Welcome Guest! To enable all features please Login or Register.

Notification

Icon
Error

Postal Employees

Post your thoughts and opinions here about current Postal employee topics.

5 Pages123>»
Options
Go to last post Go to first unread
PBCook  
#1 Posted : Friday, May 19, 2017 7:27:10 AM(UTC)
PBCook

Rank: Senior Member

Groups: Registered
Joined: 7/1/2013(UTC)
Posts: 979

Thanks: 138 times
Was thanked: 298 time(s) in 226 post(s)
https://www.washingtonpo.../?utm_term=.9d205a29ed61

From the Washington Post today, the highlights:

Increase Federal Employee Retirement System (FERS) contributions from workers by 1 percentage point each year until they equal the government’s contribution. This would take five to six years and would result in increased out-of-pocket payments of about 6 percent over that period.

Out-of-pocket payments by federal law enforcement officers would increase by the same amount, but would not equal the greater contributions from law enforcement agencies.

Base future retirement benefits on the average of the high five years of salary instead of the current high three

Eliminate cost of living adjustments (COLA) for current and future FERS employees

Cut the COLA for Civil Service Retirement System (CSRS) employees by 0.5 percent from what the formula would allowed

Eliminate supplement payments for FERS employees who retire beginning in 2018. The supplement approximates the value of Social Security benefits for those who retire before age 62.

Edited by user Friday, May 19, 2017 7:32:32 AM(UTC)  | Reason: Not specified

postalvet  
#2 Posted : Friday, May 19, 2017 8:59:58 AM(UTC)
postalvet

Rank: Senior Member

Groups: Registered
Joined: 9/29/2009(UTC)
Posts: 12,997
Location: southern calif

Thanks: 1100 times
Was thanked: 2148 time(s) in 1655 post(s)
Originally Posted by: PBCook Go to Quoted Post
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/powerpost/wp/2017/05/18/trumps-budget-calls-for-hits-on-federal-employee-retirement-programs/?utm_term=.9d205a29ed61

From the Washington Post today, the highlights:

Increase Federal Employee Retirement System (FERS) contributions from workers by 1 percentage point each year until they equal the government’s contribution. This would take five to six years and would result in increased out-of-pocket payments of about 6 percent over that period.

Out-of-pocket payments by federal law enforcement officers would increase by the same amount, but would not equal the greater contributions from law enforcement agencies.

Base future retirement benefits on the average of the high five years of salary instead of the current high three

Eliminate cost of living adjustments (COLA) for current and future FERS employees

Cut the COLA for Civil Service Retirement System (CSRS) employees by 0.5 percent from what the formula would allowed

Eliminate supplement payments for FERS employees who retire beginning in 2018. The supplement approximates the value of Social Security benefits for those who retire before age 62.


yup, screw the federal worker so no one will want to work for the feds anymore and they will contract out everyones job.



sad!
Postal employee (retired) 38 yrs who helps even if some do not believe me! I was a Steward, officer & trouble maker. Just Sayin'
thanks 2 users thanked postalvet for this useful post.
mnmailman on 5/19/2017(UTC), SDAnalyst on 5/22/2017(UTC)
Seadogg  
#3 Posted : Friday, May 19, 2017 9:06:03 AM(UTC)
Seadogg

Rank: Senior Member

Groups: Registered
Joined: 10/31/2013(UTC)
Posts: 812

Thanks: 17 times
Was thanked: 285 time(s) in 190 post(s)
We knew it was coming... and many of you guys on this board voted for that clown...
thanks 5 users thanked Seadogg for this useful post.
mnmailman on 5/19/2017(UTC), RodOrRob on 5/19/2017(UTC), bloozy on 5/20/2017(UTC), Biscuit1 on 5/21/2017(UTC), SDAnalyst on 5/22/2017(UTC)
dafishman  
#4 Posted : Friday, May 19, 2017 9:39:56 AM(UTC)

Rank: Senior Member

Groups: Registered
Joined: 3/6/2011(UTC)
Posts: 796

Thanks: 10 times
Was thanked: 121 time(s) in 93 post(s)
Tier 1 current 0.8% to 6.8%?
Tier 2 current 4.4% to 10.4%?

Is that what I am reading? Or is it to a specific percent.
roger605  
#5 Posted : Friday, May 19, 2017 9:57:36 AM(UTC)
roger605

Rank: Senior Member

Groups: Registered
Joined: 8/25/2016(UTC)
Posts: 546
United States
Location: Midwest

Thanks: 17 times
Was thanked: 164 time(s) in 119 post(s)
If you live in a community that has, or is close to a Congressional members office, I encourage you to go to the office and state your opposition to this if it make it past the proposal stage. I did that with the last increase. And reminded the staffers that this was NOT a Postal issue. They were also going to be taking that 4% pay cut. Their jaws dropped when they realized that it covered ALL FERS employees. Which they are.

