High 3 vs. High 5

General TSP Discussion.

Moderator: Aitrus

User avatar
ArrieS
Posts: 1072
Joined: Sun Aug 05, 2012 10:56 am

Re: High 3 vs. High 5

Post by ArrieS »

SnareMV17 wrote:The government does not exist to shower federal employees with never ending benefits. Our country is in trouble and changes need to be made.


You're right. They could save a little by firing you. You're cool with that right?
OCTOBER: This is one of the peculiarly dangerous months to speculate in stocks in. The others are July, January, September, April, November, May, March, June, December, August, and February. - Pudd'nhead Wilson's Calendar

User avatar
Five-O
Posts: 19
Joined: Mon Dec 12, 2016 8:11 pm

Re: High 3 vs. High 5

Post by Five-O »

The government made a promise and now they're saying, sorry...we lied again.

XavaX
Posts: 10
Joined: Fri Jan 27, 2017 10:10 pm

Re: High 3 vs. High 5

Post by XavaX »

Agree.

User avatar
Trumper1
Posts: 11
Joined: Mon Dec 19, 2016 12:58 am

Re: High 3 vs. High 5

Post by Trumper1 »

SnareMV17 wrote:Why should I go out and contact all of my representatives over this? Shouldn't the government be cutting spending? While congressmen tend to be pretty horrible, I don't see how this particular issue makes them all a bunch of idiots. The government does not exist to shower federal employees with never ending benefits. Our country is in trouble and changes need to be made.


Because there are a multitude of other cuts to the budget that are far more deserving of the axe than to keep trying to screw us feds.

Duval
Posts: 19
Joined: Mon Dec 19, 2016 1:12 am

Re: High 3 vs. High 5

Post by Duval »

Well said.

phalanx
Posts: 42
Joined: Thu Aug 06, 2015 5:24 pm

Re: High 3 vs. High 5

Post by phalanx »

Number of problems...I agree that budgets need cut big time and have for many years. The problems I have are:
1) federal employee benefits and pay raises are always first on the list when they amount to almost nothing as far as savings to the government in the bigger scheme of things. There are a thousand other things that could be cut first that would save the government real money before getting into federal employee pay and benefits cuts.
2) you can't change the rules after everyone agreed to them. Any changes for the worst can (or should) ONLY apply to people hired AFTER the changes are made. There are tons of us who would've gone to the contracting world and made exponentially more money if we knew our pension and benefits would be whittled away by the time we retire. It's not fair.
3) going after gov employee benefits shows weak and horrible leadership. Both parties have done it. The last person in charge that actually tried to take care of gov employees was, oddly enough, Bush jr. You don't go after benefits of people who work to keep the big machinations of gov going. You don't hurt the people that implement your rules.
4) The salaries and benefits of government employees are vastly overrated. Government salaries are always publicized as being, on average, dramatically higher than non-gov salaries. However, look at the cost of living where the bulk of gov employees live. Also, federal employees may, in some cases, have a great salary that looks bigger than a private sector counterpart. However, most Feds don't get bonuses. And if they do it is likely only a few thousand at best. Many private sector employees get humongous year-end bonuses if the company does okay and these aren't usually captured in the yearly salary they list because it's never known how much it will be and sometimes "if" it will be at all.

PhilJohn
Posts: 392
Joined: Tue Apr 25, 2017 10:38 am

Re: High 3 vs. High 5

Post by PhilJohn »

We are 20 trillion dollars in debt. What did you guys expect? Look, I'm nervous as well but if it's going to help lesson the debt burden for future generations I guess it's a sacrifice I am prepared to make. I will be upset if however if we continue to send our money to foreign governments and other financial aspects that have brought us this mess. My agency spent over 3 million on giving 40 top executives bonuses last year. It's fraud in the eyes of your average joe tax payer so expect no compassion from them either.

User avatar
ArrieS
Posts: 1072
Joined: Sun Aug 05, 2012 10:56 am

Re: High 3 vs. High 5

Post by ArrieS »

"We are 20 trillion dollars in debt. What did you guys expect?"

I don't know, a real plan? I mean, is that too much to ask?

" Look, I'm nervous as well but if it's going to help lesson the debt burden for future generations I guess it's a sacrifice I am prepared to make."

But it's not. It's shifting spending. Cut us and spend it elsewhere.
OCTOBER: This is one of the peculiarly dangerous months to speculate in stocks in. The others are July, January, September, April, November, May, March, June, December, August, and February. - Pudd'nhead Wilson's Calendar

User avatar
evilanne
Posts: 2067
Joined: Thu May 14, 2015 6:52 pm

Re: High 3 vs. High 5

Post by evilanne »

StormVet wrote:Good points. I also feel that the possible high-5 rule is far worse than losing the supplement.


At retirement age, many employees are at the top of their pay grade or pay band so changing from 3 to 5 years shouldn't be a major impact for most and employees still working have a choice to retire or work another year or two.

For a GS-12 or GS-13 under FERS, the reduction in pay will be less than $1,000/per year impact (closer to about $500). It may be higher for special categories of employees that get special rates but it really isn't that significant. You should be able to easily offset any reduction with earnings in TSP. For most taxpayers that have no pension, you won't get much sympathy.

