FERS pension contribution increase

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Let's be real, at some point in the future they're just going to do a bit TSP match. They're contributing 15-17% to the FERS pension per person per paycheck. They could do a 15% match on the TSP and still save 5-7% (since they already do a 5% match). That's probably the future federal retirement at some point. I doubt they keep a pension forever.

For anyone who's always been contributing 4.4%, you'd have been better off if they allowed you to opt out of the pension. Which was why they raised it to that level.

It does substantially change the math. If this passes, I'm definitely leaving government service.

It really would be much more honest of them to just abolish the pension for all new employees, because it's a moneymaker for the government for people who have always contributed at the 4.4% level. A pension sounds nice in theory, and gives MAGAs an additional reason to hate government employees (maybe that's the reason they keep it around), but at 4.4%, most people simply will not come out ahead.

As some who arrived just after 4.4 was implemented, I think I’d rather have the pension.

That's because you haven't done the math on it. It's just not a good deal. Maybe if you're young and plan to stay in government for 40+ years, it might be a good deal for you, but you'd be in a very small minority.

Plus, if they can just increase the contribution level for existing employees, who even knows if they'd keep you at the 4.4% level over a 40-year government career. Probably the next step in this vicious cycle is that, once everyone is paying 4.4%, they'll increase that rate.

Wouldn’t being young cut the other way? The younger you are the more time you have for the extra 4.4% to grow over time and to (at least in theory) increase in value in a TSP-like vehicle, whereas if you are older you have less time for growth so the flat pension rate might be more appealing.

But more fundamentally, how are you calculating the value of knowing you will never run out of money and will have payments for life v. a TSP which has a set amount and you can exhaust?

You could also say that you would be better off not paying SS tax and being able to invest that money in a retirement account instead of getting SS. But from an individual (and societal) standpoint, there is real value in knowing those payments will always be there.

Can you agree that there's a percentage that would be so high that the pension would be a bad deal? Surely, if they wanted to deduct 50% from every paycheck and use the same formula, that would be a bad deal? So it's not as simple as saying, "well, great, I have a pension and I'll never run out of money." A pension can be a bad deal. Don't simply assume that paying 4.4% and getting something called a pension is a good deal.

Of course, at some point, it isn’t a good deal. Care to share your math or a reliable cite saying 4.4% is that point?

Also, there isn’t necessarily one universal point. People have different risk tolerances. People have vastly different life expectancies. People plan to retire at different ages. Etc.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Let's be real, at some point in the future they're just going to do a bit TSP match. They're contributing 15-17% to the FERS pension per person per paycheck. They could do a 15% match on the TSP and still save 5-7% (since they already do a 5% match). That's probably the future federal retirement at some point. I doubt they keep a pension forever.

For anyone who's always been contributing 4.4%, you'd have been better off if they allowed you to opt out of the pension. Which was why they raised it to that level.

It does substantially change the math. If this passes, I'm definitely leaving government service.

It really would be much more honest of them to just abolish the pension for all new employees, because it's a moneymaker for the government for people who have always contributed at the 4.4% level. A pension sounds nice in theory, and gives MAGAs an additional reason to hate government employees (maybe that's the reason they keep it around), but at 4.4%, most people simply will not come out ahead.

As some who arrived just after 4.4 was implemented, I think I’d rather have the pension.

That's because you haven't done the math on it. It's just not a good deal. Maybe if you're young and plan to stay in government for 40+ years, it might be a good deal for you, but you'd be in a very small minority.

Plus, if they can just increase the contribution level for existing employees, who even knows if they'd keep you at the 4.4% level over a 40-year government career. Probably the next step in this vicious cycle is that, once everyone is paying 4.4%, they'll increase that rate.

Wouldn’t being young cut the other way? The younger you are the more time you have for the extra 4.4% to grow over time and to (at least in theory) increase in value in a TSP-like vehicle, whereas if you are older you have less time for growth so the flat pension rate might be more appealing.

