-
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!
G
Guest
Guest
imported post
That was what was said about the dividend tax cut.......never pass.
They will be combined onto one bill and be shoved through early next year.
I believe you were one the one that said social insecurity and tax reform were back burner stuff....did not seem that way at the state of the union to me??
Interesting.
MT
That was what was said about the dividend tax cut.......never pass.
They will be combined onto one bill and be shoved through early next year.
I believe you were one the one that said social insecurity and tax reform were back burner stuff....did not seem that way at the state of the union to me??
Interesting.
MT
Mike
Active member
imported post
There is little push to get these things done, except from Bush himself. To get what he wants, he'll have to get his whole party behind him (this is not the case right now), plus he'll have to sway some Democrats. That will be extremely difficult.
It could also be argued credibly that Medicare/medicaid is in far worse financial shape and must be dealt with as well. Democrats are already saying that (in addition to voicing their strong opposition to Bush's plan).
If Bush gets anything close to what he wants through Congress within a year or two, I would be very surprised.
There is little push to get these things done, except from Bush himself. To get what he wants, he'll have to get his whole party behind him (this is not the case right now), plus he'll have to sway some Democrats. That will be extremely difficult.
It could also be argued credibly that Medicare/medicaid is in far worse financial shape and must be dealt with as well. Democrats are already saying that (in addition to voicing their strong opposition to Bush's plan).
If Bush gets anything close to what he wants through Congress within a year or two, I would be very surprised.
G
Guest
Guest
imported post
I must agree with MT on this issue. Personally, I think that Bush misspoke when he said that the Social Security system is broken and needs to be fixed. I think what he really meant to say was that the US Economy is broken and needs to be fixed, and the only place he wants to get the money to fix it is from Social Security.
I must agree with MT on this issue. Personally, I think that Bush misspoke when he said that the Social Security system is broken and needs to be fixed. I think what he really meant to say was that the US Economy is broken and needs to be fixed, and the only place he wants to get the money to fix it is from Social Security.
imported post
saraho wrote:
Mmmm interesting! I think I posted this once before on this but it may be worth repeating. Any system that takes a wage earners top three year average of earnings to decide how much he or she should receive is going to go broke because obviously they did not pay that much in. The only reason I can see doing this is for high wage earners to get a much larger bite of the pie or try to keep Soc. security in tow with inflation. I know a lot of people that are getting closer to retirment that are taking higher paid income jobs for3 years just to get the larger social security checks. Basically you will have a system that young people will have to pay for. Bush is smart. Hisplan, let the younger generation put so much into private account. Guess what? Many will not handle the private account effectively and when Soc Security time comes for that young person he will get his social security cut back due to a private account. Essentially the young adultpays for the system to stay in operation the Bush generation insures a healthy check for that generation and we will be looking for reform again in 20 years.Hint anyone over 55 is not effected he just bought the elder vote and approval ratings up. If you put the 55 year and older and everyone else youngeron a different system say average all their income during their working years, I'll bet you everyone of the Soc. Security checks would be smaller and you would spread the cost to everyone instead of passing it on to your kids. I hope you taught or teachyour kids how to save because no other generation has.
saraho wrote:
Mmmm interesting! I think I posted this once before on this but it may be worth repeating. Any system that takes a wage earners top three year average of earnings to decide how much he or she should receive is going to go broke because obviously they did not pay that much in. The only reason I can see doing this is for high wage earners to get a much larger bite of the pie or try to keep Soc. security in tow with inflation. I know a lot of people that are getting closer to retirment that are taking higher paid income jobs for3 years just to get the larger social security checks. Basically you will have a system that young people will have to pay for. Bush is smart. Hisplan, let the younger generation put so much into private account. Guess what? Many will not handle the private account effectively and when Soc Security time comes for that young person he will get his social security cut back due to a private account. Essentially the young adultpays for the system to stay in operation the Bush generation insures a healthy check for that generation and we will be looking for reform again in 20 years.Hint anyone over 55 is not effected he just bought the elder vote and approval ratings up. If you put the 55 year and older and everyone else youngeron a different system say average all their income during their working years, I'll bet you everyone of the Soc. Security checks would be smaller and you would spread the cost to everyone instead of passing it on to your kids. I hope you taught or teachyour kids how to save because no other generation has.
G
Guest
Guest
imported post
Is TSP the model for the new Social Security system? Without question. Here's an analogy for you SAT buffs....CSRS is to FERS as SocialSecurityis to_____.
Bush issues call to slash spending, create TSP-like retirement system
By Tom Shoop
tshoop@govexec.com
Calling the state of the union "confident and strong," President Bush issued a call Wednesday evening for steep cuts in domestic spending and for the creation of a system of private retirement accounts similar to the federal Thrift Savings Plan within the Social Security program.
