GOP attack FERS

[Bquat]

Ah Ha! government make good choice here and save future costs.

Give extra 1.3 percent instead of 1 percent and put it in tsp.
No 1 percent per year served obligation for your retirement.
You chose wrong trading choices, your fault.
No extra in overhead in managing retirements, it will be handled by TSP or IRAs.
More money in G fund or Roth to borrow short term.

Maybe we'll get one more IFT because of everyone being in TSP, we'll have more power.

 

[alevin]

Ah Ha! government make good choice here and save future costs.

Give extra 1.3 percent instead of 1 percent and put it in tsp.

Maybe we'll get one more IFT because of everyone being in TSP, we'll have more power.

I don't see where you guys are getting this 1.3 figure from. all I see is deletion of 1% annuity for newbies.

As for "power", fuggedaboutit. most TSPers drank the coolaid, thought the multi-IFTers were bad guys, thanks to all the p-poor pr from FRTIB and etc the last go-round. congress-peeps didn't listen either, ask James.

 

[jswright]

1.3% is the approximately contribution made by me and the government for me off my pay stub.

 

[James48843]

1.3% is the approximately contribution made by me and the government for me off my pay stub.

No, you are not correct.
If you are seeing 1.3%, I think you may be a law enforcement person who pays slightly more into the system.

The rest of us pay 0.8% into the system, and that does NOT count the employer's share.


FERS works like this:

The employer (Uncle Sam) conteributes 11.5% of your salary to the fund.

You, as an employee, contribute 0.8% to the FERS fund.

The fund then pays you , based on the number of years, ABOUT 1% for each year that you work, UNLESS you retire AFTER age 62. If you retire after age 62, it's 1.1% for each year.

So, for example, if your minimum retirement age is, say 57, and you work 30 years PRIOR to age 57, and retire at age 57, then you'd get 30% of your final 3 years annual pay each year as a FERS retirement.

By law, FERS must calculate each year whether it has or does not have sufficeint funding to pay all anticipated retirement obligations. If it beleives it will be short, it can ask for an INCREASED employee contribution. The FERS system got MORE than 0.8% from employees each year from the time it was established, until about 2004 or so, at which time the fund was determinted to be fully funded, and employee contribution was reduced to 0.8%.

So no, there is no 1.3% number. In order to get the same amount of money back out of a TSP type fund, you'd have to deposit, on the order of the same 11.5% employer share AND a 0.8% employee share, FOR 30 YEARS, in order to pay out 30% of your high-3 salary for the rest of your life.

What the republicans were initially proposing was reducing the amount paid out by FERS to use the high-five rather than the high-three in the calcuation. That would reduce the payout by perhaps 5% for each person, but would have no effect on the fund balance, since the amount going in- the 11.5% employer share, and the 0.8% employee share, would not change.

What Senator Burr is now proposing, is DOING AWAY WITH FERS ALTOGHER, and chopping off that 11.5% employer contribution that Uncle Sam now makes to each employee's FERS account.

That's Burr's proposal.

 

[jpcavin]

Phil emailed me and sent his response (attached)
Not sure if this will work.

ROFLMAO :laugh::laugh:

You win!

 

[burrocrat]

No, you are not correct.
If you are seeing 1.3%, I think you may be a law enforcement person who pays slightly more into the system.

The rest of us pay 0.8% into the system, and that does NOT count the employer's share.


FERS works like this:

The employer (Uncle Sam) conteributes 11.5% of your salary to the fund.

You, as an employee, contribute 0.8% to the FERS fund.

The fund then pays you , based on the number of years, ABOUT 1% for each year that you work, UNLESS you retire AFTER age 62. If you retire after age 62, it's 1.1% for each year.

So, for example, if your minimum retirement age is, say 57, and you work 30 years PRIOR to age 57, and retire at age 57, then you'd get 30% of your final 3 years annual pay each year as a FERS retirement.

By law, FERS must calculate each year whether it has or does not have sufficeint funding to pay all anticipated retirement obligations. If it beleives it will be short, it can ask for an INCREASED employee contribution. The FERS system got MORE than 0.8% from employees each year from the time it was established, until about 2004 or so, at which time the fund was determinted to be fully funded, and employee contribution was reduced to 0.8%.

So no, there is no 1.3% number. In order to get the same amount of money back out of a TSP type fund, you'd have to deposit, on the order of the same 11.5% employer share AND a 0.8% employee share, FOR 30 YEARS, in order to pay out 30% of your high-3 salary for the rest of your life.

