Showing posts with label Taypayer Handouts and Ripoffs. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Taypayer Handouts and Ripoffs. Show all posts

February 14, 2014

Federal Government Offering Early Retirement and Buyouts Rather Than Laying Off Employees

Q: I am contemplating retiring under a Voluntary Early Retirement Authority (VERA)/Voluntary Separation Incentive Payment (VSIP) authorization that expires Sep. 30, 2011. I realize I will take a two year, one month penalty. My question is, as a CSRS retiree, if I return to employment outside of the federal government, what is the maximum percentage of earnings I can make without affecting my annuity?

A: Whether you get a job in or out of the federal government, there wouldn’t be any limit on the amount of money you can earn after you retire. However, if you returned to work for the federal government, one of two things would happen: Either your annuity would be terminated and you’d receive the full salary of your new position or your full salary would be offset by the amount of your annuity.

Source: CSRS retirement, Federal Times, July 11, 2011

More Government Workers Quitting Voluntarily, More Private Sector Workers Getting Fired

Zero Hedge - There was nothing to smile about in today's May JOLTS release from the BLS. Those expecting a pick up in job openings (traditionally the key requirement for an sustained increase in NFP) will have to wait some more, after the May number came at 3.0 million, the same as April. This is modestly better than the all time low of 2.1 million in July 2009, but is a far cry from the 4.4 million when the Depression started.

And while there was no good news in Job Openings, there was some bad news in Total Separations which increased by over 200K sequentially from 3.833 MM to 4.059 MM. And for the first time since late 2010, the separations rates (defined to include voluntary quits, involuntary layoffs and discharges) rose to 3.1%, the same as the hires rate. Should the separations rate (especially if driven by involuntary departures) surpass the hires rate it will likely portend another period of NFP weakness ahead.

What is most surprising is that contrary to conventional wisdom, the voluntary quits level among government workers increased from 38% to 41% of total, while the layoffs and discharges level dropped from 44% to 38%, which means that government workers were not "let go" -- they left voluntarily. This throws a bit of a wrench in generic interpretations of the surge in the government component of the unemployment rate.

What is worse is that the quits rate in the Private employment stayed flat at 50%, while the layoff and discharges rate increased from 42% to 44%. Ironically, it is Private workers who are getting fired more, while it is government workers who are quitting voluntarily [Editor's Note: buyouts, perhaps?; see following article]. 

Monthly big picture summary:


Drilling down into the key Separations number:
The quits rate can serve as a measure of workers’ willingness or ability to change jobs. In May, the quits rate was essentially unchanged for total nonfarm (1.5 percent), total private (1.7 percent), and government (0.6 percent). (See table 4.) Although the number of quits rose from 1.5 million in January 2010 (the most recent trough) to 2.0 million in May 2011, the number remained below the 2.8 million quits when the recession began in December 2007.
The number of quits (not seasonally adjusted) in May 2011 was higher than 12 months earlier for total nonfarm, total private, and government. Several industries experienced a rise in the number of quits over the year, and federal government experienced a decline. In the regions, the number of quits rose in the South but was little changed in the other three regions. (See table 8.)
The layoffs and discharges component of total separations is seasonally adjusted only at the total nonfarm, total private, and government levels. The layoffs and discharges rate was little changed in May for total nonfarm, total private, and government. The number of layoffs and discharges for total nonfarm was 1.8 million in May, up slightly from the recent low point of 1.5 million in January 2011, but still well below the peak of 2.5 million in February 2009. (See table B below.)
The layoffs and discharges level (not seasonally adjusted) was essentially unchanged over the 12 months ending in May for total nonfarm and total private. The level decreased over the year for federal government, returning to a more typical level after a large number of layoffs in May 2010 of temporary Census workers. The number of layoffs and discharges was steady in the regions. (See table 9.)
And looking at relative contributions:
The total separations level is influenced by the relative contribution of its three components—quits, layoffs and discharges, and other separations. The percentage of total separations attributable to the individual components has varied over time at the total nonfarm level, but for the majority of the months since the series began in December 2000, the proportion of quits has exceeded the proportion of layoffs and discharges. Other separations is historically a very small portion of total separations; it has rarely been above 10 percent of total separations.
The proportions of quits and layoffs and discharges were last equal in November 2010. Since then, the proportion of quits has trended upward, again exceeding the proportion of layoffs and discharges, which has trended downward. In May, the proportion of quits for total nonfarm was 49 percent and the proportion of layoffs and discharges was 44 percent. The proportions were similar for total private with 50 percent quits and 44 percent layoffs and discharges. For government, the proportions were 41 percent quits and 38 percent layoffs and discharges. (See table C below.)
Full report

Is a Voluntary Early Retirement (VERA) from the Federal Government in Your Future?

July 26, 2011

Dennis Damp @ Federal Retirment - When I attained 25 years service at age 44 I felt a great sense of relief. I knew that with 25 years of creditable service I would at least be eligible for an early retirement and I could apply for a VERA and VSIP if offered. The FAA received VERA authority in the mid 1990s during a major reorganization and I applied for the option and was denied. My position was not included in the initial offer. I was a little apprehensive when I first applied and my wife had major reservations because my annuity would have been a fraction of what it would have been at age 55.

First and foremost, look before you leap if offered a VERA. Determine if you can afford to retire and determine what you will do to occupy your time after you leave. I applied knowing that I had another full time job waiting for me with my publishing business.

Many agencies applied for and received early out authority recently for select groups of employees. The list is growing and includes the USPS, Department of Agriculture, Department of Energy, Government Printing Office (GPO), the Smithsonian Institute, Department of Defense, and the list keeps growing in light of the fiscal crisis that we find ourselves in.

VERA and VSIP programs allow federal agencies that are reorganizing or downsizing to offer early outs rather than lay employees off through a Reduction in Force (RIF). Agencies find it far easier to offer early outs to those who wish to leave than to lay federal employees off. Early outs provide more cost savings than RIF’s because younger employees subject to layoffs generally receive lower pay and benefits than the senior employees that would be eligible for early retirement.

Agencies often offer Voluntary Early Retirement Authority (VERA) to employees without a Voluntary Separation Incentive Payment (VSIP). In this case you can retire early and receive benefits however no incentive payment of up to $25,000 is offered for you to do so. To apply for an early out employees must be at least age 50 with 20 years of service or any age with 25 years of creditable service. If you are offered an early out, with or without a buyout, thoroughly understand the program and its impact on your finances, benefits, annuity, and retirement before applying.

If you apply and your VERA is approved you must leave by the date specified. This tends to play havoc with plans to sell back the maximum amount of accrued annual leave or the ability to round out your sick leave to an even month by the date of departure. Also, pay close attention to the CSRS penalty that may apply. If the CSRS employee is under age 55, this calculation is reduced by one-sixth of one percent for each full month he/she is under age 55 (i.e. 2% per year). There isn’t a penalty for FERS service.