Edited by user Friday, May 19, 2017 10:16:14 AM(UTC)  | Reason: spellcheck

someoldguy  
#6 Posted : Friday, May 19, 2017 10:02:53 AM(UTC)
someoldguy

Rank: Senior Member

Groups: Registered
Joined: 10/28/2013(UTC)
Posts: 2,618

Thanks: 186 times
Was thanked: 334 time(s) in 298 post(s)
Originally Posted by: dafishman Go to Quoted Post
Tier 1 current 0.8% to 6.8%?
Tier 2 current 4.4% to 10.4%?

Is that what I am reading? Or is it to a specific percent.

I'm not a postal employee but this showed up in the 'recent activity' section and caught my eye.

I found an article that lists agency contributions for the various tiers of FERS employees. If you look at that article, you'll see that for new employees who pay 4.4%, the agency's share is less than for those hired when it was only 0.8%. So the government's share today varies.

But what I don't get is that if they INCREASE the rate that the employee contributes, then they should DECREASE the government contribution or else you will more or less double the total contribution...?

So will they bring the government rate down? And will all employees end up making the same contribution? Too soon to tell.

By the way those rates were updated in a 2015 memo from OPM. So even though employee contributions have not changed, the amounts that agencies have to kick in has been going up.

DISCLAIMER: You read it on an open internet forum :)
mnmailman  
#7 Posted : Friday, May 19, 2017 11:34:15 AM(UTC)
mnmailman

Rank: Senior Member

Groups: Registered
Joined: 3/8/2015(UTC)
Posts: 1,802
United States
Location: Penobscott, Maine

Thanks: 1311 times
Was thanked: 500 time(s) in 364 post(s)
The military-industrial

complex must be paid for.

Wanna bet congresses benefits,

etc. won't be touched ?

<g>

Edited by user Friday, May 19, 2017 11:36:13 AM(UTC)  | Reason: Not specified

Question authority.
ziggy29  
#8 Posted : Friday, May 19, 2017 11:36:31 AM(UTC)
ziggy29

Rank: Senior Member

Groups: Registered
Joined: 4/10/2015(UTC)
Posts: 681
United States

Thanks: 26 times
Was thanked: 199 time(s) in 156 post(s)
Seriously, at a 10.4% contribution rate (if accurate), we'd be far better off not having a FERS annuity at all, especially if you put most of that into TSP instead. It's not even a great deal at 4.4%.

Edited by user Friday, May 19, 2017 11:37:29 AM(UTC)  | Reason: Not specified

thanks 2 users thanked ziggy29 for this useful post.
mnmailman on 5/19/2017(UTC), Hannah Blector on 5/19/2017(UTC)
Skorcher  
#9 Posted : Friday, May 19, 2017 1:11:59 PM(UTC)
Skorcher

Rank: Newbie

Groups: Registered
Joined: 4/4/2016(UTC)
Posts: 6
United States

Thanks: 2 times
Was thanked: 2 time(s) in 2 post(s)
If these cuts are effective 10/01/2017 then I am out of here on 09/30/2017. It's not clear whether the elimination of the FERS COLA will apply to current retirees or not. I will certainly be talking to my Congress person.
thanks 1 user thanked Skorcher for this useful post.
SDAnalyst on 5/22/2017(UTC)
craigrh13  
#10 Posted : Friday, May 19, 2017 3:07:33 PM(UTC)
craigrh13

Rank: Member

Groups: Unapproved
Joined: 5/15/2017(UTC)
Posts: 23
Location: Michigan

Was thanked: 2 time(s) in 2 post(s)
It's just a proposal so I wouldn't worry too much. Personally I would rather have a higher TSP match more then anything else. I was able to amass 6 figures in my 401k in 7 years based on the company matching $2 for every $1 up to 6%. Don't get me wrong, a pension is nice but if I had to choose I would take the TSP as it puts the balll in your court and you can really add up. Obviously the two coupled together is the best solution. Will have to take a wait and see approach.
PBCook  
#11 Posted : Friday, May 19, 2017 4:51:47 PM(UTC)
PBCook

Rank: Senior Member

Groups: Registered
Joined: 7/1/2013(UTC)
Posts: 979

Thanks: 138 times
Was thanked: 298 time(s) in 226 post(s)
Originally Posted by: craigrh13 Go to Quoted Post
It's just a proposal so I wouldn't worry too much. Personally I would rather have a higher TSP match more then anything else. I was able to amass 6 figures in my 401k in 7 years based on the company matching $2 for every $1 up to 6%. Don't get me wrong, a pension is nice but if I had to choose I would take the TSP as it puts the balll in your court and you can really add up. Obviously the two coupled together is the best solution. Will have to take a wait and see approach.


