Are Feds offering pensions to new employees?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:OP, here. I'm not employed by the Feds. I was just wondering as I find it inappropriate to be offering new employees in any industry a defined benefit, but particularly inappropriate for a government with such massive and worsening budget problems and a poor track record of managing talent (ie, allowing poor workers to remain in service and accrue exceptional benefits for inefficient work).

Then the benefits they receive is none of your business. Focus on setting up your own retirement.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:OP, here. I'm not employed by the Feds. I was just wondering as I find it inappropriate to be offering new employees in any industry a defined benefit, but particularly inappropriate for a government with such massive and worsening budget problems and a poor track record of managing talent (ie, allowing poor workers to remain in service and accrue exceptional benefits for inefficient work).

Then the benefits they receive is none of your business. Focus on setting up your own retirement.

Wrong. Wrong. Wrong. As a taxpayer, I am 100% entitled - legally and philosophically - to know the structure of the benefits paid to public employees. My retirement is in great shape, thanks. Unfortunately, I'm going have to pay more than a fair share to make up the shortfall to pay your retirement.

[Anonymous]

Lazy Feds want more $$.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Lazy Feds want more $$.

I don't think that's OP's point. I think the point (which seems to have been lost in the midst of the defensive Feds' protests) is that we shouldn't be adding NEW pension obligations in the current fiscal environment. Pay the existing obligations ... that's simple contract fulfillment ... but don't make a problem worse when it's not needed. The fed will be able to hire people offering only a TSP option and not a pension so why add to the massive unfunded government obligations that are going to bankrupt the country and leave our children and grandchildren with enormous deficits which require gigantic tax burdens and other problems.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:OP, here. I'm not employed by the Feds. I was just wondering as I find it inappropriate to be offering new employees in any industry a defined benefit, but particularly inappropriate for a government with such massive and worsening budget problems and a poor track record of managing talent (ie, allowing poor workers to remain in service and accrue exceptional benefits for inefficient work).

Then the benefits they receive is none of your business. Focus on setting up your own retirement.

Wrong. Wrong. Wrong. As a taxpayer, I am 100% entitled - legally and philosophically - to know the structure of the benefits paid to public employees. My retirement is in great shape, thanks. Unfortunately, I'm going have to pay more than a fair share to make up the shortfall to pay your retirement.

Another whiner.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:OP, here. I'm not employed by the Feds. I was just wondering as I find it inappropriate to be offering new employees in any industry a defined benefit, but particularly inappropriate for a government with such massive and worsening budget problems and a poor track record of managing talent (ie, allowing poor workers to remain in service and accrue exceptional benefits for inefficient work).

Then the benefits they receive is none of your business. Focus on setting up your own retirement.

Wrong. Wrong. Wrong. As a taxpayer, I am 100% entitled - legally and philosophically - to know the structure of the benefits paid to public employees. My retirement is in great shape, thanks. Unfortunately, I'm going have to pay more than a fair share to make up the shortfall to pay your retirement.

You're just dumb. What makes you think I'm a fed?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:OP, here. I'm not employed by the Feds. I was just wondering as I find it inappropriate to be offering new employees in any industry a defined benefit, but particularly inappropriate for a government with such massive and worsening budget problems and a poor track record of managing talent (ie, allowing poor workers to remain in service and accrue exceptional benefits for inefficient work).

Then the benefits they receive is none of your business. Focus on setting up your own retirement.

Wrong. Wrong. Wrong. As a taxpayer, I am 100% entitled - legally and philosophically - to know the structure of the benefits paid to public employees. My retirement is in great shape, thanks. Unfortunately, I'm going have to pay more than a fair share to make up the shortfall to pay your retirement.

You're just dumb. What makes you think I'm a fed?

Really? You're questioning how your participation in that exchange would imply that you might be a fed? Mighty indignant response ("none of your business") to a legitimate comment for someone that's just an unbiased third party.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:OP, here. I'm not employed by the Feds. I was just wondering as I find it inappropriate to be offering new employees in any industry a defined benefit, but particularly inappropriate for a government with such massive and worsening budget problems and a poor track record of managing talent (ie, allowing poor workers to remain in service and accrue exceptional benefits for inefficient work).

Then the benefits they receive is none of your business. Focus on setting up your own retirement.

Wrong. Wrong. Wrong. As a taxpayer, I am 100% entitled - legally and philosophically - to know the structure of the benefits paid to public employees. My retirement is in great shape, thanks. Unfortunately, I'm going have to pay more than a fair share to make up the shortfall to pay your retirement.

Another whiner.

Dynamite drop-in. Great contribution to the debate. Keep it up! GS-12 level 6 is only three more substance-less comments and the obligatory time served period away!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:OP here again. Let me also clarify that I think the TSP is a great and appropriate benefit. I am all for contribution based retirement options. It's the defined benefit that I find inappropriate ... partially b/c we have no idea what future market returns will be and I suspect that actuarial return assumptions are too high, which means that additional revenues will be required to pay promised benefits if the current investment pool does not achieve its return objective.

TSP and Pension are 2 different things. Both may have employer and employee contributions.

No s, Sherlock. That's the point. One is funded now based on known resources and has no future liability (TSP - a Defined Contribution). The other (a pension - Defined Benefit) is partially paid now, but has a big associated liability that is promised but only funded later from the contributions of new enrollees and the investment returns on the existing trust ... primarily the latter. If returns are not achieved to meet the promised benefit, guess what happens ... we all pay more taxes and the government takes on more debt to pay their obligations. I'll save the economics lesson, but neither of these outcomes are good.

I am now concerned that the PPs questioning my understanding are the ones that don't understand how their benefits work ... further enhancing my skepticism about the legitimacy of the DB offerings.

