Say goodbye to your transit subsidies

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

I've heard that line about "pulling govt workers down to everyone else's level of misery." What you and other govt workers miss is that you are expecting (or demanding) that taxpayers provide their employees with more than they get themselves. (And yes, I get that you are a taxpayer too, but that's a completely illogical argument. I hope I don't have to explain why. It's exhausting.)

Yes. For example, when new federal employees got student loan forgiveness for taking a federal job. Meanwhile, those still looking for work and having trouble finding good jobs did not get it. Kind of ironic: get a job that enables you to afford to pay off your loan and you get loan forgiveness. Look for work, and no break.

Stop electing Republicans and you'll get some help. But we can't help you when you're intent on shooting yourself in the foot over and over again.

Because our country and all our states and localities have always been run by Republicans and those poor Democrats just haven't gotten a chance ... oh wait.

Huh? The economies of NY, CA, DC, NoVA, Seattle, Denver, and Boston are absolutely BOOMING. All are run by Dems. I'm not sure what your point is. Congress has been controlled by the GOP for nearly 8 years and they've done very little to help those who don't live in booming Democratic cities. So, if you "need help," either move to a Democratic city or elect more Democrats. But voting for the GOP will just make things more un-affordable for you.

IF WE elect more democrats, there will be more government jobs created, then we can all get a shot at those sweet deals.

Those "sweet deals" are actually earned parts of compensation packages. Do you also whine about military soldiers who get monthly housing stipends and fee-free Tricare coverage?

I thinks it’s great. No joke. I’d like a compensation package like federal employees, especially the health care.

Soldiers however, are only getting paid a small amount of salary on top of those benefits and some are risking their life. I don’t think they’re compensated enough quite frankly.

They get paid well for the job they do. My BIL's reenlistment bonus 18 months ago was nearly $80K tax free. His housing stipend pay for about 90% of his mortgage payment. He pays no PMI and they have an artificially low interest rate on their VA loan. Plus, his Tricare covers my sister and their two kids with zero dollars out-of-pocket for two complicated pregnancies. They have an extremely comfortable cradle-to-grave lifestyle.

Yes, they are sacrificing for their country. But I have friends who work for USAID who have been sexually assaulted while in rural areas. State Department members who miss the holidays with their family every year. Folks who work in DoD or Intel agencies that spend much of the year in hostile countries.

So it sickens me when I see people on DCUM bash "government workers." Many of us are legitimately sacrificing for the good of this country.

I’m not bashing. I’d like a job with good security and benefits. I already work holidays, overtime for no additional pay, go to scary neighborhoods for my employer, work with mentally unstable clients, have been threatened, have been sexually harassed on my job. You think jobs on the outside of the government have any different pitfalls?

Thank you for your service my friend and keep up the good work. Take a moment this holiday season to appreciate what you have and remember “thou shall not envy.” The govt employees have it coming, they will be gutted soon enough and downsized substantially.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

I've heard that line about "pulling govt workers down to everyone else's level of misery." What you and other govt workers miss is that you are expecting (or demanding) that taxpayers provide their employees with more than they get themselves. (And yes, I get that you are a taxpayer too, but that's a completely illogical argument. I hope I don't have to explain why. It's exhausting.)

Yes. For example, when new federal employees got student loan forgiveness for taking a federal job. Meanwhile, those still looking for work and having trouble finding good jobs did not get it. Kind of ironic: get a job that enables you to afford to pay off your loan and you get loan forgiveness. Look for work, and no break.

Yep. And I was just at a hotel this weekend that had special lower rates for government employees, as so many hotels do. WTH? These people earn more than average with substantially better benefits, and companies are still under the impression these "poor" public service workers deserve special prices (which, like all subsidies, are made up by charging other people more)?

Dude. Are you really that clueless? This is to save taxpayers money and prevent waste. You are not supposed to use this rate on personal travel. Government employees and contractors are supposed to use this rate while traveling on government business. If one hotel is out of government rate rooms, you call the next until you find one.

Where does it say "You are not supposed to use the government rate on personal travel?" I have never seen a government regulation saying this, nor have i ever seen a hotel have a requirement for this.

DP- not sure if there’s a govt reg per se but I think it varies by hotel. Some explicitly say the rate is for business travel. I’m a government contractor and have had times I could not stay at the same hotel as my federal counterparts because the hotel wanted travel orders (which we don’t get). But usually if anything they ask to see your govt ID.

Personally I’d feel weird using this for personal travel but YMMV. It’s not like the government subsidizes hotels offering the government rate so I can’t get too worked up about it either way.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

I've heard that line about "pulling govt workers down to everyone else's level of misery." What you and other govt workers miss is that you are expecting (or demanding) that taxpayers provide their employees with more than they get themselves. (And yes, I get that you are a taxpayer too, but that's a completely illogical argument. I hope I don't have to explain why. It's exhausting.)

