure annuity employee". This is important in reading the proposed changes to Section 8415.
Sec. 8415. Computation of basic annuity
a) Except as otherwise provided in this section, the annuity of an employee retiring under this subchapter is--
(1) in the case of an employee other than a secure annuity employee, 1 percent of that individual's average pay multiplied by such individual's total service; and
(2) in the case of an employee who is a secure annuity employee, 0.7 percent of that individual's average pay multiplied by such individual's total service.
The above information came from House Report 112-394 which you can find on thomas.loc. If you want to look up proposed Sec 8415 (h)(1) it has language about those over 62 when they retire.
As far as Section 8422 Deductions from Pay, it does appear we will see a .5% increase in the deduction for retirement in 2013, 14 and 15.
I must confess I have not found where in the existing code we pay the approximately .7% we do.
As my SO pointed out, with the magic language in the changes to Sec 8401 "first becomes subject to this chapter after December 31, 2012" perhaps all of us will become "secure annuity employees" on January 1st 2013.
I am not trying to start any shite here. As we both know, trying to figure out exactly what the bill under conderation or being voted on says is not easy.
Maybe the former Speaker of the House wasn't kidding when she said something like "we need to pass this so we can see what's in it".
What did you all do with your weekend?
James48843
Well-known member
Pessoptimist- the "Secure Annuity Employee" is the new, reduced FERS for employees first hired after Dec 2012.
All of the reductions apply to them.
The reduction of FERS supplement affects EVERYONE WHO IS A CURRENT EMPLOYEE except, as dhstdog points out, not LEO early retirement folks.
The rest of us normal FERS retirement people take it in the shorts.
For me, for example- I'm still at least seven years away from normal retirement at the earliest retirement age, and this change of eliminating FERS supplement would mean a cut of roughly $1,600 a month from age 58 to age 62, or roughly $96,000 in retirement money that I would be eligible for if I made it to retirement today.
That is not chump change.
I don't mind helping, but that--$96,000 is a bit much from ONE GUY, especially when you refuse to ask the millionaires to contribute one thin dime in bringing taxes back to pre=Bush levels. Don't expect to take all of your blood from this turnip.
James48843
Well-known member
It's at:
[h=1]5 USC § 8422(a)(3)[/h]http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/5/8422
I'll leave it at that.
PessOptimist
Well-known member
I still don't follow where you read that about current FERS employees concerning the annuity amount either for those under or over 62.
You will need to point this turnip to the specific wording.
I am past my MRA but really need to work five or so more years to meet my goals about income.
I have no doubt there is a lot going on to reduce the deficit on the backs of current federal employees, no matter what we are currently making. The republicans are doing it but the democrats are just making noise for political purposes. They all want to take money from us due to our "lucrative pension plan"
James48843
Well-known member
The FERS supplement is eliminated:
Here:
That totally does away with the FERS supplement leg of my planned retirement income.
The FERS supplement is an amount equal to roughly the amount you'll receive in Social Security payments, IF you retire prior to age 62, and being able to collect Social Security. That language effectively wipes out $96,000 worth of retirement income I was planning on, in one short paragraph.
(B) does away with it. PERIOD, for about 90% of federal employees. LEO's and Air Traffic Control still will get it, but the rest of us regular employees will not.
Apparently, Congessional folks seem to think that's a gravy train we don't deserve, after we made a career's worth of decisions about whether to work for the federal government or the private sector. NOW it seems to be that the sponsor of H.R. 3813, and the ones who voted in favor of the Ryan Budget, are happy to blow that $96,000 income that I have been counting on for the last 25 years- they plan to destroy that.
Not nice.
James48843
Well-known member
Have my own copy of Title 5 and have read it? Yes, I do. You better believe it.
and Yes, I looked it up BEFORE I TOOK THE JOB IN 1991, because I carefully always consume all the information I think I need before making such a life-long decision such as whether or not to change careers.
Are you saying that you are only now looking at what your pay in retirement is going to be? Wow. You are already past your minimum retirement age, then...well, I'll leave that up to you. Some of us actually took the time to understand what we were getting into, and did the math, and made our life-long career decisions decades ago.
No, eliminating FERS supplement means either that I will have to work 5 years longer, or lower my estimates considerably in lifestyle into retirement.
Not fun either way.
PessOptimist
Well-known member
Yeah, that's where I left it too.
Section 3101(a) doesn't seem to have anything applicable to deductions for regular annuity and sub paragraph (3) seems to say 7% should be deducted. Strange.
Right now I need to get my past MRA butt in to bed so I can go to work to earn my exorbitant salary and contribute to my xtremely lucrative retirement annuity.
James48843
Well-known member
it says:
That means 7% MINUS the amount contributed to Social Security for old-age, survivors, and disability.
Social Security rate in 26 USC 3101(a) is 6.2%.
26 USC § 3101 - Rate of tax | LII / Legal Information Institute
So....the difference is 7% - 6.2% = 0.8%.
That is why you pay 0.8% of your salary in FERS retirement.
PessOptimist
Well-known member
Thanks for clearing that up. I looked up 3101 yesterday at the same url but for whatever reason OASDI did not click and I did not read the whole thing. Chalk it up to being long past MRA. Now, as we used to say where i grew up "dawn breaks over Marblehead". I never questioned why we contribute what we do toward the FERS annuity.
It looks like they are trying to remove one leg of our three legged FERS stool. Maybe not remove but significantly increase the cost to us.
That comment about having a copy of the USC was aimed at everyone. Sarcasm is my way sometimes. It has to do with where I grew up.
I have a PDF copy and have read some of it but obviously not all of it in depth. When I took this job in '97 I did read all the stuff I received about benefits but the main factor was the hourly wage which looked pretty good compared to my former military career and current temp job at minimum wage plus $.50.
I was 45 when I began this job and have always been well aware of when I could retire and how much I would get. That is the main reason I will be sticking around for 65 and 20 years time. Maybe. It all depends on how much the rules get changed.
Changing the rules mid game does suck and even if this attempt fails I'm sure the same language will pop up somewhere else. Some of it all ready exists in various other bills.
Maybe the next attempt will be called "To State that Clubbing Baby Seals to Death is Bad, and for other purposes".
There goes that warped sense of humor again.
Thanks for your help in deciphering this and for keeping an eye on what congress is up to. I hope others have enjoyed this discussion.
James48843
Well-known member
And the hits just keep on coming!
Today- Senator Kent Conrad, (D-North Dakota) , Senate Budget Committee head, announced his proposals for federal budget will incorporate many of the cuts previously proposed.
Included in Conrad's Democratic Proposal--many of the pay and compensation cuts of the Bowles-Simpson proposal:
More details:
News Articles: Pay/Benefits Cuts Proposed by Senate Budget Committee
Dang! And the HITS JUST KEEP ON COMING!Similar threads