The FERS Social Security Supplement applies under VERA for those who are at their MRA when they retire up to age 62. However, if the retiree goes back to work the Social Security earnings limit applies and for each dollar earned over $14,160 in 2011 your supplement is reduced by $1.00.

Those employees under the special 20 year retirement system, LEO, FF, ATC and NWC, can apply for a VERA if offered. If you don’t have 20 years vested in the special 20 year retirement system they will not receive the enhanced retirement benefits. With less than 20 years in the covered services their annuity would be based on the regular retirement formula. Many under LEO, FF, ATC and NWC have regular federal civil service time as well. For example, if an air traffic controller (ATC) is age 53 and has 24 years of creditable service for retirement, but only completed 17 years of ATC covered service, the controller’s retirement would be based on the regular retirement formula because he hadn’t completed 20 years under the ATC system.

So close but so far away… A site visitor’s agency was offering early outs however he was just a few months shy of the required 25 years of service. He wanted to apply his accrued annual leave to his service date to qualify. Unfortunately, annual leave can only be used with RIFs or a discontinued service retirement when an employee is involuntarily separated or has a redirected reassignment outside of their commuting area.

Military credits can be used to qualify for a VERAYou need a minimum of 5 years of civilian service to be eligible for a civilian retirement annuity. However, after the 5 years is met, the military service is creditable towards years of service for all the other voluntary retirement eligibility requirements: MRA +10; MRA +30; 60 years old with 20 years of service; and the VERA requirements – age 50 with 20 years of service or any age with 25 years of service. Review all eligibility requriements for FERS and CSRS retirement.

One major consideration, especially for those leaving in their 40s and 50s, is what you will do when you retire. Most will look for other employment and it is important to stay active and involved. Go to our Jobs Center to find employers that are specifically looking for retired feds with experience. Many companies seek out retired federal workers because of their extensive experience in many areas. Explore your options before you sign on the dotted line, especially since you will more than likely need supplemental income with an early retirement. Our job listings consolidate national listings for all occupations and in all sectors.

Complete details for VERA and VSIP programs:
What is the employee coverage in an early out?

Voluntary Early Retirement offers apply to employees covered under both the Civil Service Retirement System (CSRS) and the Federal Employees Retirement System (FERS) . When an agency has received VERA approval from OPM, an employee who meets the general eligibility requirements may be eligible to retire early. The employee must:
  1. Meet the minimum age and service requirements -
    • At least age 50 with at least 20 years creditable Federal service, OR
    • Any age with at least 25 years creditable Federal service;
  2. Have served in a position covered by the OPM authorization for the minimum time specified by OPM (usually 30 days prior to the date of the agency request);
  3. Serve in a position covered by the agency's VERA plan; and
  4. Separate by the close of the early-out period.

D-Day for Buyouts Fast Approaching

June 9, 2011

Federal News Radio - What do federal buyouts and buffaloes have in common?

They were once plentiful, then almost disappeared and are now making a comeback.

The Government Printing Office is the latest federal operation, and the first legislative branch agency this year, to offer employees the chance to take regular or early retirement and receive a buyout worth $25,000, before deductions. GPO's buyout pool is small and localized. It has 2,200 employees, mostly in the DC area, and wants to eliminate 330 positions. A buyout on that scale in a much larger operation would impact a huge number of employees. Also, it is a sign of the times and an indicator that more buyouts (called VSIPs) are coming to more federal operations.

The giant Agriculture Department is offering targeted buyouts to 544 employees in several operations. Early-retirement will be available to a much larger group of workers department-wide.

During an early-out, VERA in government lingo, employees can qualify for immediate annuities if they are at least age 50 with 20 years of service, or at any age if they have 25 years of federal/military service. The value of an immediate (as opposed to deferred) annuity is that the retiree can keep their health insurance for life. 

The Justice Department's Anti-Trust Division kicked off the buyout season this year, followed by the Federal Trade Commission, a large but targeted buyout ($20,000 max spread over two years) in the U.S. Postal Service, and the Smithsonian Institution.

Many workers would love to have the option to take early retirement IF accompanied by a buyout.  
Data indicates that early-outs are popular when coupled with a buyout, but that relatively few people take early retirement without a cash sweetener. 

Interest in buyouts is high goverment-wide. That's especially true in giant, high-burnout operations like Defense, Social Security Administration, the Internal Revenue Service and the VA. Air Force's Materiel Command is considering buyouts.

Politicians and political appointees who are increasingly concerned about the deficit are looking at the salary and benefits of government workers, including military personnel. Defense is looking at pay and benefits for civilian and military people, and especially at the high-cost to the government of military health benefits. 

Unfortunately for federal workers looking for clues, HR offices are often the last to know when a buyout is being seriously considered or about to be announced. But keep watching this space because, when they do come through, most employees will have a short take-it-or-leave it decision period.

Offer One-time Early Retirement and Buyout for CSRS Employees

July 2010

The President's Save Award - I would suggest that all departments of the Federal Government offer all (no exceptions) current employees in the CSRS pension plan a one time (never to be offered again) early out retirement option with a one-time incentive bonus (40% of their base salary). These employees would have been continuously employed by since Jan 1, 1984, and have a minimum of 25 years of Federal Service towards this pension (actually 26 years). I would add that these new retirees would not (ever) be allowed to return to Civilian Federal Service as a term of this agreement.

The benefits are numerous.
  • This will move a number of employees into a fixed cost (pension) to the government.

  • Many of these individuals are senior staff, and are near the top of the pay scale (expensive).

  • Replacement staff (new hires) could likely be brought in at up to half of the cost of the current employee cost. This lower payroll cost plus the bonus to the retiree would likely cost offset within the first two to three years.

  • Most new retirees will be replaced by their direct subordinate, opening career advancement (or hope for it) within the ranks of the Federal Government. I am tired of seeing excellent employees leave for the private sector due to poor career progression (stagnation).

  • New retirees would receive almost 50% (minimum) of their current salary per CSRS calculators.

  • This would hopefully move most CSRS members into retirement, thus lightening the workload for all HR departments.

  • Many jobs would be created, helping get people working in permanent, career track positions.
Other aspects to consider:
  • New retirees could return to work in the private sector (clearly not entry level jobs) if they chose to.

  • New retirees that chose to return to work could achieve (or complete) “40 good quarters” towards SSI benefits. (The Windfall Elimination Provision does have an SSI offset, but does not preclude a person from receiving those benefits.)