Yes. For example, when new federal employees got student loan forgiveness for taking a federal job. Meanwhile, those still looking for work and having trouble finding good jobs did not get it. Kind of ironic: get a job that enables you to afford to pay off your loan and you get loan forgiveness. Look for work, and no break.

Stop electing Republicans and you'll get some help. But we can't help you when you're intent on shooting yourself in the foot over and over again.

Because our country and all our states and localities have always been run by Republicans and those poor Democrats just haven't gotten a chance ... oh wait.

Huh? The economies of NY, CA, DC, NoVA, Seattle, Denver, and Boston are absolutely BOOMING. All are run by Dems. I'm not sure what your point is. Congress has been controlled by the GOP for nearly 8 years and they've done very little to help those who don't live in booming Democratic cities. So, if you "need help," either move to a Democratic city or elect more Democrats. But voting for the GOP will just make things more un-affordable for you.

IF WE elect more democrats, there will be more government jobs created, then we can all get a shot at those sweet deals.

Those "sweet deals" are actually earned parts of compensation packages. Do you also whine about military soldiers who get monthly housing stipends and fee-free Tricare coverage?

I thinks it’s great. No joke. I’d like a compensation package like federal employees, especially the health care.

Soldiers however, are only getting paid a small amount of salary on top of those benefits and some are risking their life. I don’t think they’re compensated enough quite frankly.

They get paid well for the job they do. My BIL's reenlistment bonus 18 months ago was nearly $80K tax free. His housing stipend pay for about 90% of his mortgage payment. He pays no PMI and they have an artificially low interest rate on their VA loan. Plus, his Tricare covers my sister and their two kids with zero dollars out-of-pocket for two complicated pregnancies. They have an extremely comfortable cradle-to-grave lifestyle.

Yes, they are sacrificing for their country. But I have friends who work for USAID who have been sexually assaulted while in rural areas. State Department members who miss the holidays with their family every year. Folks who work in DoD or Intel agencies that spend much of the year in hostile countries.

So it sickens me when I see people on DCUM bash "government workers." Many of us are legitimately sacrificing for the good of this country.

I’m not bashing. I’d like a job with good security and benefits. I already work holidays, overtime for no additional pay, go to scary neighborhoods for my employer, work with mentally unstable clients, have been threatened, have been sexually harassed on my job. You think jobs on the outside of the government have any different pitfalls?

All I can say to you is that I support your desire to get paid more for the hard work you do and to have safer working conditions. This is EXACTLY why workers formed labor unions. It would behoove you to consider organizing workers in your industry.

But tearing down "government workers" doesn't solve anything. In fact, it will end up making things worse for you.

I’m not tearing down govt workers. However, you wouldn’t do your job for free. I think it’s great that you and others find it meaningful. However, your salary and benefits are being paid by taxes, from me, and from other people, so there’s some interdependence. I’m glad you are compensated and hope you and others are good stewards of our resources.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

I've heard that line about "pulling govt workers down to everyone else's level of misery." What you and other govt workers miss is that you are expecting (or demanding) that taxpayers provide their employees with more than they get themselves. (And yes, I get that you are a taxpayer too, but that's a completely illogical argument. I hope I don't have to explain why. It's exhausting.)

Yes. For example, when new federal employees got student loan forgiveness for taking a federal job. Meanwhile, those still looking for work and having trouble finding good jobs did not get it. Kind of ironic: get a job that enables you to afford to pay off your loan and you get loan forgiveness. Look for work, and no break.

Yep. And I was just at a hotel this weekend that had special lower rates for government employees, as so many hotels do. WTH? These people earn more than average with substantially better benefits, and companies are still under the impression these "poor" public service workers deserve special prices (which, like all subsidies, are made up by charging other people more)?

Dude. Are you really that clueless? This is to save taxpayers money and prevent waste. You are not supposed to use this rate on personal travel. Government employees and contractors are supposed to use this rate while traveling on government business. If one hotel is out of government rate rooms, you call the next until you find one.

Where does it say "You are not supposed to use the government rate on personal travel?" I have never seen a government regulation saying this, nor have i ever seen a hotel have a requirement for this.

Wait...non-military government employees are allowed to get the government rate for vacations? Are you sure? This is news to me. I thought it was for official business only. What year did this change?

[Anonymous]

To the gov’t employee comparing themsleves to those who put their lives on the line in defense of our country and the taxpayers who pay your salary: just stop.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Tax bill eliminates the ability for employers to write off the transit and parking subsidies they give their employees. And without that incentive, you can pretty much guarantee that most employers will not hand them out.

I assume this will also worsen traffic as people start to drive instead of taking public transportation.