"America's prosperity requires restraining the spending appetite of the federal government," Bush said. "I welcome the bipartisan enthusiasm for spending discipline."
Bush promised to send a budget to Congress next week that will hold the growth of discretionary spending below inflation and cut the federal budget deficit in half by 2009.
"My budget substantially reduces or eliminates more than 150 government programs that are not getting results, or duplicate current efforts, or do not fulfill essential priorities," Bush said. "The principle here is clear: A taxpayer dollar must be spent wisely, or not at all."
Based on preliminary figures published by the Office of Management and Budget last year, George Krumbhaar, a longtime congressional staffer now working as a private consultant, projects that more than half of nondefense discretionary programs will see proposed funding cuts in fiscal 2006, nearly double the average in recent years.
The cuts will come on top of a tough fiscal 2005 budget that held government programs outside of homeland security and defense to an average 1 percent increase.
But the administration has had limited success in convincing Congress to eliminate programs it has rated as performing poorly. In the fiscal 2005 omnibus appropriations package passed late last year, Congress funded all but one of 13 programs that President Bush proposed eliminating because OMB evaluators had concluded they were ineffective or could not demonstrate they were achieving intended results. Two of the 13 programs received budget increases.
Only one program the administration had targeted for elimination--a Small Business Administration effort to provide startup companies with technology and reference materials-- actually was canceled. It had received $14 million in fiscal 2004, but earned a "results not demonstrated" rating on OMB's evaluation.
While calling for domestic spending cuts, Bush boasted in his address of recent efforts to beef up federal operations. "We have created a new department of government to defend our homeland, focused the FBI on preventing terrorism, begun to reform our intelligence agencies, broken up terror cells across the country, expanded research on defenses against biological and chemical attack, improved border security, and trained more than a half million first responders," he said.
The president also called in his speech for the creation of private retirement investment accounts under the Social Security program. Such accounts "should be familiar to federal employees, because you already have something similar, called the Thrift Savings Plan, which lets workers deposit a portion of their paychecks into any of five different broadly based investment funds. It is time to extend the same security and choice and ownership to young Americans."
With more than 3 million investors, the TSP is the largest individual-account retirement system in the country, and some say that's proof that an efficient system at least that large is possible. But whether the TSP model could expand successfully to more than 100 million workers remains to be seen.
Is TSP the model for the new Social Security system? Without question. Here's an analogy for you SAT buffs....CSRS is to FERS as SocialSecurityis to_____.
Bush issues call to slash spending, create TSP-like retirement system
By Tom Shoop
tshoop@govexec.com
Calling the state of the union "confident and strong," President Bush issued a call Wednesday evening for steep cuts in domestic spending and for the creation of a system of private retirement accounts similar to the federal Thrift Savings Plan within the Social Security program.
"America's prosperity requires restraining the spending appetite of the federal government," Bush said. "I welcome the bipartisan enthusiasm for spending discipline."
Bush promised to send a budget to Congress next week that will hold the growth of discretionary spending below inflation and cut the federal budget deficit in half by 2009.
"My budget substantially reduces or eliminates more than 150 government programs that are not getting results, or duplicate current efforts, or do not fulfill essential priorities," Bush said. "The principle here is clear: A taxpayer dollar must be spent wisely, or not at all."
Based on preliminary figures published by the Office of Management and Budget last year, George Krumbhaar, a longtime congressional staffer now working as a private consultant, projects that more than half of nondefense discretionary programs will see proposed funding cuts in fiscal 2006, nearly double the average in recent years.
The cuts will come on top of a tough fiscal 2005 budget that held government programs outside of homeland security and defense to an average 1 percent increase.
But the administration has had limited success in convincing Congress to eliminate programs it has rated as performing poorly. In the fiscal 2005 omnibus appropriations package passed late last year, Congress funded all but one of 13 programs that President Bush proposed eliminating because OMB evaluators had concluded they were ineffective or could not demonstrate they were achieving intended results. Two of the 13 programs received budget increases.
Only one program the administration had targeted for elimination--a Small Business Administration effort to provide startup companies with technology and reference materials-- actually was canceled. It had received $14 million in fiscal 2004, but earned a "results not demonstrated" rating on OMB's evaluation.
While calling for domestic spending cuts, Bush boasted in his address of recent efforts to beef up federal operations. "We have created a new department of government to defend our homeland, focused the FBI on preventing terrorism, begun to reform our intelligence agencies, broken up terror cells across the country, expanded research on defenses against biological and chemical attack, improved border security, and trained more than a half million first responders," he said.