  • Allowing new retirees the ability to continue to contribute (non-matching) to TSP as part of the “one time offer”. (Not sure on this one, but it sounds nice).
The “early optional” retirement in already offered to Law Enforcement, Firefighters, and Air Traffic Controllers at 25 years, just without the incentive bonus. Why not allow all Federal employees a one time, never to be repeated chance to retire, and afford others a chance at gainful employment (jobs) in this tough economy. If implemented, this action should not be allowed to be retroactive.

I am not in the CSRS program; I am in the FERS program. I have a long way to go. This just makes sense to me.

February 12, 2014

Military and Federal Workers Are Living the Good Life While the Ones Who Pay Their Salaries Struggle

Between 2001 and 2009, per capita spending on three major components (basic pay and allowances for housing and subsistence) of cash compensation for active military personnel rose by 37 percent in inflation-adjusted dollars.

Government Would Save Billions by Capping Pay, CBO Says

March 15, 2011

GovExec.com - Reducing annual pay increases for federal civilian workers and military personnel would save the government billions of dollars during the next decade, according to the latest figures from the Congressional Budget Office in a report on trimming the burgeoning deficit.

CBO estimates the deficit will rise to $7 trillion during the next 10 years if mandatory and discretionary spending is not reined in across government. Capping military pay increases and reducing the annual across-the-board adjustment for civilian raises are two available areas, among several others, for cuts, the March 2011 report said.

The nonpartisan CBO said if the government capped the basic pay increase for service members from 2012 to 2015 and set raises at a rate 0.5 percentage points below the increase in the employment cost index,
it would save about $6 billion between 2012 and 2016, and $17 billion between 2012 and 2021. Since 2001, lawmakers have approved military pay raises for the average service member that exceeded the ECI by 0.5 percentage point.

President Obama's fiscal 2012 budget request proposes a 1.6 percent pay raise for military personnel and allocates an overall $8.3 billion for education, housing and other quality of life programs for service members.
"Between 2001 and 2009, per capita spending on three major components of cash compensation for active military personnel rose by 37 percent in inflation-adjusted dollars," the report said, citing basic pay, and allowances for housing and subsistence, as the primary compensation categories.

Overall, the Defense Department accounts for more than half of all annual discretionary funding, and any significant deficit reduction needs to take into account Defense appropriations, CBO said.
Nearly 40 percent of all spending is discretionary, totaling more than $1.3 trillion in 2010.
As for civilian compensation, CBO says the government could save about $10 billion during five years and $50 billion during 10 years by reducing by 0.5 percent the annual across-the-board pay raise expected under the 1990 Federal Employees Pay Comparability Act from 2013 to 2021. Obama has called for a federal civilian pay freeze in 2011 and 2012. Compensation costs for civilian personnel make up about 15 percent of federal discretionary spending, according to CBO.
But the report said the bigger savings would come from capping military pay.
According to CBO's analysis, "median cash compensation for military personnel -- including the tax-free cash allowances for food and housing -- exceeds the salaries of most civilians who have comparable education and work experience."
CBO acknowledged that reducing pay for service members and civilians could hinder recruitment and retention.
"That effect might be more pronounced for federal agencies that require workers with advanced degrees and professional skills."
To offset some of the pain associated with lowered base pay for service members in particular, CBO suggested expanding reenlistment bonuses. 

The report highlighted other areas for spending savings that would affect the health care benefits of Defense personnel, among them:
  • An increase in cost-sharing in TRICARE for military retirees who are not yet eligible for Medicare;

  • A limit on the TRICARE benefit for military retirees and their dependents (many enrollees who already have employer-sponsored insurance through a civilian job opt for enrollment in TRICARE Prime, which has the lowest out-of-pocket costs within the TRICARE system);

  • An increase in cost-sharing for prescription drugs under TRICARE.


NSPS Employees Can Expect 2.26 Percent Pay Boost

January 11, 2011

GovExec.com - Defense Department employees still under the National Security Personnel System will see a pay boost this month, according to Pentagon leadership.

A Dec. 27, 2010, memo from Undersecretary of Defense for Personnel and Readiness Clifford Stanley clarifies the funding available for performance-based pay increases for more than 54,000 workers and creates a salary "control point," designed to match pay limits with those that will apply when employees transition out of NSPS.

According to a Defense spokeswoman, 2.26 percent of salaries within a given pay pool are available for performance-based pay increases. Employees will be eligible for performance-based bonuses that individual agencies will determine, but those awards are neither automatic nor guaranteed. According to the spokeswoman, agencies are still compiling the pay pool data for the 2010 payout, but employees must have received a rating of "3" or higher to be eligible for a performance award.

The 2.26 percent is used for calculating and budgeting the available funds for NSPS annual performance awards. Performance-based increases and raises under Accelerated Compensation for Developmental Positions, which recognizes improvement of employees in training programs and other developmental capacities, might be included in pay raise calculations, according to the memo.

A mandatory control point, however, prevents employees from receiving a performance-based raise if the increase will push their salary above Level IV of the Executive Schedule, or $155,500.

The control point does not apply to physicians or dentists, who will be eligible for higher salaries matching those paid by the Veterans Affairs Department and the private sector, Stanley wrote.

Defense transferred nearly 172,000 employees, or 76 percent, back to the General Schedule in fiscal 2010, in keeping with department estimates. The remaining NSPS workers will move into alternative pay systems this spring, and all employees must transition by the end of 2011.

Congress repealed NSPS in the fiscal 2010 Defense authorization law, giving the department until Jan. 1, 2012, to roll back the controversial pay-for-performance system completely.

CLARIFICATION: This story was updated to reflect that some, but not all, NSPS employees could receive performance-based pay increases.


Concerns Over Pay Loom as Pentagon Returns to General Schedule

May 17, 2010

GovExec.com - The Federal Managers Association is asking lawmakers to ensure Pentagon employees do not lose salary as a result of the transition from the department's defunct pay-for-performance system.
"While the [2010] law explicitly states no employee shall lose or see a decrease in pay as they transition, I am concerned that this language will allow DoD officials to freeze future pay of top performers due to current [General Schedule] rules on pay retention," FMA National President Patricia Niehaus said in a May 14 letter to the leadership of the House and Senate Armed Services Committees.
According to Nieuhaus, since the average pay raise under the National Security Personnel System exceeded raises under the General Schedule, many NSPS employees are now, in terms of salary, a GS level above where they were when they entered NSPS. When these employees return to the GS grade they occupied prior to their conversion into NSPS, it is likely their salary will exceed the GS Step 10 level, Niehaus said. Under pay retention rules, these employees would receive only half the annual pay raise until the GS system catches up with them.
"We are increasingly concerned with the rush of DoD officials to transition employees out of NSPS without taking a close look at the number of employees likely to be subject to pay retention rules," Niehaus said.
An FMA survey of its members showed an average of 20 percent to 25 percent of employees are subject to pay retention rules. If FMA's members are representative of NSPS employees as a whole, then about 40,000 employees could face a decrease in pay.
"Many of these dedicated employees have crunched the numbers and determined that the General Schedule will not catch up with them by the time they retire over the next decade," Niehaus wrote. "This is unacceptable."
FMA is most concerned that pay retention would have the greatest effect on employees who were top performers under NSPS, which Niehaus said would send the message that above-average performance is not rewarded in the federal workplace.
"As members of the Federal Managers Association prepare to transition out of NSPS, I respectfully request that you take action to ensure high-performing DoD civil servants receive the compensation they have rightfully earned before they are forced to endure the effects of this unjust policy," the letter said.
The House Armed Services Committee will mark up the 2011 Defense authorization bill on Wednesday. Spokespeople from both the majority and the minority sides said they were unable to discuss the legislation heading into the markup. But it's likely the bill will address the NSPS transition, given the requirement that all Defense employees leave the system by Jan. 1, 2012.