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/nationworld/politics/ct-gop-tax-bill-commuters-20171216-story.html

Did you people read this article? "Companies could still provide the parking and transit passes to employees, but they would no longer get the tax deduction. And employees who pay for their own transportation costs can still use pre-tax income."
If employers set up these ira type accounts employees are still paying with pre-tax income. That is ripping off everyone else. What's next? pre-tax lunch at work? Business clothes? This is all BS...

Are you really that stupid? Governments everywhere subsidize public transport because it reduces traffic congestion and pollution relative to having millions of extra cars on the road. Metro is expensive. It can cost 6.50 one way to go somewhere on Metro at peak time. Removing those subsidies will cause low and middle income people to use Metro a lot less and drive more.

This.

Fares only produce 27% of DC Metro revenue. The other 73% is from grants a subsidies directly to the metro budget. The government is the largest issuer of free passes, which most agencies mandate, regardless of the ability to deduct. Is anyone on here employed by a private, for profit employer who gives passes? ?

Yes, and I know plenty of other people whose private employers issue Metrochek benefits too. Just because the government is the largest issuer of free passes, doesn't mean it's the only issuer. Public transport subsidies are good public policy. Firms that even a little environmentally conscious, or who have a lot of young employees who prefer to spend there time in public transit surfing on their phones rather than driving tend to issue them. Maybe you should get out of your bubble and meet some of them.

Not one has come forward on this board. Not one who works for a for profit. Don’t sock puppet at this point.

My wife and all of her co-workers fall into to non-governmeny worker category who receive transit benefits. Also:

As of Jan. 1, 2016, two major East Coast cities, New York City and Washington, D.C., will require employers with 20 or more employees to offer qualified pretax transportation benefits to their workers. San Francisco already has such a mandate in place, as do the nearby cities of Berkeley and Richmond and nine counties in the San Francisco Bay Area.

https://www.shrm.org/resourcesandtools/legal-and-compliance/state-and-local-updates/pages/cities-transit-benefits.aspx

Both my husband's and my husband's best friend's companies offer Metrochek. Both in IT. It doesn't cover the full cost, but it's enough to sway a good number of people to keep their cars home.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:To the gov’t employee comparing themsleves to those who put their lives on the line in defense of our country and the taxpayers who pay your salary: just stop.

Are you saying federal workers should not compare themselves to taxpayers?
Are you putting active duty military and taxpayers in the same reference group?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

We have so many single mothers as compared to the 50's and 60's. Why is that?

Because dads are more likely than moms to see parenting as optional?

Seriously, though. Most in the American workforce go to work because they HAVE TO. You strengthen the workforce - and the economy - by pulling down the barriers to working, not raising them.

Subsidies also free up dollars to be spent elsewhere in the economy - i.e. on goods and services the private sector produces.

More than anything else these days, I'm thinking that the failure to invest in public education is REALLY starting to manifest.

Is that meant to be a dig? You’re a jerk, I’m very well educated, thank you very much. Just sick of subsidizing bloodseckers

It's definitely a dig - you caught that, good for you!

No need to take it personally; apparently, that's the way you view all public expenditures. It's the signal that you're kinda dumb.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:To the gov’t employee comparing themsleves to those who put their lives on the line in defense of our country and the taxpayers who pay your salary: just stop.

Are you saying federal workers should not compare themselves to taxpayers?
Are you putting active duty military and taxpayers in the same reference group?

Military people are ok in my book. Talk to me when you risk your life for your country. Then you are deserving of your plush benefits.

[Anonymous]

For the posters who think federal workers are overpaid and receive benefits that are excessive, there are many studies showing that when you do an apples to apples (education, skill level etc) comparison, the more educated federal worker is undercompensated compared to his/her private sector counterpart.
There is no doubt that lower level federal workers are paid more than their private sector counterparts but their presence in the federal civil service is shrinking. The federal govt. just does not need as many clerical workers as it once did.

One example I found is the benefits package for Exxon Mobil - a large private sector company which also seeks to hire an educated and highly skilled workforce and pays them well.
Exxon Mobil workers get a generous pension AND 401K and great paid vacation time and great health care benefits.

https://local.exxonmobil.com/Family-English/HR/Files/Benefit_flyer.pdf

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:To the gov’t employee comparing themsleves to those who put their lives on the line in defense of our country and the taxpayers who pay your salary: just stop.

The vast majority of military NEVER see active combat. 20% of individuals MOS's are classified "combat arms," though the most dangerous MOS in recent years is a truck driver due to IED exposure.

That said, a solid 70-75% of folks in the military will never be ducking bullets, returning fire or worried about IED risks. The vast majority are physically safe 24/7 throughout their career.