The president also called in his speech for the creation of private retirement investment accounts under the Social Security program. Such accounts "should be familiar to federal employees, because you already have something similar, called the Thrift Savings Plan, which lets workers deposit a portion of their paychecks into any of five different broadly based investment funds. It is time to extend the same security and choice and ownership to young Americans."
With more than 3 million investors, the TSP is the largest individual-account retirement system in the country, and some say that's proof that an efficient system at least that large is possible. But whether the TSP model could expand successfully to more than 100 million workers remains to be seen.
G
Guest
Guest
imported post
Sarah,
Thanks...the only one that will gain will be the fund houses that will SKIM 1% off the top if the market goes up or down. You can put 2% in your "private account" and the investment "Gods" will take 1%.
Everything is geared towards corporations and the rich...the poor and middle class like us are the ones that are going to get hurt.
If you opt out your employeer will not have to match 6.2% anymore...great for the corporate bottom line...but a -100% down for you right away. The market is going no where until at least 2015 by my measures....so those retiring prior to then are going to be laying in the sandbox with the cat covering them up....
You may think I am a jerk...but I know what the heck is going on. I am a big picture kind of guy.
God bless.
MT
Sarah,
Thanks...the only one that will gain will be the fund houses that will SKIM 1% off the top if the market goes up or down. You can put 2% in your "private account" and the investment "Gods" will take 1%.
Everything is geared towards corporations and the rich...the poor and middle class like us are the ones that are going to get hurt.
If you opt out your employeer will not have to match 6.2% anymore...great for the corporate bottom line...but a -100% down for you right away. The market is going no where until at least 2015 by my measures....so those retiring prior to then are going to be laying in the sandbox with the cat covering them up....
You may think I am a jerk...but I know what the heck is going on. I am a big picture kind of guy.
God bless.
MT
G
Guest
Guest
imported post
saraho wrote:
(1) Raise tax limit from 90K to 110K that would add 50 years until social security runs out.
(2) Get rid of the tax limited and social security will never run out.
(3) Raise the minimum retirement age for people under 30 from 65 to 68 and that will add 190 years until social security will run out.
Private accounts is not going to work....have you heard the term...opted out? Well if you opt out and go with the private account that is all you are going to have.
Whatever you do...DO NOT opt out.
Good luck out there!
MT
saraho wrote:
Three things that can be done right now to fix the system:
(1) Raise tax limit from 90K to 110K that would add 50 years until social security runs out.
(2) Get rid of the tax limited and social security will never run out.
(3) Raise the minimum retirement age for people under 30 from 65 to 68 and that will add 190 years until social security will run out.
Private accounts is not going to work....have you heard the term...opted out? Well if you opt out and go with the private account that is all you are going to have.
Whatever you do...DO NOT opt out.
Good luck out there!
MT
imported post
saraho wrote:
It's the answer if your the government. Why because we can trash a system that is not working and shift burden and privatize it. Whats stopping the government once we privatize all these checks not to tax it higher in the future when you pull it out. When you pull your TSP out, you will pay taxes on it.This is just a thought but maybe now is the time to tell your kids not to use a TSP system and to pay the taxes then stick it in a account because 40 years from now he won't have Uncle Sam to pay tax to when the rate is possibly higher like all of us will in the TSP.
saraho wrote:
Is TSP the model for the new Social Security system? Without question. Here's an analogy for you SAT buffs....CSRS is to FERS as SocialSecurityis to_____.
Bush issues call to slash spending, create TSP-like retirement system
By Tom Shoop
tshoop@govexec.com
Calling the state of the union "confident and strong," President Bush issued a call Wednesday evening for steep cuts in domestic spending and for the creation of a system of private retirement accounts similar to the federal Thrift Savings Plan within the Social Security program.
"America's prosperity requires restraining the spending appetite of the federal government," Bush said. "I welcome the bipartisan enthusiasm for spending discipline."
Bush promised to send a budget to Congress next week that will hold the growth of discretionary spending below inflation and cut the federal budget deficit in half by 2009.
"My budget substantially reduces or eliminates more than 150 government programs that are not getting results, or duplicate current efforts, or do not fulfill essential priorities," Bush said. "The principle here is clear: A taxpayer dollar must be spent wisely, or not at all."
Based on preliminary figures published by the Office of Management and Budget last year, George Krumbhaar, a longtime congressional staffer now working as a private consultant, projects that more than half of nondefense discretionary programs will see proposed funding cuts in fiscal 2006, nearly double the average in recent years.
The cuts will come on top of a tough fiscal 2005 budget that held government programs outside of homeland security and defense to an average 1 percent increase.
But the administration has had limited success in convincing Congress to eliminate programs it has rated as performing poorly. In the fiscal 2005 omnibus appropriations package passed late last year, Congress funded all but one of 13 programs that President Bush proposed eliminating because OMB evaluators had concluded they were ineffective or could not demonstrate they were achieving intended results. Two of the 13 programs received budget increases.
