Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think FERS benefits would be on the chopping block if country's debt problem is not dealt with.

This is going to be very true. Look what happened in Greece and a few other European countries for the pensions. They were out very easily and no-one had sympathy with Govt workers when the rest of the country was dealing with major financial issue.

What are you talking about? Greece has a public pension system.

yes, I understand it is not a lot but they would go for the easier targets to cut and FERS is a sore point for everyone other than the FEds

Anonymous wrote:For Us, 76% of June's tax revenue and income is going for repayment of debt interest. How long do you think this could go on like this before congress starts cutting benefits?

Total FERS payments in a year are about $30 billion. Might sound like a lot but when the total federal budget is $6 trillion it’s meaningless— like telling a Gen Z person they could buy a house if they skip starbucks tomorrow.

For Us, 76% of June's tax revenue and income is going for repayment of debt interest. How long do you think this could go on like this before congress starts cutting benefits?

Anonymous wrote:I think FERS benefits would be on the chopping block if country's debt problem is not dealt with.

This is going to be very true. Look what happened in Greece and a few other European countries for the pensions. They were out very easily and no-one had sympathy with Govt workers when the rest of the country was dealing with major financial issue.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I am not counting on FERS and SS. They need to do something about FERS because it is drain to the treasury even after being self-paid liability.

Agree, also paying govt employees. The treasury would be in a better position if they worked for free.

Well, some of the Govt employees are just dead weight and don't have to be at the positions where they are at right now. Get rid of 1/3rd of the employees and you won't feel a difference.

Are you really willing to give up on 1/3 of meat inspectors, National Park staff, Federal highway workers, weather forecast, cancer researchers, FEMA ?

Ignore the troll. This kind of thing with a totally made-up number is the hallmark of someone who neither knows nor understands what the government does.

LOl! if anyone is a supervisor here, then they would know what I am talking about and how many loafers are employed. BTW, I am a fed too.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Sorry, not be dense but how does FERS work?

High 3 yr pay * 1% (or 1.1 if 62 yo) * number of years in service

.

Not to exceed 30 years in service, right?

I don’t think there is a cap

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Sorry, not be dense but how does FERS work?

High 3 yr pay * 1% (or 1.1 if 62 yo) * number of years in service

.

Not to exceed 30 years in service, right?

^NP and new hires pay 4.4% per year for this.

Anonymous wrote:Sorry, not be dense but how does FERS work?

High 3 yr pay * 1% (or 1.1 if 62 yo) * number of years in service

Yes, I am counting on FERS in retirement. It's not much, but every little bit helps.

Sorry, not be dense but how does FERS work?

I think FERS benefits would be on the chopping block if country's debt problem is not dealt with.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I am not counting on FERS and SS. They need to do something about FERS because it is drain to the treasury even after being self-paid liability.

Agree, also paying govt employees. The treasury would be in a better position if they worked for free.

Well, some of the Govt employees are just dead weight and don't have to be at the positions where they are at right now. Get rid of 1/3rd of the employees and you won't feel a difference.

Are you really willing to give up on 1/3 of meat inspectors, National Park staff, Federal highway workers, weather forecast, cancer researchers, FEMA ?

Not all of them but a lot of them are useless at their jobs and just have it because they got in a long time ago. I am a fed and I clearly see that 50% of employees at my agency would not be needed for the work they do. You know that Govt is bloated with all kinds of useless and older PDs.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I am not counting on FERS and SS. They need to do something about FERS because it is drain to the treasury even after being self-paid liability.

Agree, also paying govt employees. The treasury would be in a better position if they worked for free.

Well, some of the Govt employees are just dead weight and don't have to be at the positions where they are at right now. Get rid of 1/3rd of the employees and you won't feel a difference.

Are you really willing to give up on 1/3 of meat inspectors, National Park staff, Federal highway workers, weather forecast, cancer researchers, FEMA ?

Ignore the troll. This kind of thing with a totally made-up number is the hallmark of someone who neither knows nor understands what the government does.