I agree, it is just a proposal. I doubt it will all pass. The one thing that probably will pass is the high five instead of high three average. The part that is surprising is that there was no suggestion to lower the government contribution to the TSP, maybe making employees contribute more to FERS is the tradeoff.

I don't pretend to know how they reason.

roger605  
#12 Posted : Friday, May 19, 2017 5:20:44 PM(UTC)
roger605

Rank: Senior Member

Groups: Registered
Joined: 8/25/2016(UTC)
Posts: 546
United States
Location: Midwest

Thanks: 17 times
Was thanked: 164 time(s) in 119 post(s)
Originally Posted by: craigrh13 Go to Quoted Post
It's just a proposal so I wouldn't worry too much. Personally I would rather have a higher TSP match more then anything else. I was able to amass 6 figures in my 401k in 7 years based on the company matching $2 for every $1 up to 6%. Don't get me wrong, a pension is nice but if I had to choose I would take the TSP as it puts the balll in your court and you can really add up. Obviously the two coupled together is the best solution. Will have to take a wait and see approach.


I would like to know how to sign up for the $2 for $1 matching.

It is my understanding that there is a 1% automatic contribution. Then 1/1 for the first $3. Then .50 for $4 and $5. If you contribute 5%, you receive 5% from the USPS.

As a Level 1, Step O carrier, 6% would be $3591. Agency match would be $7138 for a total of $10774!

In contrast, 5% equals $2992, Agency match of $2992 for a total of $5986.

If I missed the notice on the $2/1 deal, I hope it is automatically happening!


colty31  
#13 Posted : Friday, May 19, 2017 5:56:28 PM(UTC)
colty31

Rank: Senior Member

Groups: Registered
Joined: 4/20/2016(UTC)
Posts: 320
United States
Location: Maine

Was thanked: 40 time(s) in 30 post(s)
If this did get approved/passed would it cause a bunch of eligible carriers to retire?

One can hope......
122intheshade  
#14 Posted : Friday, May 19, 2017 6:10:27 PM(UTC)
122intheshade

Rank: Senior Member

Groups: Registered
Joined: 2/20/2014(UTC)
Posts: 1,738
Lithuania
Location: Bankin' off of the northeast wind, sailin' on a summer breeze

Thanks: 41 times
Was thanked: 435 time(s) in 338 post(s)
Craig, explain this $2 for $1 match. Is that a previous company (not FERS)? If so (and he did say 401k) then everyone needs to put their tongue back in their mouth.

Also, if the feds (will) require a higher employee contribution to FERS, that's likely due to a lesser expected rate of return. So, contributions would have to be higher. CALPERS has already acknowledged this, but their expected rate of return is still way too high. If you live in California, expect even higher taxes to governments to fund pensions.

If congress really wants to "fix" pensions, they should just do away with FERS for new hires, and allow an almost unlimited match to employee TSP contributions, with a cap of maybe 25%. And start with an automatic TSP contribution of 5% a year, which is a bit above what they confiscate from (most) employees now.
We decide which is right. And which is an illusion.
craigrh13  
#15 Posted : Saturday, May 20, 2017 2:52:15 AM(UTC)
craigrh13

Rank: Member

Groups: Unapproved
Joined: 5/15/2017(UTC)
Posts: 23
Location: Michigan

Was thanked: 2 time(s) in 2 post(s)
Previous company.

I like the idea of no more FERS for new hires with an significantly increased match. Your money compounds very fast.
roger605  
#16 Posted : Saturday, May 20, 2017 7:35:30 AM(UTC)
roger605

Rank: Senior Member

Groups: Registered
Joined: 8/25/2016(UTC)
Posts: 546
United States
Location: Midwest

Thanks: 17 times
Was thanked: 164 time(s) in 119 post(s)
Originally Posted by: craigrh13 Go to Quoted Post
Previous company.

I like the idea of no more FERS for new hires with an significantly increased match. Your money compounds very fast.


You should have never left that benefit package.



