Reply to When will SEC restore the TSP match that it eliminated a few months ago?

Forum Index » Jobs and Careers

Reply to "When will SEC restore the TSP match that it eliminated a few months ago?"

Subject:

Emoticons





More smilies

Text Color: Font: Close Marks

[quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous]I lost the 3% and $10,000 in the student loan repayment program. In addition no cash awards this year vs the $3500 I received last year.[/quote]

yeah, my suspicion is that OP is handcuffed due to prior student loan payment agreements, so switching agencies would entail repaying some or all of the last three years of student loan repayment (possibly up to $30,000), versus the known 1% cut (say, $2500 for the suspended 4 months) to the supplemental retirement program. What OP is ACTUALLY whining about is the uncertainty-- if the 3% annual additional retirement match is reinstated with the new fiscal year, it would be a bad financial move to leave over a loss of less than $3000 to his deferred comp. If Gary comes out and says it's never coming back, that's a different financial calc (though I suspect it still wouldn't come out in OPs favor.) And who knows how long Gary's sticking around?

Other FIRREA agencies offer additional discretionary (discretionary! that's the critical word there!) retirement comp- OCC and OFR and CFPB and FDIC give an additional 5% in a 401k, I think FRB gives 7% matching to thrift. not sure if CFTC gives any additional match. I switched to the SEC despite lower additional retirement comp, and so far am very happy with the trade.

I got a couple cash awards this fiscal year; less than prior years but still appreciated.

[/quote]

Actually whining about piss-poor financial planning. Anyone with common sense could have seen the crunch coming from a mile away, but instead of tightening belts and planning, we spent like drunken sailors. (Which is ironic, given the regulatory standards imposed on others.)

People can disagree whether cancelling the match is a good thing to do as a policy matter. But it should be a deliberate, thought-out decision. Not a hasty, emergency, panicked scramble to balance the books — especially when the economy is relatively stable and predictable. My 9 yo manages her allowance better than that.

Again, it’s telling that the commission is the only agency in all of government that had to cut pay or benefits — from federal  finregs to the parks dept in Zippo, WV. What does that tell you? [/quote]

It tells me that you're prone to hyperbole and terrible at research?

I agree that the spending/planning is a problem. But I believe that it was a deliberate choice by the Chair, who would prefer to make line staff as unhappy as possible. But his term, too, will eventually end. Anyway.

EEOC says they have to do a furlough:
https://federalnewsnetwork.com/hiring-retention/2024/08/budget-shortfalls-forcing-eeoc-to-prepare-for-1-day-furlough/

DOL is cutting 20% of its workforce (hopefully) with only VERA/VSIP
https://federalnewsnetwork.com/workforce/2024/01/labor-dept-watchdog-offers-buyouts-early-retirement-to-cut-staffing-by-20/

A bunch of agencies declined to implement the 2210-series special salary rate (SSR), and the VA is in hot water for trying it.

Army is making a massive reduction in its credentialing assistance program:
https://www.quickstart.com/military/army-credentialing-assistance-changes/#:~:text=What%20changes%20are%20being%20proposed,with%20a%20%244%2C000%20career%20cap.
[/quote]

Sorry, not seeing the links to stories about cuts in salary or benefits. By your logic, let’s all take a 50 pct pay cut and hire 500 more staff. [/quote]

a furlough isn't a cut to pay or benefits? telling a bunch of people that the new payscale that should apply to them will not be implemented isn't a cut to pay? in that regard, it sounds like not implementing the last pay raise wouldn't actually be a cut in your view either? well then! please tell gary and the union that you'd much prefer a furlough or no raise, than a temporary reduction in a retirement benefit. we are now in a hiring freeze, which means that if you do leave the agency presumably no one would notice for a while.

by *my* logic, i'd much rather have the full higher salary that is recorded on my SF-50 vs a temporary reduction in a retirement supplement. one will affect my future pay and income for the next several decades here and elsewhere and one won't. by your logic you... just want to whine a lot? it's like you have never worked at an agency where the appointees were actively trying to sabotage the agency itself before. maybe you should go back to the private sector.[/quote]

Options

	Disable HTML in this message
	Disable BB Code in this message
	Disable smilies in this message

Review message

Search Recent Topics Hottest Topics