Related:

Number of Federal Employees Getting Automatic Grade Promotions Jumped 75 Percent in Past Three Years, with Raises of 10 Percent to 20 Percent in One Year

Read More...

November 13, 2013

Public-Private Employee Retirement Parity Act Would Eliminate Pension Portion of the Federal Employees Retirement System

The Federal Employees Retirement System (FERS) requires federal employees to contribute only  0.8 percent of their paychecks toward their pensions; it requires taxpayers to cover the rest of the cost to avoid the accumulation of unfunded liabilities. That is why the government in fiscal 2011 hiked the amount taxpayers contributes to FERS pensions from 11.2 percent to 11.7 percent, and in October increased it further to 11.9 percent. [Source]

 The average public sector worker spends about 30 years in the workforce and 30 years retired, and the average private sector worker spends about 40 years in the workforce and 20 years retired. California public sector retirees, on average, receive a retirement pension equal to 66% of their average base pay after working 30 years while private sector retirees receive retirement benefits equal to 33% of their base pay after working 40 years (in California the average base pay of public servants is $68,000 while the average base pay of private workers is $41,500). Extrapolated to the United States as a whole, it is clear that the California model would mean that public sector retirees would cost taxpayers $862 billion per year, which is only 6% less than the entire bill for Ssocial Security for more than six times as many people. In other words, local and state public sector workers (16% of the workforce in California) retire 10 years earlier with retirement benefits 33% greater than private sector workers (84% of the workforce) — all at the expense of the taxpayers. - The Cost of Retirement Security in America, Free Republic, January 1, 2011

The average government worker’s retirement pension is equivalent to the average private sector worker’s base wages while still working! And government workers typically work from ages 25 to 55, then retire for 30 years, while private sector workers typically work from ages 25 to 65, then retire for 20 years. - How Much Do Pensions Really Cost?, CalWatchDog.com, March 11, 2011

The public sector employees in a pension plan get a total benefit some 25% better than the private sector employee. That is a pretty good incentive to work in the public sector. - Defined-benefit Public Sector Pensions: A Bad Habit Continues, The Economist, February 21, 2011

GOP Senators Reintroduce Public-Private Employee Retirement Parity Act S.1678

November 13, 2013

Postal Reporter – Today, U.S. Senators Richard Burr (R-NC), Tom Coburn (R-OK), and Saxby Chambliss (R-GA) reintroduced the Public-Private Employee Retirement Parity Act to address long-term liabilities facing the federal government. The legislation would end the defined benefit pension portion of the Federal Employee Retirement System (FERS) for new federal government hires starting six months after enactment, leaving fully in place the Thrift Savings Plan with the current match (up to 5%) for both current and future federal workers. The bill would also apply to Members of Congress.
“Right now, federal government workers receive far more generous retirement benefits than private sector employees. The cost to taxpayers of these benefits is unsustainable and we simply cannot afford it,” said Sen. Burr. “We cannot ask taxpayers to continue to foot the bill for public employee benefits that are far more generous than their own.”

“Generous pension plans for members of Congress have helped turn congressional service into a career rather than a calling,” said Dr. Coburn. “At the same time, federal workers enjoy a better benefits package and higher overall pay than most taxpayers – even at a time when many Americans are still simply looking for a job. This status quo is unsustainable and needs to be reformed.”

“With America now $17 trillion in debt, we simply cannot continue to commit to future government spending,” said Sen. Chambliss. “Americans have demanded their leaders make the necessary changes to our fiscal policies to put our nation on a track to sustain economic growth and real job creation. The Public-Private Employee Retirement Parity Act is a small change that will have a big impact on our debt and deficit.”
Currently, federal workers enjoy both a defined benefit pension and a Thrift Savings Plan (equivalent to a 401(k)) with up to a 5% match, paid for by the taxpayers. The average private sector employee gets a 401(k) with a 3% employer match and no pension. Federal workers also continue to enjoy federal health care benefits (FEHBP) after they retire, a benefit that is becoming increasingly rare in the private sector.

The legislation will require the Administration to make the annual report on the on the actuarial status of the federal retirement system publicaly available online by January 31st each year. According to the most recent Office of Personnel Management’s Civil Service Retirement and Disability Fund annual report, the FERS system is currently underfunded by $20.1 billion for fiscal year 2012. In the coming years, as more of the retirement burden falls on the FERS system, the required federal government contributions to FERS will skyrocket, especially in comparison to what federal workers will put into the system.

In 2012, the Federal government contributed about $22.2 billion to FERS. By 2065, those required contributions will rise to $239.5 billion, with the government paying out $415.3 billion in benefits.

Current federal government employees and retirees would not be impacted by the changes in the Burr-Coburn-Chambliss bill.

Senator Proposes Cuts to Federal Annuity Benefits

S.644, Public-Private Employee Retirement Parity Act, is a bill to amend subchapter II of chapter 84 of title 5, United States Code, to prohibit coverage for annuity purposes for any individual hired as a Federal employee after 2012.

GovExec.com - New legislation aims to cut federal pensions for all new employees hired after 2012, citing a need to bring benefits in line with those in the private sector.

Sen. Richard Burr, R-N.C., on Thursday introduced a bill (S. 644) that would eliminate the pension portion of the Federal Employees Retirement System for all new government hires beginning in 2013. The legislation would not affect Thrift Savings Plan benefits and agency-matching contributions. Nor would it affect FERS pensions for current federal employees and retirees. It would, however, apply to members of Congress.
"Right now, federal government workers receive far more generous retirement benefits than private sector employees," Burr said. "The cost to taxpayers of these benefits is unsustainable, and we simply cannot afford it. We cannot ask taxpayers to continue to foot the bill for public employee benefits that are far more generous than their own."
Federal employees are eligible for pensions, retirement savings plans with up to 5 percent in matching contribution. and retiree health care benefits above and beyond those available to private sector workers, according to Burr.  