Only one program the administration had targeted for elimination--a Small Business Administration effort to provide startup companies with technology and reference materials-- actually was canceled. It had received $14 million in fiscal 2004, but earned a "results not demonstrated" rating on OMB's evaluation.
While calling for domestic spending cuts, Bush boasted in his address of recent efforts to beef up federal operations. "We have created a new department of government to defend our homeland, focused the FBI on preventing terrorism, begun to reform our intelligence agencies, broken up terror cells across the country, expanded research on defenses against biological and chemical attack, improved border security, and trained more than a half million first responders," he said.
The president also called in his speech for the creation of private retirement investment accounts under the Social Security program. Such accounts "should be familiar to federal employees, because you already have something similar, called the Thrift Savings Plan, which lets workers deposit a portion of their paychecks into any of five different broadly based investment funds. It is time to extend the same security and choice and ownership to young Americans."
With more than 3 million investors, the TSP is the largest individual-account retirement system in the country, and some say that's proof that an efficient system at least that large is possible. But whether the TSP model could expand successfully to more than 100 million workers remains to be seen.
It's the answer if your the government. Why because we can trash a system that is not working and shift burden and privatize it. Whats stopping the government once we privatize all these checks not to tax it higher in the future when you pull it out. When you pull your TSP out, you will pay taxes on it.This is just a thought but maybe now is the time to tell your kids not to use a TSP system and to pay the taxes then stick it in a account because 40 years from now he won't have Uncle Sam to pay tax to when the rate is possibly higher like all of us will in the TSP.
G
Guest
Guest
imported post
The system would work great if the governement did not take money out of the lock box.
The medicare disaster passed last year is going to cost mega bucks and they are trying to figure out how to pay for it.
Not sure who someone can stand in front of you and say opt out and get a private account....when you opt out...all money you have put on the table to date will be left behind, you will not get the 6.2% employeer match and you will have to go long the stock market and pray it goes up and we never have another bear market until you retire....however the rich will be able to put 4% on anything they make to their "tax free" private account....meaning that is a good way around the death tax.
Remember this administration is only taking care of corporations and the rich. Once you can see that you will understand what is going on.
Good luck Tspers.
MT
The system would work great if the governement did not take money out of the lock box.
The medicare disaster passed last year is going to cost mega bucks and they are trying to figure out how to pay for it.
Not sure who someone can stand in front of you and say opt out and get a private account....when you opt out...all money you have put on the table to date will be left behind, you will not get the 6.2% employeer match and you will have to go long the stock market and pray it goes up and we never have another bear market until you retire....however the rich will be able to put 4% on anything they make to their "tax free" private account....meaning that is a good way around the death tax.
Remember this administration is only taking care of corporations and the rich. Once you can see that you will understand what is going on.
Good luck Tspers.
MT
G
Guest
Guest
imported post
cowboy wrote:
Once upon a time, there was a Federal pension system (CSRS). My understanding is that the system was considered one of the few "perks" available to federal employees, and was one of the attractions of federal employment. However, President Reagan, in an effort to reduce thefederal deficit,announced that the system was broken and that he would fix it. The result was FERS, whichreplaced the pension system with a much smaller benefit package, consisting of aconsiderably smaller pension, a few social security benefits, and the TSP. The TSPbecame the primary aspect of the new system, which saved the Federal government many millions of dollars.
Now President Bush has announced that Social Security is broken and he will fix it, in a similar manner. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to see what is coming down the turnpike or the purpose of the announcement.
cowboy wrote:
Cowboy,
Once upon a time, there was a Federal pension system (CSRS). My understanding is that the system was considered one of the few "perks" available to federal employees, and was one of the attractions of federal employment. However, President Reagan, in an effort to reduce thefederal deficit,announced that the system was broken and that he would fix it. The result was FERS, whichreplaced the pension system with a much smaller benefit package, consisting of aconsiderably smaller pension, a few social security benefits, and the TSP. The TSPbecame the primary aspect of the new system, which saved the Federal government many millions of dollars.
Now President Bush has announced that Social Security is broken and he will fix it, in a similar manner. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to see what is coming down the turnpike or the purpose of the announcement.
G
Guest
Guest
imported post
Social Security may be the mother of all pyramid schemes. It had to eventually implode under it's own weight, as any scheme like this does. It just played out over enough years most people didn't pay attention to what was going on. In fact, many actually beleived that they had an account into whichtheir contributions were deposited.
I prefer to be FERS instead of CSRS, as I have the oppourtunity to make a far better retirement than what I would have earned as a CSRS retiree. If under a new Social Security System I can take 4% and invest as I do with TSP, I calculated that I may double what would be available under the present system, plus a reduced SS check to boot. Even with a tax of some kind, I think I would come out far ahead.
