FERS pension contribution increase

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Holy Moly! Federal employees hired before 2013 only had to contribute 0.8% of their salary towards their pension?

How on earth did they decide on 0.8% as the number? That's so... obscure. Why not 1%?

I had no idea the contribution was so low. I'm married to a fedgov worker.

I'm a teacher. We contribute 7% of our salary towards our pension. (Maryland).

But your pension multiplier is 50% higher than the standard federal government pension (1.5x years worked versus 1.0)

[Anonymous]

So when, not if, the Democrats get back in power, will they reverse these increases? Doubtful.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Holy Moly! Federal employees hired before 2013 only had to contribute 0.8% of their salary towards their pension?

How on earth did they decide on 0.8% as the number? That's so... obscure. Why not 1%?

I had no idea the contribution was so low. I'm married to a fedgov worker.

I'm a teacher. We contribute 7% of our salary towards our pension. (Maryland).

But your pension multiplier is 50% higher than the standard federal government pension (1.5x years worked versus 1.0)

Now add-in the 5-7% , depending on the agency, matching TSP contributions for federal employees.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Now you’ll know how the newer federal employees feel. It kills me that I have to pay 4.4 percent every paycheck when others are contributing close to nothing and getting much more in return. I really wish we could opt out or not even have FERs. I’m in my early 30s and suspect that this will account to almost nothing upon retirement but meanwhile I’m subsidized the hell out of my older colleagues for decades[/quote

You think you have it rough? I've been paying into Social Security for 45 years now, and watching retirees blow their monthly checks on RVs, bingo games, cruises and all-you-can-eat buffets. If I could have all of my SS tax payments back, with interest, I'd be a multi-millionaire.

My first federal job was as a GS-4 and I was paid $11,000/yr plus some supplement because I could type. There was no locality pay back then. $11,000 in 2025 dollars is $31,000 or about $15/hour.

I didn’t have, flexible spending, paid paternal leave, student loan forgiveness, please stop whining.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Holy Moly! Federal employees hired before 2013 only had to contribute 0.8% of their salary towards their pension?

How on earth did they decide on 0.8% as the number? That's so... obscure. Why not 1%?

I had no idea the contribution was so low. I'm married to a fedgov worker.

I'm a teacher. We contribute 7% of our salary towards our pension. (Maryland)

One of the many reasons I left teaching to be a federal employee.

[Anonymous]

The problem is the unfairness between feds hired before 2013 paying 0.8% and fed hired after paying 4.4%. It is time to correct this.

[Anonymous]

Crabs 🦀 in a bucket

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Crabs 🦀 in a bucket

No. Everyone paying 4.4% in FERS saves more money for the government. Cut to FEHB will be smaller.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:For people who are paying 0.8%, you have already saved on 3.6% of your salary for over 12 years. You can calculate how much you have earned more than people who joined fed in 2014 and later for doing the same job.

Ok but what about the LWOP we took when we had kids? And the student loan forgiveness programs we didn’t get to take advantage of? And the cost of before and after care we had to pay for since we couldn’t telework?

This! I had two kids in the early teens and blew through all of my sick, annual leave and then had to take LWOP. Guess what, I'm happy that the younger folks don't have to do that, even if I had to. This mentality of the FERS being unfair is crap. I also don't whine about the CSRS retirement folks either who had a better retirement deal. It is what it is. They shouldn't raise the FERS contributions, instead those people will retire in the next decade and then everyone will be on the same plan, until they change it again.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:So when, not if, the Democrats get back in power, will they reverse these increases? Doubtful.

No, they have no spine or love for Feds either. The years of 0% COLA were under Obama. Clinton did the last big round of RIFs. No one is in our corner.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:For people who are paying 0.8%, you have already saved on 3.6% of your salary for over 12 years. You can calculate how much you have earned more than people who joined fed in 2014 and later for doing the same job.

Ok but what about the LWOP we took when we had kids? And the student loan forgiveness programs we didn’t get to take advantage of? And the cost of before and after care we had to pay for since we couldn’t telework?

This! I had two kids in the early teens and blew through all of my sick, annual leave and then had to take LWOP. Guess what, I'm happy that the younger folks don't have to do that, even if I had to. This mentality of the FERS being unfair is crap. I also don't whine about the CSRS retirement folks either who had a better retirement deal. It is what it is. They shouldn't raise the FERS contributions, instead those people will retire in the next decade and then everyone will be on the same plan, until they change it again.

Ditto. I’m not resentful of CSRS folks. You get what you get when you enter on duty. This is really petty stuff and will not provide gov with good people moving forward.

I had suggested a life of service (nursing at State) and military for each kid but recently altered course. It’s not worth it with such a mercurial employer - furloughs, changing contracts years later, constant drubbing. Go into sales! Not just this admin!