But more fundamentally, how are you calculating the value of knowing you will never run out of money and will have payments for life v. a TSP which has a set amount and you can exhaust?

You could also say that you would be better off not paying SS tax and being able to invest that money in a retirement account instead of getting SS. But from an individual (and societal) standpoint, there is real value in knowing those payments will always be there.

Can you agree that there's a percentage that would be so high that the pension would be a bad deal? Surely, if they wanted to deduct 50% from every paycheck and use the same formula, that would be a bad deal? So it's not as simple as saying, "well, great, I have a pension and I'll never run out of money." A pension can be a bad deal. Don't simply assume that paying 4.4% and getting something called a pension is a good deal.

Of course, at some point, it isn’t a good deal. Care to share your math or a reliable cite saying 4.4% is that point?

Also, there isn’t necessarily one universal point. People have different risk tolerances. People have vastly different life expectancies. People plan to retire at different ages. Etc.

The pension is so small that 4.4% is indeed a bad deal with an average retirement and life expectancy and also of course assuming normal long term returns on investments.

The math isn’t hard. Give it a shot.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This is fair and only moving forward...

I’m on FERS-FRAE and already pay 4.4. I don’t see how it’s “fair.” It doesn’t affect me at all. It won’t change my pay. What do I gain from other people being made worse off?

It is "fair" because we newer highers should not have been placed in unique strata in the first place to such an extreme.

I’ve been a fed for 15 years and was trained/worked with the CSRS pension. They have been retiring and enjoying a pension I’ll never have.

It sucks, but that is life. Ruining their pension wouldn’t make mine better. My family losing 5k year doesn’t help your situation. No one wins when fed benefits continually get watered down.

My "family" (I am single so I am a family of one, just as important--yes) loses because I make less than you at same grade/step due to unfair 0.8/4.4 percent scheme in place now. So yes the potential change would help me financially and help my morale so will help me mentally. So yep, tangible "helps".

Is your family more important than mine? Nope. What you get, I should get, as far as I can control.

It is so depressing that people think this way. I mean, I know there are many of you out there and that’s part of why we’re in this crisis. But it’s still depressing.

Happy that we will receive equal pay for equal work now. That takes away my depression. So I guess things even out. Your feelings are not more important than mine.

You are going to have a tough life if you are always going to be jealous when others have something you don’t. Those whose loss you are celebrating now invested far more of their careers than you have into an expectation that was pulled from underneath them. You at least had the opportunity to decide up front. I don’t expect this comment to engender empathy from you any more than the earlier ones but I feel sorry for you and your hate.

Who is jealous? This is about fairness. Calling for justice isn't about jealousy. Just the mere fact you have something you really like a lot doesn't mean that you should have it actually.

Empathy is about understanding how you feel I guess? I fully understand how you feel. It is clear 100%. But your feelings do not determine what I feel and what is right vs wrong.

please tell us you’re not a “pull yourself up by your bootstraps” type who vehemently objects to kids being taught about systemic racism in school…

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Let's be real, at some point in the future they're just going to do a bit TSP match. They're contributing 15-17% to the FERS pension per person per paycheck. They could do a 15% match on the TSP and still save 5-7% (since they already do a 5% match). That's probably the future federal retirement at some point. I doubt they keep a pension forever.

For anyone who's always been contributing 4.4%, you'd have been better off if they allowed you to opt out of the pension. Which was why they raised it to that level.

It does substantially change the math. If this passes, I'm definitely leaving government service.

It really would be much more honest of them to just abolish the pension for all new employees, because it's a moneymaker for the government for people who have always contributed at the 4.4% level. A pension sounds nice in theory, and gives MAGAs an additional reason to hate government employees (maybe that's the reason they keep it around), but at 4.4%, most people simply will not come out ahead.

As some who arrived just after 4.4 was implemented, I think I’d rather have the pension.

