Don't worry FERS Folks, us CSRS Retirees are dying off like Rats leaving a sinking ship.
http://www.alternet.org/sites/defaul...rat-edited.jpgAttachment 41913Attachment 41914
Printable View
Don't worry FERS Folks, us CSRS Retirees are dying off like Rats leaving a sinking ship.
http://www.alternet.org/sites/defaul...rat-edited.jpgAttachment 41913Attachment 41914
Hey Nnuut,
Both CSRS and the FERS pensions are in the same boat. Neither is funded except by loaning money to a debtor that continuously rolls over their accruing balance!!!
Anyone want to invest in that?
My best guess is that both Social Security and our pensions will take a 25% haircut. Even if we - via our chosen representatives - act now it is probably too late to fund the full promise of both programs. However, if we and America make some hard financial decisions we can reduce the haircut on both - not to mention Medicare - to some extent. As they say in finances 'Time is Money'. We have no time. Soon we will have to make spending decisions no politician wants to make. Will they pay out Social Security or Federal pensions? Will they fully fund Medicaid or Social Security? How much can we take out of DoD active duty, retirement, and medical funding? Those choices were much easier a while back. They are getting much harder now.
For me, if they jack my taxes up I will use pre-tax contributions and other means to drop my taxes to the current level. I have done so in the past and see myself doing it again in the future:smile:
Just because the US is 20 Trillion in the hole, does not mean that the Fed worker has to cough up the 20 trillion. In fact, if the entire retirements of Feds were taken completely away, I don't think it would make a dent in the 20 Trillion.Quote:
Originally Posted by Boghie
If we DON'T make our voices heard, we definitely do not stand a chance. And the US will still be 20 Trillion in debt. Your choice.
No. Actually they're not.Quote:
Originally Posted by Boghie
When Congress established the Federal Employees’ Retirement System in 1986, it required all pension benefits earned under FERS to be fully pre-funded by employer and employee contributions and the interest earned by Treasury bonds held by the Civil Service Retirement and Disability Fund.
In 1969, Congress passed a law that set the employee contribution to CSRS at 7.0% of pay and required an equal amount to be contributed from funds appropriated to federal agencies. But, while more money was coming into the system, it did not cover higher future costs because of pay raises or an average higher pay grade and overall higher pension costs for future retirees over time. Because the cost of annual cost of living increases (COLAs) is not accounted for in the payments to the trust fund mandated by the 1969 law, the CSRS continues to accumulate an unfunded liability.
The result is that CSRS benefits will, in part, be paid from contributions that were made to the CSRDF on behalf of employees enrolled in FERS. This lack of CSRS funding, in turn, creates an unfunded liability for FERS payments.So, the question is, why are they going after COLAs in FERS and not CSRS? FERS is pre-funded, and was fully funded up until a few years back. Why the need to touch it at all beyond tweaking it a bit (higher employee contributions?). Address the unfunded liability in CSRS without taking contributions meant for and by FERS employees to fund another system. The unfunded liability will gradually decline after 2025.
I don't wish any ill will to anyone under either system. You earned it, you should get it. That's the contract you made when you signed on with the government. They should honor that contract. I'm simply saying "if it ain't broke, don't fix it".