He also asserted that FERS is underfunded by almost $1 billion and the Civil Service Retirement System by $673 billion.

According to Tom Trabucco, director of external affairs for the Federal Retirement Thrift Investment Board, the agency match for FERS participants is dollar for dollar on the first 3 percent of pay contributed to the TSP, and 50 cents on the fourth and fifth percentage points contributed. Agencies [taxpayers] automatically put in 1 percent of basic pay for all new FERS enrollees regardless of the employee contribution. He noted, however, that the arrangement is not equal to a 5 percent total match.

The assertion that federal pension programs are underfunded is rejected by John Gage, national president of the American Federation of Government Employees, who called the bill "cruel and useless."
"Sen. Burr is wrong on the facts and wrong on morals," Gage said. "Eliminating pensions for future employees would do absolutely nothing for the fictional unfunded liabilities that the fact-challenged senator imagines he is resolving. Worse, Sen. Burr's bill is a mean-spirited attempt to deprive future employees of any hope of a dignified retirement after they have spent a lifetime in public service."

Bill Takes Aim at Retirement Benefits

Defined-benefit portion of FERS is at stake

March 22, 2011

Federal Computer Week - Two Republican senators introduced a bill that would end the defined-benefit portion of the Federal Employees Retirement System for new federal hires, starting in 2013. The bill would not affect benefits for current feds.

Sens. Richard Burr (R-N.C.) and Tom Coburn (R-Okla.) introduced the Public-Private Employee Retirement Parity Act March 17. The bill would apply to future federal employees, including members of Congress. FERS employees now receive a defined-benefit pension and also may participate in the Thrift Savings Plan, which is equivalent to a private-sector 401(k) retirement plan.

In a joint statement, the senators said FERS is underfunded by nearly a billion dollars already, and as FERS accounts for more of the retirement burden in the future, required federal contributions to the FERS annuity will skyrocket.

The bill would not affect the TSP portion of the FERS retirement benefit. Like a 401(k), TSP is a defined-contribution plan that depends on employee and employer contributions. TSP participants receive matching contributions from agencies [taxpayers] on as much as 5 percent of the pay that an employee contributes. Employees receive a dollar-for-dollar agency match for the first 3 percent of pay contributed, and a 50 percent match for the next 2 percent of pay contributed. Employee contributions above 5 percent are not matched.

Defusing the Pension Bomb: How to Curb Public Retirement Costs in New York State

November 2003

The Manhattan Institute for Policy Research - Skyrocketing state and local employee pension costs have been a major factor in the fiscal crisis affecting every level of government in New York State. Taxpayer financed public pension contributions have soared by more than $2.3 billion dollars over the past two years—and are projected to rise even more in 2004. In New York City alone, the rise in pension costs will consume every dollar raised by Mayor Bloomberg’s record property tax increase.

The defined benefit (DB) pension plans used by state and local governments guarantee employees a fixed percentage of retirement income based on their peak salaries and career longevity. This requires those governments to invest money each year to cover future pension payments. But their contributions vary depending on complex actuarial assumptions and market fluctuations. As a result, the DB system is crisis prone because earnings during bull markets cover employer contributions, while losses during bear markets force governments to drastically increase contributions. Since bear markets usually coincide with recessions, DB pension plans force governments to spend more when they are least able to afford it.

This study shows how greater fairness for New York taxpayers and better retirement benefits for the majority of government employees can be achieved by switching from the current defined benefit (DB) pension plan to the defined contribution (DC) model used by the vast majority of private companies.

A DC plan differs from a DB plan by requiring employers to contribute the same amount in bear and bull markets and by giving employees ownership of, and investment responsibility for, their own pension funds. A DC plan offers increased retirement equity and flexibility for the majority of public employees while providing predictable costs for taxpayers and government employers.

Under the plan proposed here, employees would be required to contribute at least 3 percent of their salaries to a retirement account. The government [taxpayers] would match this with a minimum contribution of 5 percent, bringing the total minimum retirement savings to 8 percent of salary per year. Employers would match up to 2 percent of additional employee contributions, so that retirement savings of up to 12 percent of salary would consist of up to 7 percent from the employer and 5 percent from the employee. The recommended DC plan would effectively cap costs at 7 percent of pay, just over half the fiscal 2004-05 employer contributions for the New York State and Local Retirement System.

Taxpayers would no longer bear the risks associated with market downturns. Public pension costs for the first time would become both predictable and easily understandable, and the real costs of proposed benefit increases would be completely transparent, rather than obscured by complex actuarial calculations.

Federal Employees Retirement System (FERS)

Federal employees have stools with three legs made of solid mahogany. In the FERS, government employees contribute 0.8 percent of pay while their employing agencies [taxpayers] put in 11 percent of pay. On top of that, federal employees can contribute to a Thrift Savings Plan and get a 5 percent matching contribution from their employing agency [taxpayers]. This match is immediately vested to boot. According to the CRS report, "All participants in FERS are immediately vested in their own contributions and in government matching contributions to the TSP, as well as any investment earnings on these contributions." And the third leg for most federal employees is Social Security. If it gives you any comfort, they contribute to FICA to the same extent that everyone else does. - Going postal over federal pensions, Bankrate.com, March 25, 2011



According to the Bureau of Economic Analysis for 2008, the average federal employee made $79,197 [the average private sector employee made $49,935]. The pension for the average employee can be calculated as follows:

$79,197 x 30 Years x 1% = $23,759
$79,197 x 40 Years x 1% = $31,678

Understanding the FERS Retirement

When we talk about your FERS Retirement, we're really talking about several different benefits. FERS (Federal Employees Retirement System) has three main components:

  1. Basic FERS Pension
  2. Social Security
  3. Thrift Savings Plan (TSP)
Your FERS pension and Social Security will be fixed dollar amounts. But the money you get from your TSP will depend on how much you contributed and how well you managed the money.

As a FERS, you have a chance to take a more active role in managing your own retirement than CSRS do. But, that means you need to stay up-to-date on your benefits.

Here are some important things you need to know about each part of your FERS retirement...

Reductions to Your FERS Pension

There are some choices you can make that will reduce the amount of your FERS pension:
Thrift Savings Plan for FERSThe Thrift Savings Plan (TSP) is a special account for Federal Employees. The TSP was created as part of the Federal Employees Retirement System in 1986. Most government employees (FERS and CSRS) are eligible for the TSP -- even those hired before it was created.

The TSP allows you to save pre-tax dollars in a special personal account. You can choose how to invest those dollars -- although your choices are limited.

With your FERS retirement pension and Social Security, you will receive fixed amounts. But with your TSP, the amount you receive depends on how much you put in and how well you managed the money.