That's because you haven't done the math on it. It's just not a good deal. Maybe if you're young and plan to stay in government for 40+ years, it might be a good deal for you, but you'd be in a very small minority.

Plus, if they can just increase the contribution level for existing employees, who even knows if they'd keep you at the 4.4% level over a 40-year government career. Probably the next step in this vicious cycle is that, once everyone is paying 4.4%, they'll increase that rate.

Wouldn’t being young cut the other way? The younger you are the more time you have for the extra 4.4% to grow over time and to (at least in theory) increase in value in a TSP-like vehicle, whereas if you are older you have less time for growth so the flat pension rate might be more appealing.

But more fundamentally, how are you calculating the value of knowing you will never run out of money and will have payments for life v. a TSP which has a set amount and you can exhaust?

You could also say that you would be better off not paying SS tax and being able to invest that money in a retirement account instead of getting SS. But from an individual (and societal) standpoint, there is real value in knowing those payments will always be there.

Can you agree that there's a percentage that would be so high that the pension would be a bad deal? Surely, if they wanted to deduct 50% from every paycheck and use the same formula, that would be a bad deal? So it's not as simple as saying, "well, great, I have a pension and I'll never run out of money." A pension can be a bad deal. Don't simply assume that paying 4.4% and getting something called a pension is a good deal.

Of course, at some point, it isn’t a good deal. Care to share your math or a reliable cite saying 4.4% is that point?

Also, there isn’t necessarily one universal point. People have different risk tolerances. People have vastly different life expectancies. People plan to retire at different ages. Etc.

The pension is so small that 4.4% is indeed a bad deal with an average retirement and life expectancy and also of course assuming normal long term returns on investments.

The math isn’t hard. Give it a shot.

You’ve supposedly already done the calculations so feel free to share. Or spout out opinions confidently with nothing behind it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This is fair and only moving forward...

I’m on FERS-FRAE and already pay 4.4. I don’t see how it’s “fair.” It doesn’t affect me at all. It won’t change my pay. What do I gain from other people being made worse off?

It is "fair" because we newer highers should not have been placed in unique strata in the first place to such an extreme.

I’ve been a fed for 15 years and was trained/worked with the CSRS pension. They have been retiring and enjoying a pension I’ll never have.

It sucks, but that is life. Ruining their pension wouldn’t make mine better. My family losing 5k year doesn’t help your situation. No one wins when fed benefits continually get watered down.

My "family" (I am single so I am a family of one, just as important--yes) loses because I make less than you at same grade/step due to unfair 0.8/4.4 percent scheme in place now. So yes the potential change would help me financially and help my morale so will help me mentally. So yep, tangible "helps".

Is your family more important than mine? Nope. What you get, I should get, as far as I can control.

It is so depressing that people think this way. I mean, I know there are many of you out there and that’s part of why we’re in this crisis. But it’s still depressing.

Happy that we will receive equal pay for equal work now. That takes away my depression. So I guess things even out. Your feelings are not more important than mine.

Well, can I get back pay to compensate for the maternity leave and student loan repayment that wasn’t available for us? Fair is fair.

Agreed. I am nothing but happy that the new folks get PPL. That’s so much better than the hell of having to save leave for years to cover post partum time off and then coming back to 0 leave balances with a baby who inevitably is sick a minute later. I don’t understand the mentality of “I didn’t get mine so you shouldn’t get yours.” You took a job knowing what the benefits were when you signed on. I took a job knowing what my benefits were. You did not get a bait and switch. You agreed to a job all things considered.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This is fair and only moving forward...

I’m on FERS-FRAE and already pay 4.4. I don’t see how it’s “fair.” It doesn’t affect me at all. It won’t change my pay. What do I gain from other people being made worse off?

It is "fair" because we newer highers should not have been placed in unique strata in the first place to such an extreme.

I’ve been a fed for 15 years and was trained/worked with the CSRS pension. They have been retiring and enjoying a pension I’ll never have.

