OK, some of you aren't catching on. This thread is NOT about politics. It's a hot topic that will likely stir up polical partisan opinions, but that's why we have www.beltwaytalk.com/forum.
If you want to talk retirement plan cost cutting, FERS, etc., without bringing up why you hate this or that political party - go for it. So far attempts have not been successful.
(But I'm with you )
Tom
Market Commentary | My Blog | TSP Talk Plus | |
I am not a Registered Investment Advisor and this is not investment advice. Please do your own due diligence.
Retirement update:
LONDON, U.K. --
British singer and drummer Phil Collins has taken to his personal website to announce his retirement in a bid to clarify recent speculation over his career.
http://www.accesshollywood.com/phil-..._article_44942
I'll give it shot to stay on topic.
Let's say that they drop FERS but don't stop the contribution part. Which would you rather have:
an additional 1.3% of your pay deposited into your TSP on top of everything they already give us
or
the current FERS retirement
Seems like it would be pretty close to me (although I still use 10% for stock market returns, which may be optimistic).
Ah Ha! government make good choice here and save future costs.
Give extra 1.3 percent instead of 1 percent and put it in tsp.
No 1 percent per year served obligation for your retirement.
You chose wrong trading choices, your fault.
No extra in overhead in managing retirements, it will be handled by TSP or IRAs.
More money in G fund or Roth to borrow short term.
Maybe we'll get one more IFT because of everyone being in TSP, we'll have more power.
Don't bias your charts. Show support and resistance. My comments and charts are not trading recommendations.
I don't see where you guys are getting this 1.3 figure from. all I see is deletion of 1% annuity for newbies.
As for "power", fuggedaboutit. most TSPers drank the coolaid, thought the multi-IFTers were bad guys, thanks to all the p-poor pr from FRTIB and etc the last go-round. congress-peeps didn't listen either, ask James.
"life can only be understood backwards, but it must be lived forwards" - soren kierkegaard
1.3% is the approximately contribution made by me and the government for me off my pay stub.
No, you are not correct.1.3% is the approximately contribution made by me and the government for me off my pay stub.
If you are seeing 1.3%, I think you may be a law enforcement person who pays slightly more into the system.
The rest of us pay 0.8% into the system, and that does NOT count the employer's share.
FERS works like this:
The employer (Uncle Sam) conteributes 11.5% of your salary to the fund.
You, as an employee, contribute 0.8% to the FERS fund.
The fund then pays you , based on the number of years, ABOUT 1% for each year that you work, UNLESS you retire AFTER age 62. If you retire after age 62, it's 1.1% for each year.
So, for example, if your minimum retirement age is, say 57, and you work 30 years PRIOR to age 57, and retire at age 57, then you'd get 30% of your final 3 years annual pay each year as a FERS retirement.
By law, FERS must calculate each year whether it has or does not have sufficeint funding to pay all anticipated retirement obligations. If it beleives it will be short, it can ask for an INCREASED employee contribution. The FERS system got MORE than 0.8% from employees each year from the time it was established, until about 2004 or so, at which time the fund was determinted to be fully funded, and employee contribution was reduced to 0.8%.
So no, there is no 1.3% number. In order to get the same amount of money back out of a TSP type fund, you'd have to deposit, on the order of the same 11.5% employer share AND a 0.8% employee share, FOR 30 YEARS, in order to pay out 30% of your high-3 salary for the rest of your life.
What the republicans were initially proposing was reducing the amount paid out by FERS to use the high-five rather than the high-three in the calcuation. That would reduce the payout by perhaps 5% for each person, but would have no effect on the fund balance, since the amount going in- the 11.5% employer share, and the 0.8% employee share, would not change.
What Senator Burr is now proposing, is DOING AWAY WITH FERS ALTOGHER, and chopping off that 11.5% employer contribution that Uncle Sam now makes to each employee's FERS account.
That's Burr's proposal.
S&P500 (C Fund) (delayed) (Stockcharts.com Real-time) |
DWCPF (S Fund) (delayed) (Stockcharts.com Real-time) |
EFA (I Fund) (delayed) (Stockcharts.com Real-time) |
BND (F Fund) (delayed) (Stockcharts.com Real-time) |
||
Yahoo Finance Realtime TSP Fund Tracking Index Quotes |
Bookmarks