Your TSP contributions are optional and separate from your FERS pension.

You may also be able to get your Federal Agency [taxpayers] to contribute money to your TSP.

Click here to learn more about the match the government gives FERS employees.

Social Security for FERSEmployees covered under the Federal Employee Retirement System (FERS) are typically eligible to receive Social Security benefits when they retire. Every pay period, the Federal Government takes out 6.2% of your basic pay to put towards Social Security. But just like your FERS pension, your Social Security benefit is not based on your contributions - it is based on other factors.

According to the U.S. Social Security Administration, the Social Security taxes you and other workers pay into the system are used to pay for Social Security benefits.

You pay Social Security taxes on your earnings up to a certain amount. That amount increases each year to keep pace with wages. In 2011, that amount is $106,800.

You pay Medicare taxes on all of your wages or net earnings from self-employment. These taxes are used for Medicare coverage.

You pay 4.2%* 1.45%
Your employer pays 6.2% 1.45%
You pay 10.4% 2.9%

Currently, U.S. citizens cannot collect Social Security benefits until age 62. The maximum Social Security benefit is $23,500 per individual.

* The employee contribution was temporary lowered from 6.2% to 4.2% on January 1, 2011.

Read More...

March 19, 2013

To Whom Does the U.S. Government Really Owe Money?

To Whom Does the U.S. Government Really Owe Money?

March 11, 2011

MyGovCost.org - Back in January 2011, we featured a post where we looked at who are the largest holders of the U.S. national debt. Since that time, the U.S. Treasury has revised their data, specifically to identify who the real foreign owners of the U.S. national debt are. Here are how things really stood at the end of the U.S. government’s 2010 fiscal year on September 30, 2010:

To Whom Does the U.S. Government Really Owe Money?

The main differences from the chart we previously featured are that China’s holdings are much greater, while the United Kingdom’s holdings are much smaller, which is a result of a number of Chinese institutions using banks in the United Kingdom as intermediaries for purchasing and holding U.S. government-issued debt. As a result, China’s real U.S. debt holdings now account for 9.5% of the entire U.S. national debt outstanding (nearly 1 out of every 10 dollars the U.S. government has borrowed), instead of the 7.5% that was previously recorded.

Meanwhile, the U.K.’s recorded holdings have shrunk by a corresponding 2.0% of the entire U.S. national debt as a result of this accounting adjustment.

Finally, one question that came up after our original post was “How much of the national debt held by U.S. individuals and institutions is being held by the U.S. Federal Reserve?”

We found that as of September 29, 2010, the Federal Reserve held 966 billion dollars of the U.S. national debt in the form of U.S. Treasury Securities or Federal Agency Debt Securities, which represents 16.9% of all U.S. individual or institutional debt holdings, or approximately 7.1% of the total national debt.

Notes:

“All Other Foreign Nations” are all those except China (for which we’ve included Hong Kong), Japan, United Kingdom, Brazil and “Oil Exporters.”

“Oil exporters” include Ecuador, Venezuela, Indonesia, Bahrain, Iran, Iraq, Kuwait, Oman, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates, Algeria, Gabon, Libya, and Nigeria.

The “U.S. Civil Service Retirement Fund” is the Federal Civil Service Retirement and Disability Fund. The “U.S. Military Retirement Fund” is the Department of Defense Retirement Fund. The “Social Security Trust Fund” is the Federal Old-Age Survivors and Disability Insurance Trust Fund.

Data Sources:

U.S. Treasury Department. Monthly Statement of the Public Debt of the United States, September 30, 2010. Table III – Detail of Treasury Securities Outstanding, September 30, 2010.

U.S. Treasury Department. Major Foreign Holders of Treasury Securities. (At end of September 2010). Accessed 11 March 2011.

Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System. Monthly Report on Credit and Liquidity Programs and the Balance Sheet, October 2010. Table 1. Assets, Liabilities, and Capital of the Federal Reserve System.

October 1, 2012

Ninety Percent of All Households Could Face a Tax Increase in 2013

Huge Tax Increase Looms at Year-End 'Fiscal Cliff'

October 1, 2012

AP - A typical middle-income family making $40,000 to $64,000 a year could see its taxes go up by $2,000 next year if lawmakers fail to renew a lengthy roster of tax cuts set to expire at the end of the year, according to a new report Monday

Taxpayers across the income spectrum would be hit with large tax hikes, the Tax Policy Center said in its study, with households in the top 1 percent income range seeing an average tax increase of more than $120,000, while a family making between $110,000 to $140,000 could see a tax hike in the $6,000 range.

All told, the government would reap more than $500 billion in new revenue if a full menu of tax cuts were allowed to expire. The expiring provisions include Bush-era cuts on wage and investment income and cuts for married couples and families with children, among others. Also expiring is a 2 percentage point temporary payroll tax cut championed by President Barack Obama.
"It's just a huge, huge number," said Eric Toder, one of the authors of the study.
Economists warn that the looming tax hikes, combined with $109 billion in automatic spending cuts scheduled to take effect in January, could throw the fragile economy back into recession if Washington doesn't act. The automatic spending cuts are coming due because of the failure of last year's deficit "supercommittee" to strike a bargain. The combination of the sharp tax hikes and spending cuts has been dubbed a "fiscal cliff."
"The fiscal cliff threatens an unprecedented tax increase at year end," says the report. "Taxes would rise by more than $500 billion in 2013 — an average of almost $3,500 per household — as almost every tax cuts enacted since 2001 would expire."
Cumulatively, the country would see a 5 percentage point jump in its average tax rate, which works out to taxes on the top 1 percent jumping by more than 7 percentage points and about 4 percentage points for most people earning below $100,000 a year.

Put another way, people in the $40,000-$64,000 income range would see their average federal tax rate jump from 14 percent to 17.8 percent — or an increase in their overall federal bill of 27 percent.

All told, almost 90 percent of all households would face a tax increase, though the top 20 percent of earners would bear 60 percent of the overall cost.

It's likely that Washington policymakers will allow the payroll tax cut first enacted for 2011 to expire, and Obama is calling for permitting rates on individual income exceeding $200,000 and family incoming over $250,000 to go back to Clinton-era rates of as much as 39.6 percent.

Republicans controlling the House have also called for the expiration of Obama-backed tax cuts for the working poor, including expansions of the earned income and child tax credits.

But all sides are calling for the renewal of Bush-era tax rates for everyone else. Without a renewal of those rates, a married couple would pay a 28 percent rate on taxable income exceeding $72,300 instead of the 25 percent rate they now pay. And the 10 percent rate paid on the first $8,900 of income would jump to 15 percent.

The new top rate of 39.6 percent would kick in for income over $397,000. The current top rate is 35 percent rate.

