100,000 federal jobs shipped out of DC and reclassify 50,000 civil servants.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:They're retiring after 30 years with 90% to 100% of their monthly pay plus benefits.

WHAT?

WHO is retiring with that pension??

Definitely not federal employees. I’ll get maybe 30% if Instat long enough. That will be 1 percent of the average of my highest three years of salary x the number of years I end up working. If more than 20 years service, it will go up to 1.1 percent. Woot!

Someone who whose average 3 year high was 80k and worked 12 years as a fed would get a 12k pension.

But please do tell us which company is offering 90-100% of salary as pension, so we can all think about applying there.

Sorry meant $9600 pension.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:They're retiring after 30 years with 90% to 100% of their monthly pay plus benefits.

Girl you are thinking about your grandfather's pension. Nobody hired after 1985/86 are retiring with salaries like that. It is based on your top high three and one-percent. It turns into 1.1% after the completion of 20 years. There has been some chatter to make the top 3 years into top 5 years for new hires, which would reduce the pension further. New hires contribute 4.4% of the salary each pay period. And it is three-years to vest.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:They're retiring after 30 years with 90% to 100% of their monthly pay plus benefits.

Nope. Hasn't been true for years, that's the old Civil Service system that only exists for the oldest of fed retirees.

FERS annuities are based on high-3 average pay. Generally, the benefit is calculated as 1 percent of high-3 average pay multiplied by years of creditable service. For those retiring at age 62 or later with at least 20 years of service, a factor of 1.1 percent is used rather than 1 percent.

Age: Minimum Retirement Age*
High-3: $60,000
Service: 30 years
.01 x 30 x $60,000 = $18,000 (30% of high-3)

Yep, that's a pension of 18k a year on a 60k salary. We feds are really rolling in the money.

You left out that the Feds now also get TSP and Social Security, where they used to only get the pension. Depending on how one's TSP did, the retirement income is about the same.

Just like all workers, the federal employer pay the same amount to OASDI and Medicare. Are you saying they are not entitled the SS they are forced to pay just like you. As to TSP, that is equivalent to a 401k. If the employee puts money into their TSP, the government matches up to 5%. Most companies match between 7.5 and 10% to their employees 401k. Do you begrudge them for that benefit as well?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:They're retiring after 30 years with 90% to 100% of their monthly pay plus benefits.

Nope. Hasn't been true for years, that's the old Civil Service system that only exists for the oldest of fed retirees.

FERS annuities are based on high-3 average pay. Generally, the benefit is calculated as 1 percent of high-3 average pay multiplied by years of creditable service. For those retiring at age 62 or later with at least 20 years of service, a factor of 1.1 percent is used rather than 1 percent.

Age: Minimum Retirement Age*
High-3: $60,000
Service: 30 years
.01 x 30 x $60,000 = $18,000 (30% of high-3)

Yep, that's a pension of 18k a year on a 60k salary. We feds are really rolling in the money.

You left out that the Feds now also get TSP and Social Security, where they used to only get the pension. Depending on how one's TSP did, the retirement income is about the same.

Just like all workers, the federal employer pay the same amount to OASDI and Medicare. Are you saying they are not entitled the SS they are forced to pay just like you. As to TSP, that is equivalent to a 401k. If the employee puts money into their TSP, the government matches up to 5%. Most companies match between 7.5 and 10% to their employees 401k. Do you begrudge them for that benefit as well?

Federal workers used to be exempt from SS, as are some state workers today. The larger pension was compensation for that.

The point being is that the current system is largely comparable in benefits, but far more financially sustainable than the old system.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:They're retiring after 30 years with 90% to 100% of their monthly pay plus benefits.

Nope. Hasn't been true for years, that's the old Civil Service system that only exists for the oldest of fed retirees.

FERS annuities are based on high-3 average pay. Generally, the benefit is calculated as 1 percent of high-3 average pay multiplied by years of creditable service. For those retiring at age 62 or later with at least 20 years of service, a factor of 1.1 percent is used rather than 1 percent.

Age: Minimum Retirement Age*
High-3: $60,000
Service: 30 years
.01 x 30 x $60,000 = $18,000 (30% of high-3)

Yep, that's a pension of 18k a year on a 60k salary. We feds are really rolling in the money.

You left out that the Feds now also get TSP and Social Security, where they used to only get the pension. Depending on how one's TSP did, the retirement income is about the same.

