They're at it again
Moderator: Aitrus
They're at it again
https://federalnewsradio.com/your-money ... ideration/
I know the "usuals" will say that congress won't allow it. The fact that the present administration keeps suggesting the same things (albeit this one is smaller in nature) means that eventually something will happen. Feel free to think otherwise...
FYI
I know the "usuals" will say that congress won't allow it. The fact that the present administration keeps suggesting the same things (albeit this one is smaller in nature) means that eventually something will happen. Feel free to think otherwise...
FYI
Re: They're at it again
I think the 5 year average and possible more towards FERS contribution has the best chance for passage. Even then it will be a fight.
-
- Posts: 353
- Joined: Mon Jul 02, 2012 1:38 pm
Re: They're at it again
Did you notice that they're NOT talking about any of the retirement proposals that make sense, like eliminating the pension and increasing the matching TSP. (Which would not only save the GOV billions but give FED employees too much autonomy.)
mo meng, mo ching (which loosely means: no money, no life)
Re: They're at it again
They are looking to do something that they can apply to everyone at once.mindofmush wrote:Did you notice that they're NOT talking about any of the retirement proposals that make sense, like eliminating the pension and increasing the matching TSP. (Which would not only save the GOV billions but give FED employees too much autonomy.)
They aren't going to eliminate the pension. They couldn't do that, imagine if they did that and suddenly someone who worked for 30/20/10 years didn't get a pension. How would they square that? Go back and give that employee the 15% match for their years of service, how would they also compensate that employee for the lost capital appreciation in the market?
I'm sure latter in a separate bill they may create a new retirement for new hires like they did when they created FERs to replace CSRS.
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
-
- Posts: 353
- Joined: Mon Jul 02, 2012 1:38 pm
Re: They're at it again
You're right, they are not going to eliminate the pension as evidenced by the proposal to raise every FERS employee retirement contribution to 7.5%, this is the equivalent to raising taxes on the rich, overpaid FEDS; I don't see any congressmen voting against this. (This could be incentive to get FERS employees with even 15 years of service to convert to a TSP only retirement).ArrieS wrote:They are looking to do something that they can apply to everyone at once.mindofmush wrote:Did you notice that they're NOT talking about any of the retirement proposals that make sense, like eliminating the pension and increasing the matching TSP. (Which would not only save the GOV billions but give FED employees too much autonomy.)
They aren't going to eliminate the pension. They couldn't do that, imagine if they did that and suddenly someone who worked for 30/20/10 years didn't get a pension. How would they square that? Go back and give that employee the 15% match for their years of service, how would they also compensate that employee for the lost capital appreciation in the market?
I'm sure latter in a separate bill they may create a new retirement for new hires like they did when they created FERs to replace CSRS.
Eliminating the supplement is another easy sell since it doesn't affect those FEDs who work hard, it only benefits those lazy FEDs who want to retire "early" sipping rum & coke on the beach.
The "third leg" of the FERS retirement will be next: first with higher SS taxes, then with need based distributions till anyone that saves for retirement will not be eligible to receive SS benefits.
You all are FEDs, you don't NEED supplements, you don't NEED SS, you don't NEED COLAs, and you certainly don't NEED a pay raise. But you do NEED to pay more in SS taxes and you do NEED to pay more for your pension because you haven't been paying your fair share.
mo meng, mo ching (which loosely means: no money, no life)
Re: They're at it again
fmindofmush wrote:You're right, they are not going to eliminate the pension as evidenced by the proposal to raise every FERS employee retirement contribution to 7.5%, this is the equivalent to raising taxes on the rich, overpaid FEDS; I don't see any congressmen voting against this. (This could be incentive to get FERS employees with even 15 years of service to convert to a TSP only retirement).ArrieS wrote:They are looking to do something that they can apply to everyone at once.mindofmush wrote:Did you notice that they're NOT talking about any of the retirement proposals that make sense, like eliminating the pension and increasing the matching TSP. (Which would not only save the GOV billions but give FED employees too much autonomy.)
They aren't going to eliminate the pension. They couldn't do that, imagine if they did that and suddenly someone who worked for 30/20/10 years didn't get a pension. How would they square that? Go back and give that employee the 15% match for their years of service, how would they also compensate that employee for the lost capital appreciation in the market?
I'm sure latter in a separate bill they may create a new retirement for new hires like they did when they created FERs to replace CSRS.
Eliminating the supplement is another easy sell since it doesn't affect those FEDs who work hard, it only benefits those lazy FEDs who want to retire "early" sipping rum & coke on the beach.
The "third leg" of the FERS retirement will be next: first with higher SS taxes, then with need based distributions till anyone that saves for retirement will not be eligible to receive SS benefits.
You all are FEDs, you don't NEED supplements, you don't NEED SS, you don't NEED COLAs, and you certainly don't NEED a pay raise. But you do NEED to pay more in SS taxes and you do NEED to pay more for your pension because you haven't been paying your fair share.
I'm feeling rich already...
Re: They're at it again
Any talk of changes to current employee benefits is infuriating. I know it can happen in the commercial sector but most feds purposely trade lower wages during working years for job security and promised pension/benefits.