The Tax Policy Center is a joint project of the Urban Institute and the Brookings Institution.

August 16, 2012

Half of Americans Don’t Have a 401(k) or Pension; Federal Employees Have Both as Part of a 3-Tiered Retirement Plan


Half of Americans Don’t Have a 401(k) or Pension

November 30, 2009

U.S. News & World Report - Fewer than half of U.S. workers participate in any kind of employment-based retirement plan. Just 40.4 percent of employees utilized a 401(k) or pension in 2008, down from 41.5 percent in 2007, according to a recent study by the Employee Benefit Research Institute. That translates to about 63.7 million workers who saved for retirement through a workplace program last year, considerably below the 67.1 million employees who participated in 2000.

Part of the problem is that only 50.6 percent of Americans work for an employer that sponsors a retirement savings plan. But even among full-time workers between the ages of 21 and 64, the group most likely to be offered a retirement plan at work, just 54.8 percent utilized the retirement account or pension plan, down from 55.3 percent in 2007.

Significantly more public-sector employees (75 percent) participated in a retirement plan than private-sector workers (41 percent). And employees on the verge of retirement between the ages of 55 and 64 participated in higher numbers (55 percent) than young workers age 21 to 24 (19 percent). Among large employers with 1,000 or more workers, 56 percent were saving for retirement through a workplace plan, compared to 16 percent at companies with 10 or fewer employees.

That leaves 78 million Americans who work for an employer or union that did not sponsor a retirement plan and 94.1 million workers who did not participate in a plan, the study found. Craig Copeland, a senior research associate for EBRI and author of the study, says additional decreases in retirement plan participation are possible in 2010.

The continued freezing of traditional pensions and shift to self-directed 401(k) retirement plans may continue to diminish the use of retirement savings plans, he writes. But the growing incidence of companies automatically enrolling workers in 401(k) plans unless they opt out could contribute to retirement account participation remaining near the level it is now.

71% Believe Government Workers Get Better Pensions Than Those In Private Sector

March 4, 2011

Rasmussen Reports - Most voters believe those who work for the government get better retirement benefits than those who work for private companies and also think it’s unlikely their state can afford the benefits given to state workers.

A new Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey finds that 71% of Likely U. S. Voters feel that, generally speaking, government workers get better pensions than private sector workers. Only 14% disagree, while slightly more (15%) are not sure. (To see survey question wording, click here.)
However, just 32% of all voters say it’s at least somewhat likely that their state will be able to afford all the pension benefits it has promised to state workers while 56% say it’s not likely. Those figures include 8% who say it is Very Likely and 16% who say it is Not At All Likely.

Voters strongly believe that government workers should wait until around age 65 to begin collecting full pension benefits. If someone joins the police force at age 20 and stays for 25 years, only 28% believe that person should receive a full pension for life at age 45. Sixty-one percent (61%) think they should find another job and wait until they retire at around age 65 to receive the full pension from their police work.

Similarly, if someone becomes a teacher right out of college and stays for 30 years until they retire, just 36% say they should receive their full pension for life at that time. Fifty-six percent (56%), however, say they should find another job and wait until they retire around age 65 to get their full teaching pension.

Most Americans continue to believe government workers also have more job security than those in the private sector and that they don’t work as hard as private sector workers.

The survey of 1,000 Likely Voters was conducted on March 2-3, 2011 by Rasmussen Reports. The margin of sampling error is +/- 3 percentage points with a 95% level of confidence. Field work for all Rasmussen Reports surveys is conducted by Pulse Opinion Research, LLC. See methodology.

Sixty-five percent (65%) of government employees believe that their pensions are better than those of private sector workers, a view shared by 77% of those employed by a private company.
Perhaps not surprisingly since most unionized public employees are aligned with the Democratic Party, a plurality (48%) of Democrats say their state is at least somewhat likely to be able to meet promised pension benefits. Sixty-nine percent (69%) of Republicans and 65% of voters not affiliated with either major party say that’s unlikely.

Governors in Wisconsin and New Jersey, battling large budget deficits, are at the forefront of efforts around the country to get unionized state employees to pay more for their health and pension benefits. In some states, these employees pay little or nothing toward those benefits, while nearly all private sector employees have sizable sums deducted from their paychecks for such benefits.

Male and female voters are in general agreement when it comes to the timing of police pensions, but women are more inclined to favor early benefits for teachers than men are.

Mainstream voters feel much more strongly than those in the Political Class that government workers have better pension benefits. Yet while 64% of Political Class voters think it’s likely that their state can afford the pension benefits promised to state workers, 70% of those in the Mainstream disagree.

Seventy-eight percent (78%) of all voters say they have followed recent news stories about pension plans provided for government employees, with 50% who say they are following Very Closely.

Thirty-six percent (36%) of voters nationwide think that in their state the average public employee earns more than the average private sector worker. Twenty-one percent (21%) say the government employee earns less, while 20% think their pay is about the same. Twenty-three percent (23%) are not sure.
Most Wisconsin voters oppose efforts to weaken collective bargaining rights for union workers but a plurality are supportive of significant pay cuts for state workers. As Governor Scott Walker and public employee unions battle in the court of public opinion, Wisconsin voters continue to see spending cuts as the proper path to solving the state’s budgetary woes.

How Government Pensions are Robbing You

Federal, state and local employees' pensions are so lavish, shrinking them to what private employers provide could cut your tax bill by 8%.

Originally Published on October 1, 1994

MONEY Magazine – The gaps between the princely pensions that public employees often collect and what the rest of us get are so astounding that they seem to have been exaggerated by a task force of bureaucrat-bashing Limbaughites.

Read these numbers and -- unless you're a public servant yourself -- seethe:
  • A state or local government worker earning $35,000 a year with 30 years on the job who retires at age 65 can expect an annual pension of about $18,000, according to the Employee Benefit Research Institute of Washington, D.C. For comparable federal employees, the pension figure runs as high as $19,700. But a similar private-sector worker would get only about $10,000 a year, or as much as 49% less.
  • State governments on average spend 14.3% of payroll on pensions; for local governments it's 17.5%, and at the federal level it's a Beltway-size 25% of payroll, according to the U.S. Office of Personnel Management. (Despite a 1983 law intended to reform federal pensions, the OPM expects that 25% to grow to 40% by 2020.) As a reality check, however, private companies with pensions spend only 3.6% of payroll on such plans, on average, according to a 1991 study by Greenwich Associates, a financial consulting and research group in Greenwich, Conn.
  • Moreover, many government workers enjoy two perks that almost no private employer could afford to offer. One is "spiking," a questionable practice that has been raising strong reactions around the country, as the newspaper clips on pages 138 and 139 attest. Spiking allows state and local employees to load up on pension credits at the end of their careers in order to inflate their pensions. Sometimes spiking actually manages to let them retire with higher incomes than they earned while working. The other retirement bennie, handed out by the federal government and most state and local governments, is an annual cost-of-living adjustment, which immunizes pensions from the ravages of inflation. According to Hastings Keith, co-chairman of the National Committee on Public Employee Pension Systems in Washington, D.C., $19 billion -- more than half of the total annual cost of federal civil service pensions -- pays for COLAs alone.
So government pensions are now significantly more generous than private ones (for more evidence. Why should you care? Simply because an increasingly significant portion of your taxes goes to pay for those overstuffed public pensions.