Actually, the reason I suggested you didn't know what you are talking about is that you seemed completely unaware of the difference between private and federal pension funding, and the requirements that apply to federal pensions. The only returns that the federal trust fund for pensions can achieve is interest on Treasury bonds-- they are completely unlike funding sources for state or private pensions that might be relying on gains from the stock market. Moreover, that trust fund is projected to have increasing balances for at least 65 years. So I'd appreciate it if you would save the condescension, as well as the "economics lesson".

[Anonymous]

Quite a few feds already make obscene amounts of money--far more than the private sector. Nurse practitioners making well over 100K for example. I almost crapped when I saw that posting recently.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:OP here again. Let me also clarify that I think the TSP is a great and appropriate benefit. I am all for contribution based retirement options. It's the defined benefit that I find inappropriate ... partially b/c we have no idea what future market returns will be and I suspect that actuarial return assumptions are too high, which means that additional revenues will be required to pay promised benefits if the current investment pool does not achieve its return objective.

TSP and Pension are 2 different things. Both may have employer and employee contributions.

No s, Sherlock. That's the point. One is funded now based on known resources and has no future liability (TSP - a Defined Contribution). The other (a pension - Defined Benefit) is partially paid now, but has a big associated liability that is promised but only funded later from the contributions of new enrollees and the investment returns on the existing trust ... primarily the latter. If returns are not achieved to meet the promised benefit, guess what happens ... we all pay more taxes and the government takes on more debt to pay their obligations. I'll save the economics lesson, but neither of these outcomes are good.

I am now concerned that the PPs questioning my understanding are the ones that don't understand how their benefits work ... further enhancing my skepticism about the legitimacy of the DB offerings.

Actually, the reason I suggested you didn't know what you are talking about is that you seemed completely unaware of the difference between private and federal pension funding, and the requirements that apply to federal pensions. The only returns that the federal trust fund for pensions can achieve is interest on Treasury bonds-- they are completely unlike funding sources for state or private pensions that might be relying on gains from the stock market. Moreover, that trust fund is projected to have increasing balances for at least 65 years. So I'd appreciate it if you would save the condescension, as well as the "economics lesson".

Fair enough. You are correct that I had not appreciated the differences between the CSRS and FERS asset/liability calculation and "prefunding" of FERS.

Even for FERS, however, the actuarial assumptions are dubious and the increasing balances for 65 years is unlikely ... particularly as they're expected to decline for the next 5-10 years and only rebound in the far out years, when it's nearly impossible to predict economic conditions.

[Anonymous]

What is your point OP? That taxpayers shouldn't be funding pensions? Um ok. I have a lot of things I don't want my taxes to find. Welcome to America.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:OP here again. Let me also clarify that I think the TSP is a great and appropriate benefit. I am all for contribution based retirement options. It's the defined benefit that I find inappropriate ... partially b/c we have no idea what future market returns will be and I suspect that actuarial return assumptions are too high, which means that additional revenues will be required to pay promised benefits if the current investment pool does not achieve its return objective.

TSP and Pension are 2 different things. Both may have employer and employee contributions.

No s, Sherlock. That's the point. One is funded now based on known resources and has no future liability (TSP - a Defined Contribution). The other (a pension - Defined Benefit) is partially paid now, but has a big associated liability that is promised but only funded later from the contributions of new enrollees and the investment returns on the existing trust ... primarily the latter. If returns are not achieved to meet the promised benefit, guess what happens ... we all pay more taxes and the government takes on more debt to pay their obligations. I'll save the economics lesson, but neither of these outcomes are good.

I am now concerned that the PPs questioning my understanding are the ones that don't understand how their benefits work ... further enhancing my skepticism about the legitimacy of the DB offerings.

Actually, the reason I suggested you didn't know what you are talking about is that you seemed completely unaware of the difference between private and federal pension funding, and the requirements that apply to federal pensions. The only returns that the federal trust fund for pensions can achieve is interest on Treasury bonds-- they are completely unlike funding sources for state or private pensions that might be relying on gains from the stock market. Moreover, that trust fund is projected to have increasing balances for at least 65 years. So I'd appreciate it if you would save the condescension, as well as the "economics lesson".

Fair enough. You are correct that I had not appreciated the differences between the CSRS and FERS asset/liability calculation and "prefunding" of FERS.

Even for FERS, however, the actuarial assumptions are dubious and the increasing balances for 65 years is unlikely ... particularly as they're expected to decline for the next 5-10 years and only rebound in the far out years, when it's nearly impossible to predict economic conditions.

You didn't know anything about FERS as of 10:15 this morning, but now you've concluded the actuarial assumptions are dubious? Pass.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:OP, here. I'm not employed by the Feds. I was just wondering as I find it inappropriate to be offering new employees in any industry a defined benefit, but particularly inappropriate for a government with such massive and worsening budget problems and a poor track record of managing talent (ie, allowing poor workers to remain in service and accrue exceptional benefits for inefficient work).

Then the benefits they receive is none of your business. Focus on setting up your own retirement.

Wrong. Wrong. Wrong. As a taxpayer, I am 100% entitled - legally and philosophically - to know the structure of the benefits paid to public employees. My retirement is in great shape, thanks. Unfortunately, I'm going have to pay more than a fair share to make up the shortfall to pay your retirement.

You're just dumb. What makes you think I'm a fed?

Really? You're questioning how your participation in that exchange would imply that you might be a fed? Mighty indignant response ("none of your business") to a legitimate comment for someone that's just an unbiased third party.

You are dumb, I repeat, to assume I am a fed. Which I most certainly am not.
You, sir or madam, are just plain dumb. Period.

[Anonymous]

Federal employees have been offered pensions and other good benefits because, generally, their salaries don't compare to the private sector.