Thread: FERS Sick Leave Buyout Blocked

.

House version still has it (look in article).

The ability for us to move/contribute some or all our funds to investment companies such as Fidelity etc. is gonna cost them much much more on a lump sum basis than the cost of crediting our sick leave for service credit which would be incremental of nature.

REAL freaking money will have to flow to Fidelity ect. in our names/SSN. Our funds in the TSP are basically an IOU (money they don't have to pay us now) and a promise to pay later depending on our investments results.

Do any of these people have a lick of common sense?

I really find this article confusing. It says the sick leave provision is still in the House version of the bill. Is this final or are we only talking about the final *Senate* version and the House and the Senate still have to do some reconciliation??

Originally Posted by Elgallo

The ability for us to move/contribute some or all our funds to investment companies such as Fidelity etc. is gonna cost them much much more on a lump sum basis than the cost of crediting our sick leave for service credit which would be incremental of nature.

REAL freaking money will have to flow to Fidelity ect. in our names/SSN. Our funds in the TSP are basically an IOU (money they don't have to pay us now) and a promise to pay later depending on our investments results.

Do any of these people have a lick of common sense?

Are we talking FERS sick leave here or the ROTH option? And I like the idea of moving real money to a ROTH as opposed to the feds, because I don't trust the feds to keep their hands off my money.

CB

Actually both CB.

I'm not real familiar with the bill so i will ask this question: must the fund created outside of TSP, say at Fidelity, be a Roth and only a Roth and not a normal IRA?

If that's the case the only reason that passed was because the taxman don't want to wait any longer and wants his money now.

Screw em!

The immediate TSP enrollment passed because they don't have to pay any money out to you in the short term ("deferred earnings").

Feeling a bit manipulated are we!

Do any of you FERS employees (I am one) really care about the sick leave bill? If you cruch the numbers it takes 2080 hours of sick leave (520 pay periods worth of earning = a whole career) to give you 1% increase in your retirement. This means that if your high 3 were $100,000 you would get an extra $1000 per year during retirement. It would take 20 years, if you live that long, to get $20,000.

If they want people to save their leave and work hard during employment then offer cash value for the leave remaining at retirement. I would bankroll all of it I could then. I bet they think the average gov't employee will never crunch the numbers.

Instead of this sick leave thing give us more investment options, more trades a month, more access to our money and leave our money alone!

Originally Posted by Mcqlives

Do any of you FERS employees (I am one) really care about the sick leave bill? If you crunch the numbers it takes 2080 hours of sick leave (520 pay periods worth of earning = a whole career) to give you 1% increase in your retirement. This means that if your high 3 were $100,000 you would get an extra $1000 per year during retirement. It would take 20 years, if you live that long, to get $20,000.

If they want people to save their leave and work hard during employment then offer cash value for the leave remaining at retirement. I would bankroll all of it I could then. I bet they think the average gov't employee will never crunch the numbers.

Instead of this sick leave thing give us more investment options, more trades a month, more access to our money and leave our money alone!

Here Here!!! In your first paragraph you illustrated the original point I was trying to make. They are penny wise and pound foolish period! Just another reason why govt. spending can/will NEVER be reduced.

Originally Posted by Elgallo

Actually both CB.

I'm not real familiar with the bill so i will ask this question: must the fund created outside of TSP, say at Fidelity, be a Roth and only a Roth and not a normal IRA?

If that's the case the only reason that passed was because the taxman don't want to wait any longer and wants his money now.

Screw em!

The immediate TSP enrollment passed because they don't have to pay any money out to you in the short term ("deferred earnings").

Feeling a bit manipulated are we!

I don't know enough about the details of either of them, but what was first proposed for FERS leave carryover into retirement was an insult to us FERS employees. It was worth saving sick leave for the pittance they were offering in return.

As far as the ROTH goes, I feel more confident in selecting specific stocks as opposed to putting my money in an index. So I'll have to wait and see on how the ROTH is going to work before I change my strategy on my ROTH purchases.

Manipulated? Heck yeah, since at least Nov 2007 and much more in the last 100 days or so. I just feel so warm and fuzzy about my future under the watchful caring eye of bHo,

CB

CB

Originally Posted by CountryBoy

......Manipulated? Heck yeah, since at least Nov 2007 and much more in the last 100 days or so. I just feel so warm and fuzzy about my future under the watchful caring eye of bHo,

CB

CB

Me too, since around Jan 2001 if you ask me!

It's a Catch-22.

You try to give people a real incentive (such as early retirement or 60% rebate) not to call in sick and it costs a fortune. You don't give any incentive and they're going to abuse sick leave in their final few years- costing a fortune in overtime.