GordonG  
#17 Posted : Sunday, May 21, 2017 3:47:59 AM(UTC)

Rank: Senior Member

Groups: Registered
Joined: 1/26/2013(UTC)
Posts: 2,845
United States
Location: Paradise

Thanks: 568 times
Was thanked: 1034 time(s) in 650 post(s)
Originally Posted by: roger605 Go to Quoted Post
Originally Posted by: craigrh13 Go to Quoted Post
Previous company.

I like the idea of no more FERS for new hires with an significantly increased match. Your money compounds very fast.


You should have never left that benefit package.





There's a good reason he left the other place.

"It's More Fun at the Post Office!"

It's our new corporate motto.

"Fear, not clemency, restrains the wicked."


"Everyone has a plan 'till they get punched in the mouth." Mike Tyson
GordonG  
#18 Posted : Sunday, May 21, 2017 6:19:13 AM(UTC)

Rank: Senior Member

Groups: Registered
Joined: 1/26/2013(UTC)
Posts: 2,845
United States
Location: Paradise

Thanks: 568 times
Was thanked: 1034 time(s) in 650 post(s)
Originally Posted by: Skorcher Go to Quoted Post
If these cuts are effective 10/01/2017 then I am out of here on 09/30/2017. It's not clear whether the elimination of the FERS COLA will apply to current retirees or not. I will certainly be talking to my Congress person.



What a coincidence.

September 30th is one of those "best dates to retire"!

http://www.myfederalreti...-FERS-2016-2017-2018.cfm

When this came out I started really crunching the numbers.

I'm working for almost free.

Plus a couple of other things in my life and I think it's time to say adios to the Post Office.

I just now got off the phone with one of my buddies and in whose opinion I value. Smart dude...retired from the Post Office and can pinch a penny until Lincoln screams and I'll go over my numbers ONE MORE TIME.

But DAMN!

The numbers I get make it a no-brainer.

Time to go.

"Fear, not clemency, restrains the wicked."


"Everyone has a plan 'till they get punched in the mouth." Mike Tyson
thanks 1 user thanked for this useful post.
SDAnalyst on 5/22/2017(UTC)
MadDog1080  
#19 Posted : Sunday, May 21, 2017 6:34:45 AM(UTC)
MadDog1080

Rank: Senior Member

Groups: Registered
Joined: 1/20/2017(UTC)
Posts: 221

Thanks: 32 times
Was thanked: 30 time(s) in 28 post(s)
Originally Posted by: 122intheshade Go to Quoted Post
Also, if the feds (will) require a higher employee contribution to FERS, that's likely due to a lesser expected rate of return. So, contributions would have to be higher. CALPERS has already acknowledged this, but their expected rate of return is still way too high. If you live in California, expect even higher taxes to governments to fund pensions.



That is what I am guessing is happening as well. Unfortunately, a lot of people do not realize how costly pensions have become. When they were created, people were expected to draw for maybe 5 to 10 years. Now, with modern medicine, you have people retiring at 55-60 after 35-40 years of service, and drawing for another 35 to 40 years. (I think some auto workers started at 18 or 19, retired at 50, and then draw for another 40 years)

I'm not saying retirees or any of you are doing anything unethical or immoral at all.

Increasing the FERS contribution from employees would help raise capital that can be invested in bonds, stocks, and other investment vehicles so that money can be grown (power of compound interest and time) to ensure solvency.
GordonG  
#20 Posted : Sunday, May 21, 2017 6:46:02 AM(UTC)

Rank: Senior Member

Groups: Registered
Joined: 1/26/2013(UTC)
Posts: 2,845
United States
Location: Paradise

Thanks: 568 times
Was thanked: 1034 time(s) in 650 post(s)
Time for some interpretation please.

"Eliminate supplement payments for FERS employees who retire beginning in 2018. The supplement approximates the value of Social Security benefits for those who retire before age 62."

So if I retire Sept. 30 my effective retirement date is Oct. 1st. That's technically fiscal year 2018.

So to avoid any misinterpretation I'd have to retire in August and have an effective retirement date of Sept. 1st.

Does that sound right?
"Fear, not clemency, restrains the wicked."


"Everyone has a plan 'till they get punched in the mouth." Mike Tyson
Rss Feed  Atom Feed
Users browsing this topic
Guest (2)
5 Pages123>»
Forum Jump  
You cannot post new topics in this forum.
You cannot reply to topics in this forum.
You cannot delete your posts in this forum.
You cannot edit your posts in this forum.
You cannot create polls in this forum.
You cannot vote in polls in this forum.


This page was generated in 1.646 seconds.