I doubt that the government can manage my finances better than I can. I would actually prefer that the Social Security system be phased out entirely, and replaced with individual retirement accounts, as the system should have been from the outset.
What if all Americans had a TSP account, and they only invested in the G fund, paying only 3.5% to 4%, and still were compelled to contribute 7.5%.? How strong a retirement program that would be!
Social Security may be the mother of all pyramid schemes. It had to eventually implode under it's own weight, as any scheme like this does. It just played out over enough years most people didn't pay attention to what was going on. In fact, many actually beleived that they had an account into whichtheir contributions were deposited.
I prefer to be FERS instead of CSRS, as I have the oppourtunity to make a far better retirement than what I would have earned as a CSRS retiree. If under a new Social Security System I can take 4% and invest as I do with TSP, I calculated that I may double what would be available under the present system, plus a reduced SS check to boot. Even with a tax of some kind, I think I would come out far ahead.
I doubt that the government can manage my finances better than I can. I would actually prefer that the Social Security system be phased out entirely, and replaced with individual retirement accounts, as the system should have been from the outset.
What if all Americans had a TSP account, and they only invested in the G fund, paying only 3.5% to 4%, and still were compelled to contribute 7.5%.? How strong a retirement program that would be!
G
Guest
Guest
imported post
Chaplain wrote:
With FERS you receive less money from the government for your pension, but greater flexibility....that means, as you say, that you might do far better with your pension, if the markets perform as you expect. Of course, there is always the possibility (remote, as it might seem) that you will do far worse. But the bottom line is that you are getting less money from the government for your pension.
Now lets think about those millions out there who lose Social Security and instead have to decide each day what % they should put in the C fund that day. And what happens to those who choose incorrectly and lose their pensions? Who will assist them? DING DING DING...I bet I know. The American people. We pay again.
Chaplain wrote:
What if I told you that Social Security is currently solvent? Sounds to me like you would still wish to abolish it.
With FERS you receive less money from the government for your pension, but greater flexibility....that means, as you say, that you might do far better with your pension, if the markets perform as you expect. Of course, there is always the possibility (remote, as it might seem) that you will do far worse. But the bottom line is that you are getting less money from the government for your pension.
Now lets think about those millions out there who lose Social Security and instead have to decide each day what % they should put in the C fund that day. And what happens to those who choose incorrectly and lose their pensions? Who will assist them? DING DING DING...I bet I know. The American people. We pay again.
G
Guest
Guest
imported post
Saraho,
Alas, you may be right. However, the poor will always be with us. That's where personal charity comes in, with personal accountability.
While I agree that SS is still solvent in theory, the IOU debt to SS will incur tremendous tax increase to satisfy what has been borrowed out. More taxes, slower economy, less tax revenue, you know the rest of the story.
Let's cut our losses, and empower the individual and wean the public off this entitlement. Or, agree that the SS trust must be placed in bonds at 3-4%, and fund the program (Al Gore's Lock Box?), and do all the other things, i.e. index to inflation rather than wages, eliminate the income ceiling so all earned income is taxed, means test , etc.
Maybe we could reduce the tax burden, and still have a better system. Either way, I could get some percents back in my account, and not feel that I and my children are going to be cheated.
Just to ponder, how many of us will buy the TSP annuity upon retirement? I would guess most of us will either continue to manage our fundsin TSP or roll it over into some kind of other retirement fund. Of course we do not want to donate the unused balance to the kitty (annuity plan) , but rather pass it on to other (family, friends, etc.)
How about a SS system where those who want to participate opt in and pay accordingly? How about everyone else kicks in a couple %, just for the sake of generosity and the public welfare? Still a better option, I think.
As it is, each of us contribute 14% (counting employers contribution that would otherwise be wages). That 14% in anyone's account at 2% over the course of a career would be phenomenal. I know we are now stuck with this program, and to make such a radical shift would never again be possible due to the tremendous debt load that would be needed, (sigh).
Wow, that was more opinion than most would be interested in reading, and for those who were mistakenly drawn in, my apologies.
And to Saraho, your insight and reasoning are stimulating and thought provoking. If only those on the Hill would engage in this level of discourse
.
Peace,
Saraho,
Alas, you may be right. However, the poor will always be with us. That's where personal charity comes in, with personal accountability.
While I agree that SS is still solvent in theory, the IOU debt to SS will incur tremendous tax increase to satisfy what has been borrowed out. More taxes, slower economy, less tax revenue, you know the rest of the story.