It sucks, but that is life. Ruining their pension wouldn’t make mine better. My family losing 5k year doesn’t help your situation. No one wins when fed benefits continually get watered down.

My "family" (I am single so I am a family of one, just as important--yes) loses because I make less than you at same grade/step due to unfair 0.8/4.4 percent scheme in place now. So yes the potential change would help me financially and help my morale so will help me mentally. So yep, tangible "helps".

Is your family more important than mine? Nope. What you get, I should get, as far as I can control.

It is so depressing that people think this way. I mean, I know there are many of you out there and that’s part of why we’re in this crisis. But it’s still depressing.

Happy that we will receive equal pay for equal work now. That takes away my depression. So I guess things even out. Your feelings are not more important than mine.

Well, can I get back pay to compensate for the maternity leave and student loan repayment that wasn’t available for us? Fair is fair.

Agreed. I am nothing but happy that the new folks get PPL. That’s so much better than the hell of having to save leave for years to cover post partum time off and then coming back to 0 leave balances with a baby who inevitably is sick a minute later. I don’t understand the mentality of “I didn’t get mine so you shouldn’t get yours.” You took a job knowing what the benefits were when you signed on. I took a job knowing what my benefits were. You did not get a bait and switch. You agreed to a job all things considered.

It’s more fundamental than that. Making other people pay more does nothing to help the people already paying a higher rate. It’s cruelty for the sake of cruelty and nothing else.

If PP has such mental anguish at the fact some people have a benefit she doesn’t, she needs a therapist. Or she can fight to extend the benefit to people like herself. But taking the benefit away from everyone just so they can be as miserable as PP is sociopathic.

[Anonymous]

What is the current contribution level for them?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Let's be real, at some point in the future they're just going to do a bit TSP match. They're contributing 15-17% to the FERS pension per person per paycheck. They could do a 15% match on the TSP and still save 5-7% (since they already do a 5% match). That's probably the future federal retirement at some point. I doubt they keep a pension forever.

For anyone who's always been contributing 4.4%, you'd have been better off if they allowed you to opt out of the pension. Which was why they raised it to that level.

It does substantially change the math. If this passes, I'm definitely leaving government service.

It really would be much more honest of them to just abolish the pension for all new employees, because it's a moneymaker for the government for people who have always contributed at the 4.4% level. A pension sounds nice in theory, and gives MAGAs an additional reason to hate government employees (maybe that's the reason they keep it around), but at 4.4%, most people simply will not come out ahead.

As some who arrived just after 4.4 was implemented, I think I’d rather have the pension.

That's because you haven't done the math on it. It's just not a good deal. Maybe if you're young and plan to stay in government for 40+ years, it might be a good deal for you, but you'd be in a very small minority.

Plus, if they can just increase the contribution level for existing employees, who even knows if they'd keep you at the 4.4% level over a 40-year government career. Probably the next step in this vicious cycle is that, once everyone is paying 4.4%, they'll increase that rate.

Wouldn’t being young cut the other way? The younger you are the more time you have for the extra 4.4% to grow over time and to (at least in theory) increase in value in a TSP-like vehicle, whereas if you are older you have less time for growth so the flat pension rate might be more appealing.

But more fundamentally, how are you calculating the value of knowing you will never run out of money and will have payments for life v. a TSP which has a set amount and you can exhaust?

You could also say that you would be better off not paying SS tax and being able to invest that money in a retirement account instead of getting SS. But from an individual (and societal) standpoint, there is real value in knowing those payments will always be there.

Can you agree that there's a percentage that would be so high that the pension would be a bad deal? Surely, if they wanted to deduct 50% from every paycheck and use the same formula, that would be a bad deal? So it's not as simple as saying, "well, great, I have a pension and I'll never run out of money." A pension can be a bad deal. Don't simply assume that paying 4.4% and getting something called a pension is a good deal.

