FERS tax hike

[James48843]

Alright folks- it appears it is now a DONE DEAL.

The 2% social security payroll tax cut will officially be extended for another year....

AND IT IS PAID FOR BY A HIKE IN THE FERS CONTRIBUTION BY FEDERAL EMPLOYEES.

Under the outlines of the emerging agreement, a 2 percentage-point cut in the Social Security payroll tax would be extended through the end of the year, with the nearly $100 billion cost added to the deficit. Jobless benefits for the long-term unemployed would be renewed as well, with the $30 billion or so cost paid for in part through auctioning broadcast spectrum to wireless companies and requiring federal workers to contribute more toward their pensions.

Rep. Mike Simpson, R-Idaho, said it was described to lawmakers as a tentative agreement.

Thank you Mike Simpson, R-Idaho.

More:
Negotiators reach tentative payroll tax cut pact - Yahoo! News


(and he didn't even buy us dinner first.)

 

[nnuut]

This is the second year that Obama has cut social security payroll tax, when the system is failing. He calls it a tax cut, it is NOT a tax cut it is purposefully making the Social Scurity system to fail. How can this be justified, how can an intelligent person approve of this along with the 1/2 billion he stole from Medicare, I think someone has to pay for this stupidity and you know who that is!

 

[Bquat]

Alright folks- it appears it is now a DONE DEAL.

The 2% social security payroll tax cut will officially be extended for another year....

AND IT IS PAID FOR BY A HIKE IN THE FERS CONTRIBUTION BY FEDERAL EMPLOYEES.



Thank you Mike Simpson, R-Idaho.

More:
Negotiators reach tentative payroll tax cut pact - Yahoo! News


(and he didn't even buy us dinner first.)

Yea a lot of people are probably going to cheer this. They don't realize they're just decreasing their Social Security 2% each year. After 5 years that will be 10%. 20 years from now they'll se the real affect. 10% less and 10% less to earn compounded interest on. They just don't see it as a retirement cut. Yea it's their money but it's not going toward retirement and its not tax defered money. I hope the guys in TSP have increased you contributions by 2% to make up for this cut in retirement.

 

[clester]

If they take 2% and then give 2%, it's a wash right?

 

[Boghie]

I bumped by TSP contributions by 2% last year. Keeping it this year.
And, you know what, that 2% will provide a much greater benefit than had it been 'invested' in Social Security.

My offer to the Feds. You can have 27 years of Social Security 'investments'. All my contributions. All my various employers' contributions. All the growth. Everything. But allow me to stop 'investing' into it and permit me to move my portion (6.2%) into TSP. That would be nice, very nice.

Very fair too...

See how these politicians can game a 'pension'. I don't want them near my retirement!!!

 

[James48843]

If they take 2% and then give 2%, it's a wash right?

Ah no. Let me explain it a little slower here:

#1. You get a temporary 2% reduction (actually, a continuation of the 2% reduction already in place) UNTIL DECEMBER of this year. That 2% extension is for every employee in the country- not just federal workers- it's everyone;


In exchange for that,


#2- YOU get to pay 3.1% HIGHER in FERS TAX EVERY YEAR for the rest of your career. The FERS tax goes from the current 0.8% of your pay, to 4% of your pay. Foever.




That is the deal struck today.

For me, it's about $2,000 this year less in Social Security.

And in exchange for that, I get to pay $3,000 more this year, and $3,000 more next year, and $3K every year for the next decade, at least until I retire. Or $30,000 minimum.


That's not what I would consider "a wash".

If you are going to do me like that, ON VALENTINES DAY, NO LESS, at least you could have bought me dinner first.

I keep saying that if they are going to do the higher FERS thing- it needs to be a part of a bigger deal, one in that the rich also get hit with higher taxes. If everyone is giving up something, I could better take it.

But not this.


This will become known as the VALENTINES DAY MASSACRE for federal employees.

I feel so......so.....soiled.

 

[Show-me]

They are defiantly throw the federal workers under the bus............... both parties that is. I'm discussed by it all.

 

[Bquat]

Why is it the FEDs always having to sacrifice. I think it's becauss we can't bring lawsuits against the goverment for failure to follow what we were offered to us to comit ourselves for 30 years. The outside companies just use the funds from the retirement funds and file for bankruptcy before they can be sued for it. Plus there's no public outrage or concern.

 

[weatherweenie]

They are defiantly throw the federal workers under the bus............... both parties that is. I'm discussed by it all.