Let's cut our losses, and empower the individual and wean the public off this entitlement. Or, agree that the SS trust must be placed in bonds at 3-4%, and fund the program (Al Gore's Lock Box?), and do all the other things, i.e. index to inflation rather than wages, eliminate the income ceiling so all earned income is taxed, means test , etc.
Maybe we could reduce the tax burden, and still have a better system. Either way, I could get some percents back in my account, and not feel that I and my children are going to be cheated.
Just to ponder, how many of us will buy the TSP annuity upon retirement? I would guess most of us will either continue to manage our fundsin TSP or roll it over into some kind of other retirement fund. Of course we do not want to donate the unused balance to the kitty (annuity plan) , but rather pass it on to other (family, friends, etc.)
How about a SS system where those who want to participate opt in and pay accordingly? How about everyone else kicks in a couple %, just for the sake of generosity and the public welfare? Still a better option, I think.
As it is, each of us contribute 14% (counting employers contribution that would otherwise be wages). That 14% in anyone's account at 2% over the course of a career would be phenomenal. I know we are now stuck with this program, and to make such a radical shift would never again be possible due to the tremendous debt load that would be needed, (sigh).
Wow, that was more opinion than most would be interested in reading, and for those who were mistakenly drawn in, my apologies.
And to Saraho, your insight and reasoning are stimulating and thought provoking. If only those on the Hill would engage in this level of discourse
.Peace,
imported post
I take it from your posts that we are agreeing on this, am I right Saraho. You have to realize I am male and maybe not the brightest person. You seem to be a history type person. I like history myself. When the Social Security system was developed it was not for retirement our politians did that later. It was developed to help families that lost their bread earner. Our congress, just started using it as a pork, and most of them can't save and being greedy everyone fell for it. For every one or 2 savers there is 8 - 9 spenders thats why 80% of the elderly are poor. They will never save, and never plan to save, but when it comes to supporting them in their elder years they expectyou and Ito do it.
LOL Chaplain hate to see you go through all the strain and I agree with you 100% but you bring up another good point. Our politicians come up with all these great ideas but looking at the income ceiling has never been one. I wonder why? They sure want to use this system in all the wrong ways but raising the income ceiling so it would support the system is not one of them. What's really sad is you and I and everyone else are stuck into this system and they squandered it andwe now havea retirment system that is trying to use SS as a actual benefit.
I take it from your posts that we are agreeing on this, am I right Saraho. You have to realize I am male and maybe not the brightest person. You seem to be a history type person. I like history myself. When the Social Security system was developed it was not for retirement our politians did that later. It was developed to help families that lost their bread earner. Our congress, just started using it as a pork, and most of them can't save and being greedy everyone fell for it. For every one or 2 savers there is 8 - 9 spenders thats why 80% of the elderly are poor. They will never save, and never plan to save, but when it comes to supporting them in their elder years they expectyou and Ito do it.
LOL Chaplain hate to see you go through all the strain and I agree with you 100% but you bring up another good point. Our politicians come up with all these great ideas but looking at the income ceiling has never been one. I wonder why? They sure want to use this system in all the wrong ways but raising the income ceiling so it would support the system is not one of them. What's really sad is you and I and everyone else are stuck into this system and they squandered it andwe now havea retirment system that is trying to use SS as a actual benefit.
Show-me
Well-known member
imported post
Under CSRS if you reach MRA with 32 years service you get 60% of your high three. You don’t get to draw SS. But, check this out.[/b]
[/b]
I use the TSP Calculator on the TSP site to do this so it pretty basic.[/b]
[/b]
Saving 9% per paycheck.[/b]
High three $50,000.[/b]
Using 8% interest.[/b]
With 32 years service.[/b]
[/b]
CSRS- $666,426 in the TSP with $30,000 annual retirement from Agency no Social Security.[/b]
[/b]
FERS- $1,036,633 in the TSP with $16,000 annual retirement from Agency plus Social Security if it’s there when you turn 62 or is it 67.[/b]
[/b]
I’m loosing out on my SS until I’m 67 under FERS, if it is still there and they don’t raise the age on me again. I get it immediately under CSRS. I may be dead by 67 and plan on retiring at 57.[/b]
[/b]
I would have rather been under CSRS plus continue to max out CSRS at 9% and put additional money into a ROTH. [/b]
Under CSRS I am guaranteed $30,000 at age 57 even if I don’t invest a single dime of my own money.[/b]
Under FERS I am guaranteed $16,000 at age 57 and a hefty Social Security check at age 67. WOW! Something doesn’t seem write there.[/b]
[/b]
IMHO, we got screwed.[/b]
Under CSRS if you reach MRA with 32 years service you get 60% of your high three. You don’t get to draw SS. But, check this out.[/b]
[/b]
I use the TSP Calculator on the TSP site to do this so it pretty basic.[/b]
[/b]
Saving 9% per paycheck.[/b]
High three $50,000.[/b]
Using 8% interest.[/b]
With 32 years service.[/b]
[/b]
CSRS- $666,426 in the TSP with $30,000 annual retirement from Agency no Social Security.[/b]
[/b]
FERS- $1,036,633 in the TSP with $16,000 annual retirement from Agency plus Social Security if it’s there when you turn 62 or is it 67.[/b]
[/b]
I’m loosing out on my SS until I’m 67 under FERS, if it is still there and they don’t raise the age on me again. I get it immediately under CSRS. I may be dead by 67 and plan on retiring at 57.[/b]
[/b]
I would have rather been under CSRS plus continue to max out CSRS at 9% and put additional money into a ROTH. [/b]
Under CSRS I am guaranteed $30,000 at age 57 even if I don’t invest a single dime of my own money.[/b]
Under FERS I am guaranteed $16,000 at age 57 and a hefty Social Security check at age 67. WOW! Something doesn’t seem write there.[/b]
[/b]
IMHO, we got screwed.[/b]
Mike
Active member
imported post
Under CSRS, the taxpayers got screwed at the expense of federal largesse. $30k annually even if you don't invest anything? No such thing as a free lunch - that $30k came from somewhere, i.e. the federal treasury.