Of course, at some point, it isn’t a good deal. Care to share your math or a reliable cite saying 4.4% is that point?

Also, there isn’t necessarily one universal point. People have different risk tolerances. People have vastly different life expectancies. People plan to retire at different ages. Etc.

The pension is so small that 4.4% is indeed a bad deal with an average retirement and life expectancy and also of course assuming normal long term returns on investments.

The math isn’t hard. Give it a shot.

You’ve supposedly already done the calculations so feel free to share. Or spout out opinions confidently with nothing behind it.

Wouldn't it at least make sense to let people opt out of the pension? A 4.4% deduction is so much money that it would be nice to let people make their own decisions. I thought freedom from having government make decisions for you (except if you're a woman) was what Republicans were all about.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This is fair and only moving forward...

I’m on FERS-FRAE and already pay 4.4. I don’t see how it’s “fair.” It doesn’t affect me at all. It won’t change my pay. What do I gain from other people being made worse off?

It is "fair" because we newer highers should not have been placed in unique strata in the first place to such an extreme.

I’ve been a fed for 15 years and was trained/worked with the CSRS pension. They have been retiring and enjoying a pension I’ll never have.

It sucks, but that is life. Ruining their pension wouldn’t make mine better. My family losing 5k year doesn’t help your situation. No one wins when fed benefits continually get watered down.

My "family" (I am single so I am a family of one, just as important--yes) loses because I make less than you at same grade/step due to unfair 0.8/4.4 percent scheme in place now. So yes the potential change would help me financially and help my morale so will help me mentally. So yep, tangible "helps".

Is your family more important than mine? Nope. What you get, I should get, as far as I can control.

It is so depressing that people think this way. I mean, I know there are many of you out there and that’s part of why we’re in this crisis. But it’s still depressing.

I am assuming you believe a man and a woman doing the same job should be paid equally, right? Or is it "depressing" to think that way, too?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This is fair and only moving forward...

I’m on FERS-FRAE and already pay 4.4. I don’t see how it’s “fair.” It doesn’t affect me at all. It won’t change my pay. What do I gain from other people being made worse off?

It is "fair" because we newer highers should not have been placed in unique strata in the first place to such an extreme.

I’ve been a fed for 15 years and was trained/worked with the CSRS pension. They have been retiring and enjoying a pension I’ll never have.

It sucks, but that is life. Ruining their pension wouldn’t make mine better. My family losing 5k year doesn’t help your situation. No one wins when fed benefits continually get watered down.

My "family" (I am single so I am a family of one, just as important--yes) loses because I make less than you at same grade/step due to unfair 0.8/4.4 percent scheme in place now. So yes the potential change would help me financially and help my morale so will help me mentally. So yep, tangible "helps".

Is your family more important than mine? Nope. What you get, I should get, as far as I can control.

It is so depressing that people think this way. I mean, I know there are many of you out there and that’s part of why we’re in this crisis. But it’s still depressing.

Happy that we will receive equal pay for equal work now. That takes away my depression. So I guess things even out. Your feelings are not more important than mine.

You are going to have a tough life if you are always going to be jealous when others have something you don’t. Those whose loss you are celebrating now invested far more of their careers than you have into an expectation that was pulled from underneath them. You at least had the opportunity to decide up front. I don’t expect this comment to engender empathy from you any more than the earlier ones but I feel sorry for you and your hate.

Who is jealous? This is about fairness. Calling for justice isn't about jealousy. Just the mere fact you have something you really like a lot doesn't mean that you should have it actually.

Empathy is about understanding how you feel I guess? I fully understand how you feel. It is clear 100%. But your feelings do not determine what I feel and what is right vs wrong.

even children know that life isn't fair. grow up.

NP here, but is seems to me that you are the one complaining that the current proposal isn't fair. What is good for the goose . . .

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Has anyone in this thread mentioned that they're also considering backing out locality pay from the "high 3"/"high 5" calculation? That's a 25% cut to benefits, DC folks.

https://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/119/s26

Woah- no I hadn't seen that!!!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This is fair and only moving forward...

