Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I bet we get at least 3.25%

My agency receives one salaries and expenses appropriation. If Congress holds it constant, I don’t see how we can absorb a COLA and automatic step increases, not to mention promotions.

My agency had step increases on hold for years and there are people who were hired after a hiring freeze who were brought in earning more than their supervisors (I am one of them and my TL deserves a raise). I really really hope they can reward people who have been patient while also bringing pay closer to industry norms. Right now we earn less than counterparts in academia, thought still more than average feds.

You really need to be brilliant to be in academia in DC or another big city at a well regarded institution. Likely you can't cut it in academia, so why would you expect to make what your friend who is a prof at Georgetown is making? If you wanted to go into the office 5 days a week, be "on" all the time, and have no job security than you would try to make the jump to the private sector and get the 20% pay increase. But somewhere you either don't want that or you've been shut out. The private sector is shedding jobs right now in and not hiring as robustly (and hiring will continue to slow and shedding will continue with higher interest rates). The private sector is not looking for a bunch of new gov. employees to hire.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Didn't y'all just get a 4% increase in addition to the step and grade increases already built into your salaries? No one else I know is guaranteed a promotion/salary increase every year.

And federal pay lags behind private sector.

So switch to private sector.

Why would you want sucky talent in the public sector? Not saying public sector employees should make the same as private, but a 20-25% gap for professional positions is too wide.

But when you factor in pension and medical benefits (not to mention job security) is it really 20-25%? No, it's not. This debate comes up frequently on DCUM and most people say they need a lot to jump to the private sector.

I really wish they would reform SS cap as the upthread poster sugggested.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I bet we get at least 3.25%

My agency receives one salaries and expenses appropriation. If Congress holds it constant, I don’t see how we can absorb a COLA and automatic step increases, not to mention promotions.

My agency had step increases on hold for years and there are people who were hired after a hiring freeze who were brought in earning more than their supervisors (I am one of them and my TL deserves a raise). I really really hope they can reward people who have been patient while also bringing pay closer to industry norms. Right now we earn less than counterparts in academia, thought still more than average feds.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:When will we know re raises? It wouldn't be in this bill, correct?

So August-Sept? Or Dec?

I think it we’ll have more clarity somewhat soon once people figure out what’s in the debt ceiling legislation and the practical effects. It purports to cut IRS funding, unused Covid relief funding, etc., and it’s possible those cuts will be enough to offset a pay raise on top of step increases and promotions.

I could be wrong but I thought those cuts were in addition to holding spending at FY 2023 levels.

One other thing is that fed comp is a relatively small portion of the overall discretionary spending budget so it might be possible to cut back programming a bit to find funds for a raise.

Anonymous wrote:the raise is likely to be 2 percent

Yep, that or program expenses getting cut. A 5% increase with a small cut in appropriations amounts to decent sized cut

Anonymous wrote:When will we know re raises? It wouldn't be in this bill, correct?

So August-Sept? Or Dec?

I think it we’ll have more clarity somewhat soon once people figure out what’s in the debt ceiling legislation and the practical effects. It purports to cut IRS funding, unused Covid relief funding, etc., and it’s possible those cuts will be enough to offset a pay raise on top of step increases and promotions.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I bet we get at least 3.25%

My agency receives one salaries and expenses appropriation. If Congress holds it constant, I don’t see how we can absorb a COLA and automatic step increases, not to mention promotions.

Yeah this is my worry. We can not refill vacant positions, but that doesn't make the work go away. It's a bit grim.

Anonymous wrote:I bet we get at least 3.25%

My agency receives one salaries and expenses appropriation. If Congress holds it constant, I don’t see how we can absorb a COLA and automatic step increases, not to mention promotions.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:As someone in hiring, trust me you should want fed pay raised. Right now the people running your government can’t afford to live anywhere near their offices, and new hires don’t put up with low pay just for the honor of serving their nation. They google cost of housing and childcare in dmv and nope right on out of the process. Starting pay grade at my org is the same it was when I started 23 years ago. Usg is in for a rough few decades in hiring given inflation coupled with low pay

Agree. I barely make enough for Fed work to be worth it, but I really enjoy my job and the telework flexibility. Truthfully I could only take this job because I’m married to someone that makes more money.
I’m so glad rich people got their tax cuts under Trump so now we all have to have a pay freeze.

You do realize that the bottom 50% of federal tax payers pay just 2.3% of all federal taxes correct?
The bottom 50% do not pay their "fair share".

That’s an indication of just how little money they make. What is their “fair share” in your view? Should the top 1% only pay 1% of the taxes even though they have 33% of the money?

I'm suggesting they pay something and most do not.
I'm not referring at the poverty level either.

This is a talking point that is peddled in ultra right wing circles, where they say that everyone must pay taxes to have skin in the game or some such nonsense. So even if you are really poor, they want you to pay a chunk of your meager income in taxes. It's such a profoundly dumb argument, but I think the point is to detract from the fact that the rich pay much less in taxes than at any time in history. Rather than trying to squeeze poor people to the bone, the country would generate far more revenue from just taxing the ultra wealthy a little more.

