Feds: are you counting on FERS for retirement?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:It could happen but the first target would be the FERS contribution for new hires. I think it is fair to move them to 50/50 FERS contribution.

What does 50-50 mean in this context? Haven't read the whole thread. I assume it's something about contribution which is like 4.1% now right? At least it was 4.1 when I was hired.

[Anonymous]

^Meant 4.4% when I was hired.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:It could happen but the first target would be the FERS contribution for new hires. I think it is fair to move them to 50/50 FERS contribution.

Does this mean the employee will contribute 16.5%? Or more like 10%? Either way will mean we have to increase salaries or people won’t take federal positions.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It could happen but the first target would be the FERS contribution for new hires. I think it is fair to move them to 50/50 FERS contribution.

Does this mean the employee will contribute 16.5%? Or more like 10%? Either way will mean we have to increase salaries or people won’t take federal positions.

More like 6.25% each. Yes, salaries need to be adjusted. People are overpaid at lower level positions and underpaid at higher and professional positions.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It could happen but the first target would be the FERS contribution for new hires. I think it is fair to move them to 50/50 FERS contribution.

Does this mean the employee will contribute 16.5%? Or more like 10%? Either way will mean we have to increase salaries or people won’t take federal positions.

More like 6.25% each. Yes, salaries need to be adjusted. People are overpaid at lower level positions and underpaid at higher and professional positions.

The total per worker contribution to FERS is about 20%, so making it 6.25% each would be to run it with less than two thirds of current revenue — which would worsen the cost of providing pensions. I thought we were predicting how to make it more solvent.

[Anonymous]

No, the total compensation for FERS is close to 14% and Govt pays for whatever you don't. People hired before 2011 only pays 0.8% towards their pension.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It could happen but the first target would be the FERS contribution for new hires. I think it is fair to move them to 50/50 FERS contribution.

Does this mean the employee will contribute 16.5%? Or more like 10%? Either way will mean we have to increase salaries or people won’t take federal positions.

More like 6.25% each. Yes, salaries need to be adjusted. People are overpaid at lower level positions and underpaid at higher and professional positions.

The total per worker contribution to FERS is about 20%, so making it 6.25% each would be to run it with less than two thirds of current revenue — which would worsen the cost of providing pensions. I thought we were predicting how to make it more solvent.

All the FERS investments are in T-bonds so let's pray they stay solvent.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:No, the total compensation for FERS is close to 14% and Govt pays for whatever you don't. People hired before 2011 only pays 0.8% towards their pension.

That’s what I pay. Less than 1%

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:No, the total compensation for FERS is close to 14% and Govt pays for whatever you don't. People hired before 2011 only pays 0.8% towards their pension.

That’s what I pay. Less than 1%

You, you got a good deal with 0.8% contribution but lets hope that FERS stays solvent.

[Anonymous]

I started collecting as soon as I could in 2006. Invested it or used it for travel. Was still working in private sector not going back to govt. . Amount was reduced for being under 62 but I figure I have collected almost $220,000 from a grateful nation. My contributions amounted to under $10k.

[Anonymous]

good for you but still I don't expect future generations to completely get it without significant cuts