What the republicans were initially proposing was reducing the amount paid out by FERS to use the high-five rather than the high-three in the calcuation. That would reduce the payout by perhaps 5% for each person, but would have no effect on the fund balance, since the amount going in- the 11.5% employer share, and the 0.8% employee share, would not change.

What Senator Burr is now proposing, is DOING AWAY WITH FERS ALTOGHER, and chopping off that 11.5% employer contribution that Uncle Sam now makes to each employee's FERS account.

That's Burr's proposal.

well i'll take whatever free money they're handing out now, and then i'll take whatever they want to hand out later, and i'll also keep working for my bread, because that's the best way to get something to eat, plus it's entirely under my control, and there's no complicated formula for that, it just works.

 

[crws]

excellent points.
Thx Allie, James, and FWM for stirring the soup.

 

[nnuut]

By the way CSRS paid 7% of salary, I did it for 34.5 years!

 

[burrocrat]

By the way CSRS paid 7% of salary, I did it for 34.5 years!

you mean 7% x 34.5 yrs = 241.5 percent years? what the heck is all that about? this math stuff gets me all confused.

i hope i get to retire someday.

 

[nnuut]

Just a tiny bit more than .8%.

 

[brooksmd]

Well as I read it, it would only affect those hired after 2012. So who cares? Besides, I'm already getting mine.

 

[Show-me]

Listen to the voice of reason. It's the natural order of things, if the private sector is eliminating private pensions due to a enormous supply of unemployed labor in this country or world wide, Chindia. Remember your lesson in Supply & Demand, pensions were offered decades ago to entice skilled laborers to come to work for XYZ company because of a skilled labor shortage. That is not the case anymore, China, India, Mexico, Brazil, etc.

Why would the private citizen taxpayer want to pay for a much, much, much, better benefit for government employee's than they are getting in the private sector? DUH! And, by the way..................we have a $14,000,000,000,000 debt. HELLLLOOOO!!!!!!

Change is coming you better be on the right side of it. Austerity will be a bit$h when it comes and it will come.

 

[Show-me]

Side note, be very happy with what you have in benefits but keep you mouth shut or you will be a target of hate and envy. This can make your personnel and professional life hell if you anger the wrong citizen.

 

[Show-me]

Change to the Federal retirement system will be coming, bet on it. It is already starting at my work with my Union. My Union officials seem to be seeing the writing on the wall and are making huge concessions to new hires and part time workers. Stay off the radar and do what's good for the Country as a whole, its called SACRIFICE.

 

[FAB1]

"Who cares about anyone else...I got mine...thats all that counts."

I could guess your political affiliation, but Tom asked us to keep things neutral, so I will abide. :blink:

But if you are getting yours than its likely CSRS, which, along with optional TSP since 1987 is one of , if not the best deal around. Congrats.

Wha?? Thats an asshat comment, it isnt Neutral at all because we know where you are coming from Fireweather... sheesh!

 

[FAB1]

Side note, be very happy with what you have in benefits but keep you mouth shut or you will be a target of hate and envy. This can make your personnel and professional life hell if you anger the wrong citizen.

If I say I agree with these posts of yours, think I will be a target??
:blink:

 

[burrocrat]

Change is coming you better be on the right side of it. Austerity will be a bit$h when it comes and it will come.

agree, practice voluntary austerity now, build the skills, they may come in handy later.

ex: buy only store-brands or stuff with an orange sale tag on it for a whole month see how it goes, when you want to get in your car and go somewhere don't go there go outside instead surely you have better things to do, get comfortable with clean and simple not clean and new.

 

[jpcavin]

do what's good for the Country as a whole, its called SACRIFICE.

I really hate to give up any "freebees" but I coudn't agree with you more. Well said. This is not political. I am not a democrat and I am not taking sides when I quote a famous an well respected democrat who said "Ask not what your country can do for you - ask what you can do for your country." John F. Kennedy.
I know many have heard that quotation before but I think few have taken the time to read the entire speech. Everyone should read it sometime in their lifetime.
http://www.famousquotes.me.uk/speeches/John_F_Kennedy/5.htm

 

[James48843]

... Stay off the radar and do what's good for the Country as a whole, its called SACRIFICE.

Riiiiggght.

 

[jpcavin]

Let me just add....
It's a noble idea to ask that everyone do what THEY CAN to do their part. It takes the concensus and unselfish generosity of MOST to make a discernible impact.