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

Yes, but at least you'll outlive me by 25 yrs. You have that going for you.

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

How about you pay me for your parental leave benefits? See how that works? We each were given different terms when we started. I don’t begrudge folks who came after me for getting those.

I should’ve added and for my healthcare paying for things like fertility treatments. My healthcare costs have gone up because of this. Do I begrudge folks for this? No. Stop with the race to the bottom.

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

How about you pay me for your parental leave benefits? See how that works? We each were given different terms when we started. I don’t begrudge folks who came after me for getting those.

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

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Honestly those of you complaining about a potential increase in your contribution sound very petty to me - I’d bet plenty of your riffed or soon to be riffed colleagues would have been happy to increase their contribution.

Them increasing their contribution wouldn’t have prevented RIFs. What a dumb thing to say.

That is not what she meant--she meant they would all rather have a job and live through the increase than their situation of not having a job at all.

Race to the bottom and she’ll be so pleased to get there first. Maybe she’s hoping Elon will give her a head pat.

The poster was expressing reality. You think being mad and having clever comebacks and shutting down any discussion of literally reality of the possibility of the increase taking place will ensure the change will not take place. This is not how planet Earth works.

It works how we choose to make it work. You apparently choose “Thank you, sir! May I have another?”

Helloooo??? It does not work how we choose to make it work. Especially when your paycheck comes from somewhere or someone else. But feel free to take that argument up with Congress or Trump right now while federal agency budgets are literally getting slashed by the billions.

Of course it does. That’s why there are entirely different countries with entirely different systems all across the planet. How can you possibly have trouble understanding that?

Anonymous wrote:What is the status if the proposal? Is it in both the House- and Senate-passed budget resolutions?

IIRC the budget resolution as enacted calls for like $50 billion in savings from the committee with jurisdiction over feds and this is one of the easiest ways to get that money but we won’t see actual legislation for a little while

Anonymous wrote:How do you think your colleagues already paying 4.4 feel about you getting the same pension for so much less contribution.

I'd be fine with that if they change the social security and medicare. FERS is a tiny drop in the bucket. Reduce the SS and medicare benefits that align more with what the retirees actually contributed rather than some unrealistic formula. Politicians are too afraid to kill the hydra. Cut off one head, two more will grow in it's place. Just annihilate the entitlements and replace it with more realistic policy for everyone.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Honestly those of you complaining about a potential increase in your contribution sound very petty to me - I’d bet plenty of your riffed or soon to be riffed colleagues would have been happy to increase their contribution.

Them increasing their contribution wouldn’t have prevented RIFs. What a dumb thing to say.

That is not what she meant--she meant they would all rather have a job and live through the increase than their situation of not having a job at all.

Race to the bottom and she’ll be so pleased to get there first. Maybe she’s hoping Elon will give her a head pat.

The poster was expressing reality. You think being mad and having clever comebacks and shutting down any discussion of literally reality of the possibility of the increase taking place will ensure the change will not take place. This is not how planet Earth works.

It works how we choose to make it work. You apparently choose “Thank you, sir! May I have another?”

Helloooo??? It does not work how we choose to make it work. Especially when your paycheck comes from somewhere or someone else. But feel free to take that argument up with Congress or Trump right now while federal agency budgets are literally getting slashed by the billions.

They want us dead.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Honestly those of you complaining about a potential increase in your contribution sound very petty to me - I’d bet plenty of your riffed or soon to be riffed colleagues would have been happy to increase their contribution.

Them increasing their contribution wouldn’t have prevented RIFs. What a dumb thing to say.

That is not what she meant--she meant they would all rather have a job and live through the increase than their situation of not having a job at all.

Race to the bottom and she’ll be so pleased to get there first. Maybe she’s hoping Elon will give her a head pat.

The poster was expressing reality. You think being mad and having clever comebacks and shutting down any discussion of literally reality of the possibility of the increase taking place will ensure the change will not take place. This is not how planet Earth works.

It works how we choose to make it work. You apparently choose “Thank you, sir! May I have another?”

Anonymous wrote:This is literally the least of my problems right now.

+1

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Honestly those of you complaining about a potential increase in your contribution sound very petty to me - I’d bet plenty of your riffed or soon to be riffed colleagues would have been happy to increase their contribution.

Them increasing their contribution wouldn’t have prevented RIFs. What a dumb thing to say.

That is not what she meant--she meant they would all rather have a job and live through the increase than their situation of not having a job at all.

Race to the bottom and she’ll be so pleased to get there first. Maybe she’s hoping Elon will give her a head pat.

The poster was expressing reality. You think being mad and having clever comebacks and shutting down any discussion of literally reality of the possibility of the increase taking place will ensure the change will not take place. This is not how planet Earth works.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Honestly those of you complaining about a potential increase in your contribution sound very petty to me - I’d bet plenty of your riffed or soon to be riffed colleagues would have been happy to increase their contribution.

Them increasing their contribution wouldn’t have prevented RIFs. What a dumb thing to say.

That is not what she meant--she meant they would all rather have a job and live through the increase than their situation of not having a job at all.

Race to the bottom and she’ll be so pleased to get there first. Maybe she’s hoping Elon will give her a head pat.

What is the status if the proposal? Is it in both the House- and Senate-passed budget resolutions?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Honestly those of you complaining about a potential increase in your contribution sound very petty to me - I’d bet plenty of your riffed or soon to be riffed colleagues would have been happy to increase their contribution.

Them increasing their contribution wouldn’t have prevented RIFs. What a dumb thing to say.

That is not what she meant--she meant they would all rather have a job and live through the increase than their situation of not having a job at all.

And it’s still dumb. I’m sure people who lose a leg would prefer to have lost a finger instead. That doesn’t make it okay to chop off people’s fingers.

Job terms and conditions have changed since the dawn of time. Feel free to find a new job. Name calling accomplishes nothing.

Not the issue. The issue is the justification for increasing how much people contribute to the retirement fund. You know that. But the only answer you’ve given is that people should pay more so your feelings won’t be hurt.

The justification seems to be that it would save the government a lot of money. And if you are going to cut benefits to federal employees to save money, it’s not crazy to do it in a way that evens things out among employees who currently pay significantly different amounts for the same benefit.