Just like all workers, the federal employer pay the same amount to OASDI and Medicare. Are you saying they are not entitled the SS they are forced to pay just like you. As to TSP, that is equivalent to a 401k. If the employee puts money into their TSP, the government matches up to 5%. Most companies match between 7.5 and 10% to their employees 401k. Do you begrudge them for that benefit as well?

Federal workers used to be exempt from SS, as are some state workers today. The larger pension was compensation for that.

The point being is that the current system is largely comparable in benefits, but far more financially sustainable than the old system.

It was not financially sustainable in the old system, it is for that reason it no longer exist. Under that system those employers were exempt is because they did not pay into SS and any SS they paid into from working a second job they did not receive. The windfall law prevented old federal and many state employees from receiving SS. My DH is a recently retired LEO (not federal). In his LEO state job he did not pay into SS, but he earned enough SS quarters he paid into in a second job. The windfall law prohibits him from collecting the SS he paid into the system.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:They're retiring after 30 years with 90% to 100% of their monthly pay plus benefits.

WHAT?

WHO is retiring with that pension??

Definitely not federal employees. I’ll get maybe 30% if Instat long enough. That will be 1 percent of the average of my highest three years of salary x the number of years I end up working. If more than 20 years service, it will go up to 1.1 percent. Woot!

Someone who whose average 3 year high was 80k and worked 12 years as a fed would get a 12k pension.

But please do tell us which company is offering 90-100% of salary as pension, so we can all think about applying there.

The only people I know who still get a very generous pension like that are in law enforcement.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:They're retiring after 30 years with 90% to 100% of their monthly pay plus benefits.

Nope. Hasn't been true for years, that's the old Civil Service system that only exists for the oldest of fed retirees.

FERS annuities are based on high-3 average pay. Generally, the benefit is calculated as 1 percent of high-3 average pay multiplied by years of creditable service. For those retiring at age 62 or later with at least 20 years of service, a factor of 1.1 percent is used rather than 1 percent.

Age: Minimum Retirement Age*
High-3: $60,000
Service: 30 years
.01 x 30 x $60,000 = $18,000 (30% of high-3)

Yep, that's a pension of 18k a year on a 60k salary. We feds are really rolling in the money.

You left out that the Feds now also get TSP and Social Security, where they used to only get the pension. Depending on how one's TSP did, the retirement income is about the same.

It's up to the fed how much they decide to invest in TSP, it's basically an IRA.

So at first you were upset at the fiction / lie that feds get 100% of their former salary.

And now you are upset that feds get a fairly small pension, plus SS like everyone else, plus whatever money they have saved in an IRA (TSP) like everyone else? Got it.

[Anonymous]

Circling back to the topic of this post...

“As many as 100,000 government positions could be moved out, and I mean immediately, of Washington, to places filled with patriots who love America,” Trump said in a campaign video.

In fact, former President Trump began that process during his last administration, shipping the entire headquarters of the Bureau of Land Management, more than 300 jobs, out of the District to Colorado. The Biden administration undid that too, bringing all those positions back to D.C." -- per the earlier WUSA link here.

How difficult will it be to actually transfer tens of thousands of jobs out of DC? I suppose it could be done with an Executive Order?

Curious is anyone on here is familiar with the previous attempt to move BLM HQ, and how that shaped up.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:They're retiring after 30 years with 90% to 100% of their monthly pay plus benefits.

Nope. Hasn't been true for years, that's the old Civil Service system that only exists for the oldest of fed retirees.

FERS annuities are based on high-3 average pay. Generally, the benefit is calculated as 1 percent of high-3 average pay multiplied by years of creditable service. For those retiring at age 62 or later with at least 20 years of service, a factor of 1.1 percent is used rather than 1 percent.

Age: Minimum Retirement Age*
High-3: $60,000
Service: 30 years
.01 x 30 x $60,000 = $18,000 (30% of high-3)

Yep, that's a pension of 18k a year on a 60k salary. We feds are really rolling in the money.

You left out that the Feds now also get TSP and Social Security, where they used to only get the pension. Depending on how one's TSP did, the retirement income is about the same.

A TSP is like a 401k that Feds contribute their own money to, just like private sector employees. You get what you put in. And they pay Social Security taxes like everyone else.
Are you really this stupid, PP? Really?

[Anonymous]

Republicans always say this during their campaign to keep their base happy but then don’t do anything.