For people who are eligible to retire early, the supplement for FERS with no COLA is still significantly less than CSRS pension w/COLA. The cost is limited to 2-6 years based on when they are eligible/years of service. One year of salary more than offsets the entire amount that will be paid for the supplement in most cases.

Getting rid of it will force more people to work longer which is counter productive to the goal of reducing the size/cost of government employment and/or reduces promotion opportunities for younger employees. Only 40% of FERS retirees get the FERS Supplement so the savings would be limited in comparison to a reduction in pension entitlement that is ongoing http://www.govexec.com/pay-benefits/ret ... th/132167/

I can see this change would be the most likely to actually pass and be upheld as it doesn't significantly change the employment agreement. All the other stuff will most likely require a major rewrite of the federal employment/retirement system and be substantially litigated if they try to apply it to existing employees.

Buckeyedog
Posts: 108
Joined: Thu Feb 28, 2013 2:42 pm

Re: High 3 vs. High 5

Post by Buckeyedog »

Great points evilanne. This is what I was thinking as well but you put it so much more eloquently. For ME who is wanting to retire at 56, the loss of the annuity supplement will be big. Now for those wanting to work until 62, then not a deal at all to you. I'm going to run some numbers tomorrow when I get in to compare the 5/3 and the annuity supplement for my situation. Very curious to see how the math plays out.

Buckeyedog
Posts: 108
Joined: Thu Feb 28, 2013 2:42 pm

Re: High 3 vs. High 5

Post by Buckeyedog »

OK, so not even a close race for me. If they do away with the annuity supplement, I lose $16,524 per year which is $99,144 over the 6 years (from 56 to 62).

If they go to high 5 vs. high 3, my impact is a whopping $720 per YEAR. So it would take 137 years to be equal to the loss of the annuity supplement. I'd much prefer going without $720 per year ($60 per month) for the rest of my life vs. losing $100k in 6 years and maybe not being able to retire at 56.

User avatar
evilanne
Posts: 2067
Joined: Thu May 14, 2015 6:52 pm

Re: High 3 vs. High 5

Post by evilanne »

Did a little research, I don't believe there is anything in the underlying laws or regulations that would prevent them from changing the number of years in calculating the average. The only reference to 3 years has to do with part time employees in the CFR for CSRS, the applicable USC parts only references "average salary" for both pay systems.

From OPM: https://www.opm.gov/retirement-services ... k/c050.pdf

CSRS
United States Code: 5 U.S.C. 8339, 8343, and 8349
Code of Federal Regulations: 5 CFR Part 831 https://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/CFR-2017- ... art831.pdf

FERS
United States Code: 5 U.S.C. 8415 through 8420
Code of Federal Regulations: 5 CFR 842, Subparts D and F https://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/CFR-2017- ... art842.pdf

User avatar
WildBill
Posts: 16
Joined: Mon Dec 12, 2016 6:06 pm

Re: High 3 vs. High 5

Post by WildBill »

Just more cuts on the backs of feds to increase social programs.

SnareMV17
Posts: 176
Joined: Thu Jan 10, 2013 9:06 am

Re: High 3 vs. High 5

Post by SnareMV17 »

I don't get those who are saying they promised Feds something. They promised you nothing. You should all know that this is the government, and all aspects of the government are subject to change at any time. It's just like any private sector job. Do people who get laid off, pay-cut, hours reduced, or flat out fired have the right to say the were lied to or were promised something? Every single one of us fed employees was promised nothing, and deserves nothing. You have the elective right to decide if the current compensation offered is adequate for you or not, and if not then you may take your talents elsewhere. This is pretty basic stuff. But to somehow assume that we as employees should somehow hold some form of immunity vs. the the rest of the budget doesn't seem wholly genuine. It sounds a bit smug to me.
"Get your money for nothin', and your chicks for free."

Following TSPCalc strategy #64902.

mindofmush
Posts: 353
Joined: Mon Jul 02, 2012 1:38 pm

Re: High 3 vs. High 5

Post by mindofmush »

Your employment contract is a promise.

THEY expect you to follow the personnel regulations and you expect THEM to honor those same personnel regulations that provide you with your listed benefits.
mo meng, mo ching (which loosely means: no money, no life)

Post Reply

Fund Prices2024-03-28

FundPriceDayYTD
G $18.15 0.05% 1.05%
F $19.08 -0.06% -0.74%
C $82.21 0.11% 10.55%
S $82.43 0.30% 6.92%
I $42.57 -0.24% 5.95%
L2065 $16.38 0.02% 8.37%
L2060 $16.39 0.02% 8.38%
L2055 $16.39 0.02% 8.38%
L2050 $32.73 0.01% 6.95%
L2045 $14.91 0.02% 6.58%
L2040 $54.38 0.02% 6.22%
L2035 $14.34 0.02% 5.79%
L2030 $47.67 0.02% 5.38%
L2025 $13.15 0.03% 3.43%
Linc $25.61 0.03% 2.82%

Live Charts

Pending Allocations

Under development. For now, you may view Pending Allocations by going to "fantasy TSP" and selecting "Leaderboard sort" of "Pending Allocations".