Lakebound
Member
I didn't see any connection to H.R. 2146 in that article. Could you help us connect the dots to what you posted please?
Frank
-
Welcome to the TSP Talk Forums forums.
You are currently viewing our boards as a guest which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our free community you will have access to post topics, communicate privately with other members (PM), respond to polls, upload content, join our AutoTracker, and access many other special features. Registration is simple and absolutely free so please, join our community today!
If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact us. -
Please read our AutoTracker policy on the IFT deadline and remaining active. Thanks!
-
$ - 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!
House set to vote on easing TSP early withdrawal penalty
- Thread starter Itchn2retire
- Start date
I didn't see any connection to H.R. 2146 in that article. Could you help us connect the dots to what you posted please?
Frank
From the article...
The legislation being eyed as the vehicle for the new strategy is a public-safety retirement measure, H.R. 2146, sponsored by Representative Dave Reichert, a Washington Republican.Reichert, in an interview Tuesday, confirmed that leaders were talking about using his bill, which passed the House 407-5 on May 12 and the Senate by voice vote on June 4. He said a final decision hadn’t been made.
“It’s a revenue bill and it’s already been passed by the Senate,” Reichert said. “They told me that’s the kind of legislation they are looking for.”
He said one reason is that such a bill couldn’t have other Senate amendments attached to it.
Last edited:
ATCJeff
Well-known member
Update HR 2146:
[h=3]GovTrack’s Bill Summary[/h]This bill became the vehicle for passage of Trade Promotion Authority (TPA) for the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) trade deal currently being negotiated. The bill was originally introduced as a bill to address issues with retirement funds of federal law enforcement officers and firefighters. On June 18, the House added TPA to the end of this bill and passed both components together, sending the bill to the Senate.
The addition of TPA to this bill followed a failed attempt to pass the Trade Act, H.R. 1314, a bill that combined TPA with Trade Adjustment Assistance (TAA). Although the Senate passed the Trade Act, the House only passed the TPA portion, while the TAA portion failed. This bill, H.R. 2146, includes only the TPA portion of the Trade Act. For more on TPA and TAA, see our summary of the Trade Act. (Note that H.R. 1314 was itself originally introduced regarding an unrelated matter and became the vehicle for the ultimately failed passage of the Trade Act.)
What follows is our original summary of this bill, H.R. 2146. The provisions that the summary below refers to remain in the bill.
The Defending Public Safety Employees' Retirement Act would allow retired federal law enforcement officers and firefighters over the age of 50 and with 20 years of service to withdraw money from their retirement funds without any tax penalty. Typically there is a 10 percent tax penalty on retirement funds withdrawn before the age of 59½. In his press release following the bill’s passage through the House, sponsor Rep. Dave Reichert (R-WA8) said that since law enforcement officers and firefighters are able to retire at the age of 50 after 20 years of service they should be exempt from the 10 percent tax penalty. The bill was passed by the Senate with an amendment changing the effective date from December 31, 2014 to December 31, 2015. It now awaits House approval of the amendment.
[h=3]GovTrack’s Bill Summary[/h]This bill became the vehicle for passage of Trade Promotion Authority (TPA) for the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) trade deal currently being negotiated. The bill was originally introduced as a bill to address issues with retirement funds of federal law enforcement officers and firefighters. On June 18, the House added TPA to the end of this bill and passed both components together, sending the bill to the Senate.
The addition of TPA to this bill followed a failed attempt to pass the Trade Act, H.R. 1314, a bill that combined TPA with Trade Adjustment Assistance (TAA). Although the Senate passed the Trade Act, the House only passed the TPA portion, while the TAA portion failed. This bill, H.R. 2146, includes only the TPA portion of the Trade Act. For more on TPA and TAA, see our summary of the Trade Act. (Note that H.R. 1314 was itself originally introduced regarding an unrelated matter and became the vehicle for the ultimately failed passage of the Trade Act.)
What follows is our original summary of this bill, H.R. 2146. The provisions that the summary below refers to remain in the bill.
The Defending Public Safety Employees' Retirement Act would allow retired federal law enforcement officers and firefighters over the age of 50 and with 20 years of service to withdraw money from their retirement funds without any tax penalty. Typically there is a 10 percent tax penalty on retirement funds withdrawn before the age of 59½. In his press release following the bill’s passage through the House, sponsor Rep. Dave Reichert (R-WA8) said that since law enforcement officers and firefighters are able to retire at the age of 50 after 20 years of service they should be exempt from the 10 percent tax penalty. The bill was passed by the Senate with an amendment changing the effective date from December 31, 2014 to December 31, 2015. It now awaits House approval of the amendment.
PessOptimist
Well-known member
Good catch ATCJeff. Our legislative types do this all the time. If necessary they will rip out the parts about LE types getting tax relief for TSP withdrawals, leave the title intact and put whatever they want in the text. All perfectly legal they say. Then they go on record as having voted for the title while most citizens do not read what the bill actually makes public law.
PO
PO
Y2KBug
Member
So this has gone to the President, has anybody heard what the likelihood is of him signing it?? If so, my next question (Since I'm a retired LEO) is will TSP let me change my withdrawl choice, since I didn't want the penalty and took the Life Expectancy option. Maybe I would have done it differently, if I had no penalty to pay. ANy thoughts?
FogSailing
Well-known member
Haven't read the bill but it would need a grandfather clause to address prior actions of retirees. Good luck. Sometimes they include them.
FS
FS
Lakebound
Member
I believe it will for those who retired at 50. We'll see. All I know is that I am stoked about my retirement now more than ever!
Frank
Sent from my XT1080 using Tapatalk
ATCJeff
Well-known member
Y2KBug
Member
So, I wrote TSP an email and asked if they would let me reconsider my withdrawl option since the new law passed, they said NO. They did say I could change from "Life expectancy" monthly Payments, to "Fixed" monthly payments, but then I can't change back to "Life expectancy" once I've left that... BUMMER..
Similar threads