I don't like the social security system and never have. However, due to the creation of the dependent class, we are stuck with it, since switching to something else would cost a ton of money - which is too much even for this debt-happy administration.
I am strongly in favor of private accounts. The only problem is they won't let us use the whole amount of FICA tax - just some paltry percentage of it (if they gave me the whole 13-14% to play with, I guarantee I would outperform SS's projected payments to me in retirement even if the system remained fully funded). The rest just gets "donated" into the system. Even worse, they want to limit our investment options ala the TSP. This makes it impossible to make much of anything when the market has its down years. The least they could do is add an inverse fund for bear markets. Of course, this is all in line with government thinking that we individuals are too stupid and irresponsible to manage our own finances. Sadly, this thinking is true for the most part as illustrated by the average consumer debt load + paltry savings rates.
I still don't think any significant reform will get through this Congress. The GOP needs to pick up several more Senate seats and get total party unity to have any shot at getting what Bush wants. Prediction: you'll see some small incremental changes. The retirement age will climb (easiest one to pass through Congress), and we might even see a rise in the income ceiling for FICA taxes. The Dems are pretty much universally opposed to private accounts, so I don't see those getting through. The Senate Dems will block via filibuster if it gets that far.
Under CSRS, the taxpayers got screwed at the expense of federal largesse. $30k annually even if you don't invest anything? No such thing as a free lunch - that $30k came from somewhere, i.e. the federal treasury.
I don't like the social security system and never have. However, due to the creation of the dependent class, we are stuck with it, since switching to something else would cost a ton of money - which is too much even for this debt-happy administration.
I am strongly in favor of private accounts. The only problem is they won't let us use the whole amount of FICA tax - just some paltry percentage of it (if they gave me the whole 13-14% to play with, I guarantee I would outperform SS's projected payments to me in retirement even if the system remained fully funded). The rest just gets "donated" into the system. Even worse, they want to limit our investment options ala the TSP. This makes it impossible to make much of anything when the market has its down years. The least they could do is add an inverse fund for bear markets. Of course, this is all in line with government thinking that we individuals are too stupid and irresponsible to manage our own finances. Sadly, this thinking is true for the most part as illustrated by the average consumer debt load + paltry savings rates.
I still don't think any significant reform will get through this Congress. The GOP needs to pick up several more Senate seats and get total party unity to have any shot at getting what Bush wants. Prediction: you'll see some small incremental changes. The retirement age will climb (easiest one to pass through Congress), and we might even see a rise in the income ceiling for FICA taxes. The Dems are pretty much universally opposed to private accounts, so I don't see those getting through. The Senate Dems will block via filibuster if it gets that far.
G
Guest
Guest
imported post
It is 12.4% and if you opt your employeer will not be on the hook for their 6.2% match...hey that is great for corporate bottom lines....
4% into private account then you have to pay a 1% management fee....ya that will work out great!!!! I support it also because that is a boon those those invesment houses.
Question? With all the mutual fund scandals, etc....do you really feel good about hoping and praying the market will go up????
And yes that market will move sideways until 2015....the market move sideways for 23 or 25 years after it crossed 1000...decade sideway moves is very normal.
Stay long!
MT
It is 12.4% and if you opt your employeer will not be on the hook for their 6.2% match...hey that is great for corporate bottom lines....
4% into private account then you have to pay a 1% management fee....ya that will work out great!!!! I support it also because that is a boon those those invesment houses.
Question? With all the mutual fund scandals, etc....do you really feel good about hoping and praying the market will go up????