I’m on FERS-FRAE and already pay 4.4. I don’t see how it’s “fair.” It doesn’t affect me at all. It won’t change my pay. What do I gain from other people being made worse off?

It is "fair" because we newer highers should not have been placed in unique strata in the first place to such an extreme.

I’ve been a fed for 15 years and was trained/worked with the CSRS pension. They have been retiring and enjoying a pension I’ll never have.

It sucks, but that is life. Ruining their pension wouldn’t make mine better. My family losing 5k year doesn’t help your situation. No one wins when fed benefits continually get watered down.

My "family" (I am single so I am a family of one, just as important--yes) loses because I make less than you at same grade/step due to unfair 0.8/4.4 percent scheme in place now. So yes the potential change would help me financially and help my morale so will help me mentally. So yep, tangible "helps".

Is your family more important than mine? Nope. What you get, I should get, as far as I can control.

It is so depressing that people think this way. I mean, I know there are many of you out there and that’s part of why we’re in this crisis. But it’s still depressing.

Happy that we will receive equal pay for equal work now. That takes away my depression. So I guess things even out. Your feelings are not more important than mine.

Well, can I get back pay to compensate for the maternity leave and student loan repayment that wasn’t available for us? Fair is fair.

Agreed. I am nothing but happy that the new folks get PPL. That’s so much better than the hell of having to save leave for years to cover post partum time off and then coming back to 0 leave balances with a baby who inevitably is sick a minute later. I don’t understand the mentality of “I didn’t get mine so you shouldn’t get yours.” You took a job knowing what the benefits were when you signed on. I took a job knowing what my benefits were. You did not get a bait and switch. You agreed to a job all things considered.

It’s more fundamental than that. Making other people pay more does nothing to help the people already paying a higher rate. It’s cruelty for the sake of cruelty and nothing else.

If PP has such mental anguish at the fact some people have a benefit she doesn’t, she needs a therapist. Or she can fight to extend the benefit to people like herself. But taking the benefit away from everyone just so they can be as miserable as PP is sociopathic.

OK but if that's the case, what about CSRS? Most of us worked our entire lives with coworkers who'd be getting pensions worth 3x as much as ours.

It's fine. Life isn't fair. I personally think 4.4% is too high.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Let's be real, at some point in the future they're just going to do a bit TSP match. They're contributing 15-17% to the FERS pension per person per paycheck. They could do a 15% match on the TSP and still save 5-7% (since they already do a 5% match). That's probably the future federal retirement at some point. I doubt they keep a pension forever.

For anyone who's always been contributing 4.4%, you'd have been better off if they allowed you to opt out of the pension. Which was why they raised it to that level.

It does substantially change the math. If this passes, I'm definitely leaving government service.

It really would be much more honest of them to just abolish the pension for all new employees, because it's a moneymaker for the government for people who have always contributed at the 4.4% level. A pension sounds nice in theory, and gives MAGAs an additional reason to hate government employees (maybe that's the reason they keep it around), but at 4.4%, most people simply will not come out ahead.

As some who arrived just after 4.4 was implemented, I think I’d rather have the pension.

That's because you haven't done the math on it. It's just not a good deal. Maybe if you're young and plan to stay in government for 40+ years, it might be a good deal for you, but you'd be in a very small minority.

Plus, if they can just increase the contribution level for existing employees, who even knows if they'd keep you at the 4.4% level over a 40-year government career. Probably the next step in this vicious cycle is that, once everyone is paying 4.4%, they'll increase that rate.

Wouldn’t being young cut the other way? The younger you are the more time you have for the extra 4.4% to grow over time and to (at least in theory) increase in value in a TSP-like vehicle, whereas if you are older you have less time for growth so the flat pension rate might be more appealing.