That said, I do appreciate that these folks sacrifice time away family. It is a big strain. At the same time, I also greatly appreciate the sacrifices made by DoD, USAID, Dept of Ag (foreign-based), the IC, and State Dept that are also often in harm's way and/or spending great lengths of time away from their families.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:For the posters who think federal workers are overpaid and receive benefits that are excessive, there are many studies showing that when you do an apples to apples (education, skill level etc) comparison, the more educated federal worker is undercompensated compared to his/her private sector counterpart.
There is no doubt that lower level federal workers are paid more than their private sector counterparts but their presence in the federal civil service is shrinking. The federal govt. just does not need as many clerical workers as it once did.

One example I found is the benefits package for Exxon Mobil - a large private sector company which also seeks to hire an educated and highly skilled workforce and pays them well.
Exxon Mobil workers get a generous pension AND 401K and great paid vacation time and great health care benefits.

https://local.exxonmobil.com/Family-English/HR/Files/Benefit_flyer.pdf

The only area where government workers earn less than their counterparts in private industry is among those who hold advanced degrees. For those who hold 4-year college degrees, the pay is about the same but benefits are substantially higher among government workers, meaning that college grads do better with government work. The real discrepancy comes with high school grads, who earn significantly more and get substantially better benefits than their private sector counterparts.

So other than the minority who hold advanced degrees, government employees are overcompensated in comparison to private sector employees. But just watch....try to make an adjustment to bring things into parity, and the screaming will drown out a jet engine. Government employees are not entitled to superior compensation, particularly given how difficult it is to dump incompetent staff.

https://www.cbo.gov/publication/42921

[Anonymous]

People who want to gripe that transit subsidies are a handout are ignorantly - or purposely - missing the point.

Subsidizing fares on public transit is subsidizing public transit. If fewer people use public transit, fares have to go up for the people who do.

If you're some Grinch who thinks you shouldn't have to pay for something you don't use, I hate to break it to you but there are countless "handouts" you're receiving every day.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Good. Why should taxpayers subsidize people's commutes? I've been working for 30 years and no employer ever gave me money to get to work. That was just part of the cost of having a job.

Except for the subsidies on gas, roads, pollution - driving commuters do not pay anywhere close to the actual costs for the luxury.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:For the posters who think federal workers are overpaid and receive benefits that are excessive, there are many studies showing that when you do an apples to apples (education, skill level etc) comparison, the more educated federal worker is undercompensated compared to his/her private sector counterpart.
There is no doubt that lower level federal workers are paid more than their private sector counterparts but their presence in the federal civil service is shrinking. The federal govt. just does not need as many clerical workers as it once did.

One example I found is the benefits package for Exxon Mobil - a large private sector company which also seeks to hire an educated and highly skilled workforce and pays them well.
Exxon Mobil workers get a generous pension AND 401K and great paid vacation time and great health care benefits.

https://local.exxonmobil.com/Family-English/HR/Files/Benefit_flyer.pdf

The only area where government workers earn less than their counterparts in private industry is among those who hold advanced degrees. For those who hold 4-year college degrees, the pay is about the same but benefits are substantially higher among government workers, meaning that college grads do better with government work. The real discrepancy comes with high school grads, who earn significantly more and get substantially better benefits than their private sector counterparts.

So other than the minority who hold advanced degrees, government employees are overcompensated in comparison to private sector employees. But just watch....try to make an adjustment to bring things into parity, and the screaming will drown out a jet engine. Government employees are not entitled to superior compensation, particularly given how difficult it is to dump incompetent staff.

https://www.cbo.gov/publication/42921

The number of federal workers with just a high school diploma has fallen dramatically over the last twenty years while the number of federal workers with advanced degrees has doubled over the same period.
Even here though what the CBO study does not fully account for is that the work federal workers do is often more complex than the work a private sector counterpart might do. Many private sector workers without a college education might for example work in retail. In the federal govt. they might be responsible for maintaining our nuclear stockpile
Also, the federal workforce trends older than the private sector workforce and the higher wages might reflect this (seniority and experience).
I would also argue that it is not so much that federal workers are doing well and more than private sector workers have seen their wages stagnate especially workers on the low end of the income spectrum. There is less income inequality within the federal work force. The spread between the bottom quintile and the top quintile isn't as large. I would argue that rather than emulating what have been troubling trends in the private sector, perhaps it should be the other way around.
Around 25% of the federal workforce has a graduate or professional degree and I am sure a disproportionate number of these workers live and work in DC, MD and VA so there will indeed be loud protests on DCUM if James Sherk's fevered fantasies come true especially in concert with the tax bill which will negatively impact UMC families in high SALT areas.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/powerpost/wp/2017/12/18/trump-labor-advisers-plan-for-cutting-federal-compensation-potentially-even-paid-holidays/?utm_term=.6a564f9bb3cb