Money calculates that if government pensions were cut to the same level as the average for private industry, taxpayers would have saved $56 billion last year, enough to cut individual federal, state and local income taxes by almost 8%.

As these ballooning pensions continue to swell, they'll likely lead to cuts in necessary government services that your taxes pay for.
"Pension promises get made to employees, then become part of the general budget. That in turn narrows what you can spend on absolutely everything else, from getting potholes filled to keeping fire stations open," says Terry Clark, a University of Chicago professor of sociology.
The upshot: Federal, state and municipal governments, unwilling or unable to keep their pension promises by adding the required amount of money each year, are currently underfunded by a monumental $1.8 trillion. That's more than triple the $586 billion in individual income taxes collected last year by the Internal Revenue Service. By comparison, the far more publicized shortfall in corporate pension funding is a relatively tiny $53 billion. Warns John Erlenborn, a Washington, D.C. attorney and pension specialist who is a former Republican representative from Illinois:
"By the third decade in the 21st century, the public-pension crisis will be much, much greater than the savings and loan bailout. In fact, this one could be several orders of magnitude larger."
Comparing public and private pensions helps explain how the public obligation has turned into a monster. The differences fall under two broad headings: overcoverage and underfunding.

The ungodly details: The pampered civil servant

The blessing of a pension is available to just about every federal, state and local employee. By contrast, fewer than 40% of people employed in private industry work for firms that offer pension plans, according to data collected by the Employee Benefits Research Institute in Washington, D.C. The public pensions, in turn, represent a generous percentage of the public employee's increasingly superior pay.

According to the U.S. Commerce Department, in 1993 the average private worker received a salary of $28,907; for state and local government employees the figure was $30,039 and for the feds, a relatively handsome $35,690.

Furthermore, the bipartisan American Legislative Exchange Council, an organization of state legislators in Belleville, Ill., reports that state and local government employees' compensation rose an inflation-adjusted 14.6% during the '80s, the latest period for which figures are available, compared with just 2.4% for private-sector workers. In the past three years federal -- wages increased by an average of roughly 6.2% a year, vs. 3.9% for private workers, according to the U.S. Bureau of Economic Analysis. In August, President Clinton announced that federal white-collar employees would get a pay increase averaging 2.6% next year. Consider the powerful leveraging effect of this higher pay plus the more generous formulas used to calculate public pensions.

Federal Employees Retirement System (FERS)



According to the Bureau of Economic Analysis for 2008, the average federal employee made $79,197 [the average private sector employee made $49,935]. The pension for the average employee can be calculated as follows:

$79,197 x 30 Years x 1% = $23,759
$79,197 x 40 Years x 1% = $31,678

Understanding the FERS Retirement

When we talk about your FERS Retirement, we're really talking about several different benefits. FERS (Federal Employees Retirement System) has three main components: fers retirement

  • Basic FERS Pension
  • Social Security
  • Thrift Savings Plan (TSP)
Your FERS pension and Social Security will be fixed dollar amounts. But the money you get from your TSP will depend on how much you contributed and how well you managed the money.
As a FERS, you have a chance to take a more active role in managing your own retirement than CSRS do. But, that means you need to stay up-to-date on your benefits.
Here are some important things you need to know about each part of your FERS retirement...

Reductions to Your FERS Pension

There are some choices you can make that will reduce the amount of your FERS pension:
Social Security for FERSEmployees covered under the Federal Employee Retirement System (FERS) are typically eligible to receive Social Security benefits when they retire. Every pay period, the Federal Government takes out 6.2% of your basic pay to put towards Social Security. But just like your FERS pension, your Social Security benefit is not based on your contributions - it is based on other factors.

Thrift Savings Plan for FERSThe Thrift Savings Plan (TSP) is a special account for Federal Employees. The TSP was created as part of the Federal Employees Retirement System in 1986. Most government employees (FERS and CSRS) are eligible for the TSP -- even those hired before it was created.
The TSP allows you to save pre-tax dollars in a special personal account. You can choose how to invest those dollars -- although your choices are limited.
With your FERS retirement pension and Social Security, you will receive fixed amounts. But with your TSP, the amount you receive depends on how much you put in and how well you managed the money.
Your TSP contributions are optional and separate from your FERS pension.
You may also be able to get your Federal Agency [taxpayers] to contribute money to your TSP. Click here to learn more about the match the government gives FERS employees.

Social Security for FERSEmployees covered under the Federal Employee Retirement System (FERS) are typically eligible to receive Social Security benefits when they retire. Every pay period, the Federal Government takes out 6.2% of your basic pay to put towards Social Security. But just like your FERS pension, your Social Security benefit is not based on your contributions - it is based on other factors.

According to the U.S. Social Security Administration, the Social Security taxes you and other workers pay into the system are used to pay for Social Security benefits.
You pay Social Security taxes on your earnings up to a certain amount. That amount increases each year to keep pace with wages. In 2011, that amount is $106,800.
You pay Medicare taxes on all of your wages or net earnings from self-employment. These taxes are used for Medicare coverage.
You pay 4.2%* 1.45%
Your employer pays 6.2% 1.45%
You pay 10.4% 2.9%

Currently, U.S. citizens cannot collect Social Security benefits until age 62. The maximum Social Security benefit is $23,500 per individual.

* The employee contribution was temporary lowered from 6.2% to 4.2% on January 1, 2011.
~~~
84% of state and local employees retain defined-benefit pensions, compared to 21% of private sector workers.
Low-wage public-sector workers also had better access to retirement plans: 74% were eligible, compared with 40% in the private sector. - The Public Sector “Haves” Get Richer Benefits Too…, The Swine Line, July 28, 2010

Having public pensions being so superior and far better than private retirement savings — and the inevitable backlash this would produce — is one of the unavoidable adjustments similar to falling house prices. This huge gap of public employees being so much better compensated than private employees became visible about a year ago even in just ordinary news reports in the papers, for those that read widely. Just like falling house prices, this will be adjusted, sometimes by drastic action (similar to a foreclosure being drastic). The bottom line is that taxpayers cannot be expected to make public employees far more comfortable than themselves. - Hal Horvath, Pension Envy, Pension Crisis, On Point Radio, July 28, 2010