[Anonymous]

Pre-Carter, the feds were highly intelligent, elite people who felt obligation to country. Today, the feds are mediocre and unmotivated, many have been stealing paychecks from gov since the day gov was shutdown bc of covid. They are wildly overpaid. A 50% reduction would not be enough- I would do 80% reduction. The fed gov is like twitter before musk took over, only with a far lower IQ. We could get rid of 50% and you literally would not notice.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Since most federal jobs are already in California, Virginia, Maryland, and Texas, I'm not sure cutting just DC federal jobs are going to do it. We can cut some red (Virginia, Texas) state federal jobs too!

It would be great to get a lot of the red states off the federal dole so they can be self supporting.

Yes, you can cut some red state jobs too! We're not against that.

Do you think you're being clever by pitting one group against another? You aren't.

These budget deficits and ridiculous federal pensions are killing the U.S.

Now the true colors are showing. You are jelly. Why are you jealous of their pensions? The employees help to self-fund those pensions. And the feds are not the only workers that receive pensions. There are plenty of private sector jobs whose benefits rival and top the benefits offered by the feds, and some of the benefits are transportable.

Yes, I am jelly. That's it.

No actually, having someone work for 30 years and then collect retirement and benefits for 30 another years doesn't work. The math doesn't work.

I would love stable compounding interest to take care of it, but it doesn't.

And also, look at Social Security. When it first started, we had around 148 workers for every retiree. Now it's down to about 2.9 workers for every retiree. There's no interest accrued in it either. It's basically tap the workers through FICA and send a check to the retiree with that amount plus what's coming out of Social Security savings.

The pyramid is collapsing. It makes no interest and it's financially in trouble. The trustees say that every year. And the only answer the democrats have is to take an increasing percentage of the workers pay check to keep the music going. It's not fair to young workers who are trying to support themselves (maybe buy their first house or start a family) to ask them to keep kicking in more to a ponzi scheme (FIFO queue) that they're not going to see or they're going to see a much smaller payout with devalued dollars in 20 or 30 years.

Realistically, there's a lot of selfishness being promoted though these social schemes and people are not willingly participating. They're having it confiscated from their pay by force of government. I'm tired of our masterminds and their schemes. The founders never envisioned this nonsense.

They also never envisioned microwaves, automobiles, and AR15s

Or women and the descendants of their slaves having voting rights. Also, they absolutely envisioned a federal government with the ability to regulate and tax. So go sit down.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Pre-Carter, the feds were highly intelligent, elite people who felt obligation to country. Today, the feds are mediocre and unmotivated, many have been stealing paychecks from gov since the day gov was shutdown bc of covid. They are wildly overpaid. A 50% reduction would not be enough- I would do 80% reduction. The fed gov is like twitter before musk took over, only with a far lower IQ. We could get rid of 50% and you literally would not notice.

Pre-Carter Feds were the ones with the amazing pension you think still exists. Are you brain damaged?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Fine. I have a PhD in STEM, I will go to private industry and make 4x more money.

If this was an option for you, you'd be doing that right now.

I dont think that is true- I know so many people state who left duringteh last trumpadministration-communications majors type people and they ALL have well paid jobs and many stayed in the Washington area so people with fed gov experience can definitely get other more lucrative jobs. Iknowfor all teh lawyers- it's more prestigious to work for the government and a lot come from money to begin with. also in my experience a lot of feds are from the Dakotas, Texas, Indiana and Ohio to begin with, they might be ok with moving back especially with kids. The jobs keep them here.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Fine. I have a PhD in STEM, I will go to private industry and make 4x more money.


If this was an option for you, you'd be doing that right now.



I dont think that is true- I know so many people state who left duringteh last trumpadministration-communications majors type people and they ALL have well paid jobs and many stayed in the Washington area so people with fed gov experience can definitely get other more lucrative jobs. Iknowfor all teh lawyers- it's more prestigious to work for the government and a lot come from money to begin with. also in my experience a lot of feds are from the Dakotas, Texas, Indiana and Ohio to begin with, they might be ok with moving back especially with kids. The jobs keep them here.

They might not be okay with it, especially if they have a 2% mortgage and have to switch to a 7% mortgage. And with kids they might have a better deal here. Better schools in VA and MD suburbs. Also not sure if I would want to go back to the Dakotas. Harsh winters there.