Yeah, this was a bipartisan measure, and not only a Republican plan.

 

[DigDugII]

James48843, I don't see the 3.1% increase in the FERS contribution mentioned in the article that you linked. Where is it written that this is a done deal?

 

[Kaufmanrider]

Why is it the FEDs always having to sacrifice. I think it's becauss we can't bring lawsuits against the goverment for failure to follow what we were offered to us to comit ourselves for 30 years. The outside companies just use the funds from the retirement funds and file for bankruptcy before they can be sued for it. Plus there's no public outrage or concern.

Politics, pure and simple. In the eyes of many we are part of the problem. They sell us to the masses as overpaid and underworked. They can score points by knocking us down. And who is there to raise a stink about it and defend us, besides ourselves. Even the outside Unions don't raise much of an uproar (other than an obscure sound bite or two) about the cuts and reductions in benefits to Federal workers.

You know it's bad when even Democrats talk about taking from us, President included. Glad I am getting real short.

 

[Show-me]

Everyone better start calling......................................EVERYONE. Tell them you are disappointed in H.R. 3813 being back doored into the transportation bill and that it cuts federal employee's pension by 30% while increasing contributions and decreasing the average salary from high 3 to high 5. All this and members of Congress only reduce their pensions and their staffs by 17%.

Tell them this is not how you lead by example or impress the voters and that you will get the word out that they are looking out for themselves again. Election year folksdon'tnt procrastinate.

 

[clester]

Ah no. Let me explain it a little slower here:

#1. You get a temporary 2% reduction (actually, a continuation of the 2% reduction already in place) UNTIL DECEMBER of this year. That 2% extension is for every employee in the country- not just federal workers- it's everyone;


In exchange for that,


#2- YOU get to pay 3.1% HIGHER in FERS TAX EVERY YEAR for the rest of your career. The FERS tax goes from the current 0.8% of your pay, to 4% of your pay. Foever.




That is the deal struck today.

For me, it's about $2,000 this year less in Social Security.

And in exchange for that, I get to pay $3,000 more this year, and $3,000 more next year, and $3K every year for the next decade, at least until I retire. Or $30,000 minimum.


That's not what I would consider "a wash".

If you are going to do me like that, ON VALENTINES DAY, NO LESS, at least you could have bought me dinner first.

I keep saying that if they are going to do the higher FERS thing- it needs to be a part of a bigger deal, one in that the rich also get hit with higher taxes. If everyone is giving up something, I could better take it.

But not this.


This will become known as the VALENTINES DAY MASSACRE for federal employees.

I feel so......so.....soiled.

Yeah I thought it was like that after I posted. Next, high 5or no pension.

Another good to reason to retire if you can.

 

[nasa1974]

Government News, Research and Events for Federal Employees - GovExec.com

Democrats seek to strip retirement provisions from highway bill
GOP wants to break out pension bill as stand-alone legislation after tucking it into transportation funding measure. February 14

 

[clester]

Looks like the current deal now is to raise retirement contributions on new employees only.

 

[Show-me]

Looks like the current deal now is to raise retirement contributions on new employees only.

That would get less opposition and be in line with the change they did to CSRS to FERS. I would think that all federal employee's hired under FERS 1.0 would have grounds for litigation because we were all hired under a specific set of defined benefits and changing the contract is illegal unless they volunteer like the CSRS and FERS change. My point is there is precedent because of the CSRS to FERS change.

 

[Myemal]

Looks like the current deal now is to raise retirement contributions on new employees only.

I wonder what happens if you leave under the old FERS and get rehired...

 

[weatherweenie]

Looks like the current deal now is to raise retirement contributions on new employees only.

Where did you read this?

The reason I ask, this is a hot topic at work. I would like to read it myself, and be able to point people to a source.

Thanks.

 

[Atarrin]

Negotiators reach deal; vote expected soon on $150B economic package - The Washington Post (2nd & 3rd paragraphs):

A key roadblock was overcome when the lawmakers agreed to require new federal workers to contribute more to their pension plans, clearing the way around 12:30 a.m. for a majority of the House-Senate conference committee to begin signing onto the deal.

The pension provision represented a concession to key Maryland Democrats who, even after prodding from President Obama, did not grant their support until current federal workers were shielded from the new pension plan, aides in both parties said.

 

[Show-me]

Sounds like the BHO wanted to throw us under the bus.................................just like the Postal workers.................................I do not trust him at all.