But more fundamentally, how are you calculating the value of knowing you will never run out of money and will have payments for life v. a TSP which has a set amount and you can exhaust?

You could also say that you would be better off not paying SS tax and being able to invest that money in a retirement account instead of getting SS. But from an individual (and societal) standpoint, there is real value in knowing those payments will always be there.

Can you agree that there's a percentage that would be so high that the pension would be a bad deal? Surely, if they wanted to deduct 50% from every paycheck and use the same formula, that would be a bad deal? So it's not as simple as saying, "well, great, I have a pension and I'll never run out of money." A pension can be a bad deal. Don't simply assume that paying 4.4% and getting something called a pension is a good deal.

Of course, at some point, it isn’t a good deal. Care to share your math or a reliable cite saying 4.4% is that point?

Also, there isn’t necessarily one universal point. People have different risk tolerances. People have vastly different life expectancies. People plan to retire at different ages. Etc.

The pension is so small that 4.4% is indeed a bad deal with an average retirement and life expectancy and also of course assuming normal long term returns on investments.

The math isn’t hard. Give it a shot.

You’ve supposedly already done the calculations so feel free to share. Or spout out opinions confidently with nothing behind it.

Wouldn't it at least make sense to let people opt out of the pension? A 4.4% deduction is so much money that it would be nice to let people make their own decisions. I thought freedom from having government make decisions for you (except if you're a woman) was what Republicans were all about.

That might cause some actuarial issues, for example, people most likely to live to 100 may be more inclined to take the pension, but I’m not inherently opposed to it.

Doing this wouldn’t save money, of course, which is the current objective.

There might also be some ERISA issues, but I’m definitely not an expert there and, being the government, they could legislate to get around any problems that might exist.

[Anonymous]

Has anyone in this thread mentioned that they're also considering backing out locality pay from the "high 3"/"high 5" calculation? That's a 25% cut to benefits, DC folks.

https://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/119/s26

how could they do that? The money I pay into my pension includes my locality pay!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This is fair and only moving forward...

I’m on FERS-FRAE and already pay 4.4. I don’t see how it’s “fair.” It doesn’t affect me at all. It won’t change my pay. What do I gain from other people being made worse off?

It is "fair" because we newer highers should not have been placed in unique strata in the first place to such an extreme.

I’ve been a fed for 15 years and was trained/worked with the CSRS pension. They have been retiring and enjoying a pension I’ll never have.

It sucks, but that is life. Ruining their pension wouldn’t make mine better. My family losing 5k year doesn’t help your situation. No one wins when fed benefits continually get watered down.

My "family" (I am single so I am a family of one, just as important--yes) loses because I make less than you at same grade/step due to unfair 0.8/4.4 percent scheme in place now. So yes the potential change would help me financially and help my morale so will help me mentally. So yep, tangible "helps".

Is your family more important than mine? Nope. What you get, I should get, as far as I can control.

It is so depressing that people think this way. I mean, I know there are many of you out there and that’s part of why we’re in this crisis. But it’s still depressing.

Happy that we will receive equal pay for equal work now. That takes away my depression. So I guess things even out. Your feelings are not more important than mine.

You are going to have a tough life if you are always going to be jealous when others have something you don’t. Those whose loss you are celebrating now invested far more of their careers than you have into an expectation that was pulled from underneath them. You at least had the opportunity to decide up front. I don’t expect this comment to engender empathy from you any more than the earlier ones but I feel sorry for you and your hate.

Who is jealous? This is about fairness. Calling for justice isn't about jealousy. Just the mere fact you have something you really like a lot doesn't mean that you should have it actually.

Empathy is about understanding how you feel I guess? I fully understand how you feel. It is clear 100%. But your feelings do not determine what I feel and what is right vs wrong.

even children know that life isn't fair. grow up.

NP here, but is seems to me that you are the one complaining that the current proposal isn't fair. What is good for the goose . . .

this was my first post in this thread. i literally do not ever use the word fair because i am an adult.