Such drivel.

When you call out the ultra right wingers on how vacuous their talking points are, they don't even try to mount any defense, as there is none.

When you use clueless, idiotic, knee-jerk phrases like "ultra right wingers", it is useless to try to reasonably debate you.
And considering that the top 25% pay 88.5% of all federal taxes, its clear who shoulders the tax burden.

Seriously, what part of " its not you money" do you not understand?

Top 10% has 75% of the wealth and pays 75% of the taxes. Sounds about right to me. Do you think they should pay less?

I think the middle class should be more favored.
I think the SALT tax deduction limit should be raised to 40K from 10K (but no higher) to provide for a legitimate middle class tax benefit.
Many people have to use the standard deduction because of the useless 10K limit.

I think the social security tax against earnings should be capped at 100K and then resume after 400K.
This would provide for meaningful paycheck $$ for middle class families.

Yes, I'm sure you think my answer is contradictory, but this is what neither party will do.

I bet we get at least 3.25%

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:As someone in hiring, trust me you should want fed pay raised. Right now the people running your government can’t afford to live anywhere near their offices, and new hires don’t put up with low pay just for the honor of serving their nation. They google cost of housing and childcare in dmv and nope right on out of the process. Starting pay grade at my org is the same it was when I started 23 years ago. Usg is in for a rough few decades in hiring given inflation coupled with low pay

Agree. I barely make enough for Fed work to be worth it, but I really enjoy my job and the telework flexibility. Truthfully I could only take this job because I’m married to someone that makes more money.
I’m so glad rich people got their tax cuts under Trump so now we all have to have a pay freeze.

You do realize that the bottom 50% of federal tax payers pay just 2.3% of all federal taxes correct?
The bottom 50% do not pay their "fair share".

That’s an indication of just how little money they make. What is their “fair share” in your view? Should the top 1% only pay 1% of the taxes even though they have 33% of the money?

I'm suggesting they pay something and most do not.
I'm not referring at the poverty level either.

This is a talking point that is peddled in ultra right wing circles, where they say that everyone must pay taxes to have skin in the game or some such nonsense. So even if you are really poor, they want you to pay a chunk of your meager income in taxes. It's such a profoundly dumb argument, but I think the point is to detract from the fact that the rich pay much less in taxes than at any time in history. Rather than trying to squeeze poor people to the bone, the country would generate far more revenue from just taxing the ultra wealthy a little more.

Such drivel.

When you call out the ultra right wingers on how vacuous their talking points are, they don't even try to mount any defense, as there is none.

When you use clueless, idiotic, knee-jerk phrases like "ultra right wingers", it is useless to try to reasonably debate you.
And considering that the top 25% pay 88.5% of all federal taxes, its clear who shoulders the tax burden.

Seriously, what part of " its not you money" do you not understand?

Top 10% has 75% of the wealth and pays 75% of the taxes. Sounds about right to me. Do you think they should pay less?

your

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:As someone in hiring, trust me you should want fed pay raised. Right now the people running your government can’t afford to live anywhere near their offices, and new hires don’t put up with low pay just for the honor of serving their nation. They google cost of housing and childcare in dmv and nope right on out of the process. Starting pay grade at my org is the same it was when I started 23 years ago. Usg is in for a rough few decades in hiring given inflation coupled with low pay

Agree. I barely make enough for Fed work to be worth it, but I really enjoy my job and the telework flexibility. Truthfully I could only take this job because I’m married to someone that makes more money.
I’m so glad rich people got their tax cuts under Trump so now we all have to have a pay freeze.

You do realize that the bottom 50% of federal tax payers pay just 2.3% of all federal taxes correct?
The bottom 50% do not pay their "fair share".

That’s an indication of just how little money they make. What is their “fair share” in your view? Should the top 1% only pay 1% of the taxes even though they have 33% of the money?

I'm suggesting they pay something and most do not.
I'm not referring at the poverty level either.

This is a talking point that is peddled in ultra right wing circles, where they say that everyone must pay taxes to have skin in the game or some such nonsense. So even if you are really poor, they want you to pay a chunk of your meager income in taxes. It's such a profoundly dumb argument, but I think the point is to detract from the fact that the rich pay much less in taxes than at any time in history. Rather than trying to squeeze poor people to the bone, the country would generate far more revenue from just taxing the ultra wealthy a little more.

Such drivel.

When you call out the ultra right wingers on how vacuous their talking points are, they don't even try to mount any defense, as there is none.

When you use clueless, idiotic, knee-jerk phrases like "ultra right wingers", it is useless to try to reasonably debate you.
And considering that the top 25% pay 88.5% of all federal taxes, its clear who shoulders the tax burden.

Seriously, what part of " its not you money" do you not understand?

When will we know re raises? It wouldn't be in this bill, correct?

So August-Sept? Or Dec?