If you want to change anything then unveil a new compensation package for future employees. These suggested changes are a blatant slap in the face and amount to a breech of an unwritten contract around which many feds have planned their working lives.
If you want to change anything then unveil a new compensation package for future employees. These suggested changes are a blatant slap in the face and amount to a breech of an unwritten contract around which many feds have planned their working lives.
Re: They're at it again
How many changes have been made to CSRS employees in the last 30 years?
See Federal Employees’ Retirement System: Budget and Trust Fund Issues, August 24, 2015, https://fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/RL30023.pdf FERS pensions are fully funded.
How can they increase the FERS employee contributions without any increase to CSRS employee's contributions when FERS only gets about half the pension? (no offense to CSRS employees but FERS get NO COLA before age 62 and then 0.5% less than CSRS already)
They need to come up with totally new system like they just did with the military BRS or the change from CSRS to FERS.
See Federal Employees’ Retirement System: Budget and Trust Fund Issues, August 24, 2015, https://fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/RL30023.pdf FERS pensions are fully funded.
How can they increase the FERS employee contributions without any increase to CSRS employee's contributions when FERS only gets about half the pension? (no offense to CSRS employees but FERS get NO COLA before age 62 and then 0.5% less than CSRS already)
They need to come up with totally new system like they just did with the military BRS or the change from CSRS to FERS.
Re: They're at it again
How can they change it for only FERS, because they can and the number of CSRS is negligible. No real change to anything since they are so few.evilanne wrote:How many changes have been made to CSRS employees in the last 30 years?
See Federal Employees’ Retirement System: Budget and Trust Fund Issues, August 24, 2015, https://fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/RL30023.pdf FERS pensions are fully funded.
How can they increase the FERS employee contributions without any increase to CSRS employee's contributions when FERS only gets about half the pension? (no offense to CSRS employees but FERS get NO COLA before age 62 and then 0.5% less than CSRS already)
They need to come up with totally new system like they just did with the military BRS or the change from CSRS to FERS.
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
Re: They're at it again
ArrieS wrote:How can they change it for only FERS, because they can and the number of CSRS is negligible. No real change to anything since they are so few.evilanne wrote:How many changes have been made to CSRS employees in the last 30 years?
See Federal Employees’ Retirement System: Budget and Trust Fund Issues, August 24, 2015, https://fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/RL30023.pdf FERS pensions are fully funded.
How can they increase the FERS employee contributions without any increase to CSRS employee's contributions when FERS only gets about half the pension? (no offense to CSRS employees but FERS get NO COLA before age 62 and then 0.5% less than CSRS already)
They need to come up with totally new system like they just did with the military BRS or the change from CSRS to FERS.
It is the principle, if current CSRS employees are not forced to increase their individual contributions to their retirement, then FERS employees may have a class action law suit.
Re: They're at it again
On what grounds?Smoker317 wrote:
It is the principle, if current CSRS employees are not forced to increase their individual contributions to their retirement, then FERS employees may have a class action law suit.
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
Re: They're at it again
I'm sure it'll be OK, the heritage foundation has told the trump adminstration that this is truly, the only way, to make america great again. I CAN'T WAIT to help out!
Privatized Profits ... Socialized Losses ... Business as usual.
Re: They're at it again
Here's a simple change from your source;evilanne wrote:How many changes have been made to CSRS employees in the last 30 years?
See Federal Employees’ Retirement System: Budget and Trust Fund Issues, August 24, 2015, https://fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/RL30023.pdf FERS pensions are fully funded.
"The fund is required by law to invest exclusively in U.S. Treasury bonds...If the CSRDF held assets that earned a higher average rate of return than U.S. Treasury bonds, some of the future cost of civil service retirement annuities could be paid from these higher investment returns."
Maybe we should ask Congress to amend it. In support of this change Canada's Public Pensions System has three major components, of which one is Canada Pension Plan (CPP). The CPP is more like Social Security since everyone pays into it. However, the difference is they do invest the funds into a portfolio of stocks, bonds and other assets.
The CPP is fully funded, in other words, their Social Security equivalent isn't in danger of running out of funds.
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
Re: They're at it again
You missed the point, the TSP Pensions are and have always been fully funded; the CSRS has not.
TSP was the fix to the old CSRS system which is why it makes no sense to go after FERS employees and exclude CSRS employees (which has not been changed since 1920? for those under that system). Based on prior precedents, any major changes have been applied to new employees only--in order to change the employment contract, the employees have to opt in to any new system, which is the transition period always includes the sales job.Because CSRS retirement benefits have never been fully funded by employer and employee contributions, the CSRDF has an unfunded liability. The unfunded liability was $785.0 billion in FY2013. According to actuarial estimates, the unfunded liability of the CSRDF will continue to rise until about FY2025, when it will peak at $834.8 billion. From that point onward, the unfunded liability will steadily decline and is projected to be eliminated by FY2090.
Re: They're at it again
I agree. Another advantage for the change from 3 to 5 years would be to encourage retirement eligible employees to retire sooner rather than later if the goal is to reduce the Government payroll.Donzi4me wrote:I think the 5 year average and possible more towards FERS contribution has the best chance for passage. Even then it will be a fight.
Fund Prices2024-03-28
Fund | Price | Day | YTD |
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% |