FERS pension contribution increase

[Anonymous]

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.

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?

The solution to that problem is not to keep paying women less and just cut men’s pay so they get paid less too.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

I am going to go out on a limb and say that PP, the family of one, does have a therapist.

Ah yes the married-women-with-kids calling single woman less-than starts. Our whole society needs to prioritize the needs of white upper middle class women and the immense burden they have to create the most useful parts of the next generation, while not being inconvenienced.

Whatever. Get back to explaining why everyone should have to pay more for retirement just so you’re feelings aren’t hurt.

Not everyone will be paying more. Some will be paying more. The rest of us will be paying what we have already been paying. Now we will all pay the same.

Regarding your "whatever", ok, only your words matter? This is your web forum I guess. Thank you for the update, I now know where I am.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

I am going to go out on a limb and say that PP, the family of one, does have a therapist.

Ah yes the married-women-with-kids calling single woman less-than starts. Our whole society needs to prioritize the needs of white upper middle class women and the immense burden they have to create the most useful parts of the next generation, while not being inconvenienced.

Whatever. Get back to explaining why everyone should have to pay more for retirement just so you’re feelings aren’t hurt.

Not everyone will be paying more. Some will be paying more. The rest of us will be paying what we have already been paying. Now we will all pay the same.

Regarding your "whatever", ok, only your words matter? This is your web forum I guess. Thank you for the update, I now know where I am.

So what benefit do you derive from other people being made to pay more? Besides it squelching your sour grapes.

[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.

Just use Excel, lazybones. Are you always this helpless? Nothing is being hidden from you; it’s extremely simple math.

[Anonymous]

So crazy that the employees who benefited from PPL and student loan forgiveness are being so petty about pension contributions.

[Anonymous]

Honestly those of you complaining about a potential increase in your contribution sound very petty to me - I’d bet plenty of your riffed or soon to be riffed colleagues would have been happy to increase their contribution.

[Anonymous]

Is this pre tax? Or post tax?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Honestly those of you complaining about a potential increase in your contribution sound very petty to me - I’d bet plenty of your riffed or soon to be riffed colleagues would have been happy to increase their contribution.

Them increasing their contribution wouldn’t have prevented RIFs. What a dumb thing to say.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Honestly those of you complaining about a potential increase in your contribution sound very petty to me - I’d bet plenty of your riffed or soon to be riffed colleagues would have been happy to increase their contribution.

Them increasing their contribution wouldn’t have prevented RIFs. What a dumb thing to say.

That is not what she meant--she meant they would all rather have a job and live through the increase than their situation of not having a job at all.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:So crazy that the employees who benefited from PPL and student loan forgiveness are being so petty about pension contributions.

They care about themselves only; and are so so shocked that others' priority is not them.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Honestly those of you complaining about a potential increase in your contribution sound very petty to me - I’d bet plenty of your riffed or soon to be riffed colleagues would have been happy to increase their contribution.

Them increasing their contribution wouldn’t have prevented RIFs. What a dumb thing to say.

That is not what she meant--she meant they would all rather have a job and live through the increase than their situation of not having a job at all.

And it’s still dumb. I’m sure people who lose a leg would prefer to have lost a finger instead. That doesn’t make it okay to chop off people’s fingers.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Honestly those of you complaining about a potential increase in your contribution sound very petty to me - I’d bet plenty of your riffed or soon to be riffed colleagues would have been happy to increase their contribution.

Them increasing their contribution wouldn’t have prevented RIFs. What a dumb thing to say.

That is not what she meant--she meant they would all rather have a job and live through the increase than their situation of not having a job at all.

And it’s still dumb. I’m sure people who lose a leg would prefer to have lost a finger instead. That doesn’t make it okay to chop off people’s fingers.

Job terms and conditions have changed since the dawn of time. Feel free to find a new job. Name calling accomplishes nothing.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Honestly those of you complaining about a potential increase in your contribution sound very petty to me - I’d bet plenty of your riffed or soon to be riffed colleagues would have been happy to increase their contribution.

Them increasing their contribution wouldn’t have prevented RIFs. What a dumb thing to say.

That is not what she meant--she meant they would all rather have a job and live through the increase than their situation of not having a job at all.

And it’s still dumb. I’m sure people who lose a leg would prefer to have lost a finger instead. That doesn’t make it okay to chop off people’s fingers.

Job terms and conditions have changed since the dawn of time. Feel free to find a new job. Name calling accomplishes nothing.

Not the issue. The issue is the justification for increasing how much people contribute to the retirement fund. You know that. But the only answer you’ve given is that people should pay more so your feelings won’t be hurt.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Honestly those of you complaining about a potential increase in your contribution sound very petty to me - I’d bet plenty of your riffed or soon to be riffed colleagues would have been happy to increase their contribution.

Them increasing their contribution wouldn’t have prevented RIFs. What a dumb thing to say.

That is not what she meant--she meant they would all rather have a job and live through the increase than their situation of not having a job at all.

And it’s still dumb. I’m sure people who lose a leg would prefer to have lost a finger instead. That doesn’t make it okay to chop off people’s fingers.

Job terms and conditions have changed since the dawn of time. Feel free to find a new job. Name calling accomplishes nothing.

Not the issue. The issue is the justification for increasing how much people contribute to the retirement fund. You know that. But the only answer you’ve given is that people should pay more so your feelings won’t be hurt.

No, I "don't know that" aka think that. You have been told what I think. I don't know what the Trump administration justification is actually but regardless of it I am fine with the result. You keep on telling people what they think, which is presumptuous. In addition, you don't have the ability to prick a conscience and make someone feel guilt for an opinion. But you keep on trying over and over. You are a human, not God. You have no power over other humans mentally. Also, you cannot bring things into being my your mere utterances, so your saying something over and over, that you don't want your contribution to change, doesn't mean that is not going to happen.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Honestly those of you complaining about a potential increase in your contribution sound very petty to me - I’d bet plenty of your riffed or soon to be riffed colleagues would have been happy to increase their contribution.

Them increasing their contribution wouldn’t have prevented RIFs. What a dumb thing to say.

That is not what she meant--she meant they would all rather have a job and live through the increase than their situation of not having a job at all.

And it’s still dumb. I’m sure people who lose a leg would prefer to have lost a finger instead. That doesn’t make it okay to chop off people’s fingers.

Job terms and conditions have changed since the dawn of time. Feel free to find a new job. Name calling accomplishes nothing.

Not the issue. The issue is the justification for increasing how much people contribute to the retirement fund. You know that. But the only answer you’ve given is that people should pay more so your feelings won’t be hurt.

No, I "don't know that" aka think that. You have been told what I think. I don't know what the Trump administration justification is actually but regardless of it I am fine with the result. You keep on telling people what they think, which is presumptuous. In addition, you don't have the ability to prick a conscience and make someone feel guilt for an opinion. But you keep on trying over and over. You are a human, not God. You have no power over other humans mentally. Also, you cannot bring things into being my your mere utterances, so your saying something over and over, that you don't want your contribution to change, doesn't mean that is not going to happen.

So what benefit do you derive from people being forced to pay more? Why can’t you answer?