And yes that market will move sideways until 2015....the market move sideways for 23 or 25 years after it crossed 1000...decade sideway moves is very normal.
Stay long!
MT
Show-me
Well-known member
imported post
I should have clarified that I am in the USPS and they have fully funded the USPS CSRS thru stamp sales. ( By accident they over funded it and the Treasury won’t give it back.) In theory we are a “non-for-profit company” that has a service and product funded retirement plan. (OK everyone can stop laughing now.)
[align=center][/i][/align]
“Under CSRS, the taxpayers got screwed at the expense of federal largesse. $30k annually even if you don't invest anything? No such thing as a free lunch - that $30k came from somewhere, i.e. the federal treasury.”[/i]
That’s very noble Mike, but are the taxpayers getting screwed every time the politicians vote for there own benefit and pay raises. It’s sad how they are willing to cut everyone’s pay, retirement, and benefit packages for the “good of the country” but not their own. Also did they not give the entire Federal Gov. a 3.5% pay raise recently after starting two expensive wars and cutting taxes? Also did they not recently raise the pay of the President? LEAD BY EXAMPLE! That just does not seem right to me. I still remember when Bush got elected and sent everyone a tax rebate. Can we say disposable income? Where did the money go? Did it really help the economy? Or was it a way to get a tax cut thru? I love to get my money back. But, are we paying a bigger price in the long run?
I guess were I’m coming from is more fiscal responsibility. I am willing to bite the bullet a few years if they are serious about paying down the debt and buying back all those IOU’s. We know that won’t happen.
I still think CSRS was a better “retirement plan”.[/b]
I should have clarified that I am in the USPS and they have fully funded the USPS CSRS thru stamp sales. ( By accident they over funded it and the Treasury won’t give it back.) In theory we are a “non-for-profit company” that has a service and product funded retirement plan. (OK everyone can stop laughing now.)
[align=center][/i][/align]
“Under CSRS, the taxpayers got screwed at the expense of federal largesse. $30k annually even if you don't invest anything? No such thing as a free lunch - that $30k came from somewhere, i.e. the federal treasury.”[/i]
That’s very noble Mike, but are the taxpayers getting screwed every time the politicians vote for there own benefit and pay raises. It’s sad how they are willing to cut everyone’s pay, retirement, and benefit packages for the “good of the country” but not their own. Also did they not give the entire Federal Gov. a 3.5% pay raise recently after starting two expensive wars and cutting taxes? Also did they not recently raise the pay of the President? LEAD BY EXAMPLE! That just does not seem right to me. I still remember when Bush got elected and sent everyone a tax rebate. Can we say disposable income? Where did the money go? Did it really help the economy? Or was it a way to get a tax cut thru? I love to get my money back. But, are we paying a bigger price in the long run?
I guess were I’m coming from is more fiscal responsibility. I am willing to bite the bullet a few years if they are serious about paying down the debt and buying back all those IOU’s. We know that won’t happen.
I still think CSRS was a better “retirement plan”.[/b]
Mike
Active member
imported post
We'll all be biting the bullet through a weaker dollar because of fiscal stupidity. We definitely need to contain federal spending (not to mention state and local!). That medicare add-on put us on the hook for a lot of money. Iraq and Afghanistan have cost a large amount as well. Although I guess one could argue China, Japan, et al. are really the ones paying for all this... at least for the time being.
The salary of the president was raised because Congressional pay was coming close to it - and we all know a member of Congress has far less responsibility than the president does. I think they're all overpaid based on the perks they get on the job and after, but what do I know...
MT, if they make the private accounts a TSP system, management fees will only be 0.1%. If they turn us loose and let us use scottrade or something like that, then the fee will ultimately hinge on the individual investor. Based on past government behavior, I don't see this happening (they think we're all idiots). In any event, I don't see us getting privatization anytime soon - even as an option.
We'll all be biting the bullet through a weaker dollar because of fiscal stupidity. We definitely need to contain federal spending (not to mention state and local!). That medicare add-on put us on the hook for a lot of money. Iraq and Afghanistan have cost a large amount as well. Although I guess one could argue China, Japan, et al. are really the ones paying for all this... at least for the time being.
The salary of the president was raised because Congressional pay was coming close to it - and we all know a member of Congress has far less responsibility than the president does. I think they're all overpaid based on the perks they get on the job and after, but what do I know...
MT, if they make the private accounts a TSP system, management fees will only be 0.1%. If they turn us loose and let us use scottrade or something like that, then the fee will ultimately hinge on the individual investor. Based on past government behavior, I don't see this happening (they think we're all idiots). In any event, I don't see us getting privatization anytime soon - even as an option.
Similar threads
- Article
- Article