Anonymous wrote:Feds retiring now under the old system can get about 80% but they have been in the system fir 30 years. I know people who get military retirement and retired under the old more generous pension package.

Teachers under the old system in Mo Co get that much, too. The rest of us are investing ourselves. When we had it good, we had it good! Now that the economy is tanking, watching your dime is smart.

Feds retiring now under the old system can get about 80% but they have been in the system fir 30 years. I know people who get military retirement and retired under the old more generous pension package.

Anonymous wrote:Here's a link to an interesting article by Forbes that suggests so:

http://www.forbes.com/forbes/2010/0628/opinions-rich-karlgaard-digital-rules-millionaire-cop-next-door.html

Fabulous. You have no intellectual self-respect at all.

You quote a right-wing magazine (Forbes) that cites a right-wing study (Heritage Foundation) about Feds getting 30% more than private sector workers. That sleazy Heritage study, which is about a year old, was easily debunked by OMB or GAO. Apparently government admins are paid more than their private sector peers. But government lawyers, economists, accounts and the rest are paid way LESS than their peers in the private sector.

And this sentence from your article is sheer BS: "Who are America's fastest-growing class of millionaires? They are police officers, firefighters, teachers and federal bureaucrats, who, unless things change drastically, will be paid something near their full salaries every year--until death--after retiring in their mid-50s. That is equivalent to a retirement sum worth millions of dollars." C'mon, show me a single Fed who gets 80-90% of their full salaries at retirement? The PP who said 30% is more accurate, and that's for people who spend their full careers in govt and retire at 65 (not 56), which is a very small minority. And if the 80% figure includes TSP (401(k)) savings, well that's just their own savings.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Too bad the writer failed to mention that Feds hired after 1984(?)do not get nearly as generous a pension..mostly a 401k like the private sector..and they can no longer retire at 55.

That's not true - although we aren't looking forward to 75-80% salary for life after retirement (but no social security), we will get about 30%+ salary for life plus social security and our 401k (thrift plan technically). And we can retire at 56 I thought (with 20 years of service) . . .

PLUS, we won't have to wait until 80 or 90 to collect social security - we can start collecting at 60 if we work till then while everyone else is waiting until they are in a nursing home to collect (or just dead).

This isn't true either. In fact most of it's wrong. Nobody has to wait until 80 or 90 to collect Social Security. Right now you can claim it at 62, or get full benefits at 67. There doesn't seem much political momentum for raising the age higher, instead we will probably see a small cut to benefits.

And retiring at 56 as a Fed gets you really reduced benefits. Very few people actually do this.

And the feds' 401(k) plan looks much like the 401(k) plan I used to get in the private sector. So there isn't much public-private difference re 401(k)s. Many cheaper private employers don't offer 401(k)s, but that's often for clerical jobs where people don't stay at the job.

Anonymous wrote:Here's a link to an interesting article by Forbes that suggests so:

http://www.forbes.com/forbes/2010/0628/opinions-rich-karlgaard-digital-rules-millionaire-cop-next-door.html

Hey. Pssst. The problem is the bankers, not the teachers. How dare you question the pay of teachers or public sector employees?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:just a rant here, but I am tired of people assuming Feds have cushy benefits and full retirement. As a fed under FERS, TSP benefits are not all that and then there's the unpaid maternity leaves. I like what I do, and have a public service calling, but I would be making far more in the private sector even as a 20-something GS-15.

Love it when fed workers say that they would be making more in the private sector. B.S. Haven't you heard, there aren't any jobs in the private sector.

9:53 here. Hey, I just got a private sector offer for way more (not only the private base salary is higher, but the offer also includes TSP and traditional pension!) than I'm making as a fed.

You are a troll, an ignorant troll. And probably a bitter troll too, given that remark about being jobless in the private sector!

Anonymous wrote:Too bad the writer failed to mention that Feds hired after 1984(?)do not get nearly as generous a pension..mostly a 401k like the private sector..and they can no longer retire at 55.

That's not true - although we aren't looking forward to 75-80% salary for life after retirement (but no social security), we will get about 30%+ salary for life plus social security and our 401k (thrift plan technically). And we can retire at 56 I thought (with 20 years of service) . . .

PLUS, we won't have to wait until 80 or 90 to collect social security - we can start collecting at 60 if we work till then while everyone else is waiting until they are in a nursing home to collect (or just dead).

And then there are fed airline rates. I love those...

Anonymous wrote:just a rant here, but I am tired of people assuming Feds have cushy benefits and full retirement. As a fed under FERS, TSP benefits are not all that and then there's the unpaid maternity leaves. I like what I do, and have a public service calling, but I would be making far more in the private sector even as a 20-something GS-15.

Love it when fed workers say that they would be making more in the private sector. B.S. Haven't you heard, there aren't any jobs in the private sector.

I love my fed policy job. But I'm about to leave it because I got a private sector offer that's much more generous for less demanding work.

Anonymous wrote:Here's a link to an interesting article by Forbes that suggests so:

http://www.forbes.com/forbes/2010/0628/opinions-rich-karlgaard-digital-rules-millionaire-cop-next-door.html

troll

And I have to take vacation time and pay for my meal to go to a holiday party. I have master's degree and 25 years experience. I am being told that virtually all conferences are off the table because of GSA. My bonus was cut 90% last year (with the same rating) and then of course the pay freeze.

just a rant here, but I am tired of people assuming Feds have cushy benefits and full retirement. As a fed under FERS, TSP benefits are not all that and then there's the unpaid maternity leaves. I like what I do, and have a public service calling, but I would be making far more in the private sector even as a 20-something GS-15.

Too bad the writer failed to mention that Feds hired after 1984(?)do not get nearly as generous a pension..mostly a 401k like the private sector..and they can no longer retire at 55.

Here's a link to an interesting article by Forbes that suggests so:

http://www.forbes.com/forbes/2010/0628/opinions-rich-karlgaard-digital-rules-millionaire-cop-next-door.html