10:26 am, May 28, 2015

FederalNewsRadio.com - Purpose of Comments statement Click to show

Hubbard Radio, LLC encourages site users to express their opinions by posting comments. Our goal is to maintain a civil dialogue in which readers feel comfortable. At times, the comment boards following articles, blog posts and other content can descend to personal attacks. Please do not engage in such behavior here. We encourage your thoughtful comments which:

  • Have a positive and constructive tone
  • Are on topic, clear and to-the-point
  • Are respectful toward others and their opinions

Hubbard Radio, LLC reserves the right to remove comments which do not conform to these criteria.

  • 20
       

  • Use congress as bait
    deployed decoy
    Well buy out or not. I (maybe wrongly) assume that if I retire NLT 31 Dec 2011, my SSS will be paid, for life. For those of you not sure of this, it is one THIRD of FERS retirement plan, as became law in 1984. SSS is paid on FERS years over 40 years. Social Security proper is paid on highest working years over 35 years. So right off the top the SSS takes 12.5% hit. SSS is not subject to SS annual COLAs, it stays the same from day one until 62 (as does FERS annuity). In my case I will get about 72% of the social security I would otherwise have to wait until 62 to start drawing the month after I turn 56. Or about $82K over the period from 56 to 62. At 62 the SSS stops and if elected for SS at age 62, starts. My plan is start to tap TSP at that point and delay starting SS until the much higher social Security amount kicks in at 66 years old. But even if I do elect SS at 62. The payment will go up about 50% from the supplement - based on the lower year averaging and 6 years of missed SS COLAs. I didn’t make this rule CONGRESS did. If they think they can change the rules at the end of the game, I just hope they can afford the consequences. And why not include fire fighters and law enforcement? I mean a young person can retire from the military. Go into a federal prison as the cook. Retire in another 20 years under the federal law enforcement plan. And then have to get a real job (thinking mall cop) since they will still be 5 years from being eligible for social security, but still have TRICARE for life.
    { "Agree":"1","Funny":"1","Insightful":"1","Disagree":"-1","Offensive":"-1","Troll":"-1" }
  • Who can retire??
    Cindi
    Guess I'll be retiring when they carry me out of here on a stretcher!!!
    { "Agree":"1","Funny":"1","Insightful":"1","Disagree":"-1","Offensive":"-1","Troll":"-1" }
  • To Cindi
    Moderate
    Hope not. You will go crazy.
    worker
    { "Agree":"1","Funny":"1","Insightful":"1","Disagree":"-1","Offensive":"-1","Troll":"-1" }
  • Why are you complaining?
    Moderate
    82K is not a bad amount of income. I do not know whether SSS is frozen to age 62. I do know FERS pension is. Be careful. I was told (I do not factually know) that SSS can be reduced if you earn above a certain amount. I know that SS is reduced if you earn above a certain amount until you reach the normal retirement age for social security.-----Law enforcement etc. are not included in the change because they are forced to retire before age 62. Are you forced to retire or just fed up with the job. Not all law enforcement people are retired military. It might be difficult to do that because law enforcement people must be hired by age 37 to get the 20 years by age 57 (mandatory retirement age) Does law enforcement get Tricare? Never heard of that. Maybe you are right?
    worker
    { "Agree":"1","Funny":"1","Insightful":"1","Disagree":"-1","Offensive":"-1","Troll":"-1" }
  • DD right on!
    contrarian
    What they don't want to admit is that the real answer is a RIF. But they need the money to fund military (they're still getting COLAs right) leaving the rest of civil service to fight over the scraps. What a way to run a country!
    { "Agree":"1","Funny":"1","Insightful":"1","Disagree":"-1","Offensive":"-1","Troll":"-1" }
  • COLA and military
    deployed decoy
    Yes the military still draws COLA. A Private here in Kuwait a couple hundred a month. A Captain in Germany with two kids, living on base, walking distance to work, PX and Commissary gets enough tax free COLA to make a 3 series BMW payment, insurance and still have money left over to go out on weekends. Mod, yes SSS is subject to earned income. This year someone can earn just over $1200 a month and not lose SSS money. Both SSS and FERS are frozen when you retire 'early' until you hit 62. I dont consider retiring with 37 plus years early at all. When I can afford part time work and start to sell some of my metals and coins. Better than COLA, Army Europe has hid an entire Combat BDE from congress for years... They say they have 4; the number not counting support units is 5... Nothing is going to change until they fire everyone with zero retirement for the good of the country that hides entire BDEs from the tax man and congress. Yes I am disgusted and out of here as soon as I hit MRA. I tried to save $62K this year but was told it was not enough to change the staffing documents. Excuse me for caring.
    { "Agree":"1","Funny":"1","Insightful":"1","Disagree":"-1","Offensive":"-1","Troll":"-1" }
  • retirement
    marien
    I don't know the details of SSS and SS the way Deployed Decoy does, but my gut tells me that anything Congress does is going to draw from the life blood of federal workers. On the other hand, I would encourage workers to put as much as possible into retirement savings in order to keep up with the higher costs that will naturally be present in the future when you retire. You just won't be able to make ends meet in 10 or 20 years if you only save for today's costs.
    { "Agree":"1","Funny":"1","Insightful":"1","Disagree":"-1","Offensive":"-1","Troll":"-1" }
  • FERS Supplement
    DOtransportation
    I'll take the additional pay freeze and increase in contribution to retirement annuity but eliminating the FERS Supplement is a NO GO ! This is effectively raising the retirement age for me and many others by five years! I am eligible to retire at 56yrs 8mos under current law and will have over 38 years of service but without the supplement my income will be over 15,000 dollars a year less from 56yrs/8mos to age 62 which basically means I will need to continue to work another 5+ years! The is BS !!! DO NOT advertise for folks a benefits and compensation package for decades that you totally desicrate right as they (FERS) become eligible . This is a real stinker that they are trying to slip in and because many folks are unfamiliar with their retirement benefits the legislators think they can get away with it. These types of changes should be grandfathered in and effect new hires only as they sign up for civil service ... We were told for decades we would have the supplement and made investment decisions based on the fact of this type of fixed annuities guaranteed existence. Disgusting!
    { "Agree":"1","Funny":"1","Insightful":"1","Disagree":"-1","Offensive":"-1","Troll":"-1" }
  • Couldn't agree any more. EXTERMINATE THE CONGRESS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
    FED UP IRS FERS FED
    Agreed DOT, this is total BS. Any changes should be grandfathered in or phased in over several years. Unfortunately, we feds are being used as poker chips in a slimey game by these useless potiticians. What will probably happen is that they will threaten every possible cut and then will do a couple only and say that they are doing us a favor. The SSS is a nasty one if they go ahead with that one as that will cost me roughly $100,000 between 56-62 that I was relying on to retire at 56. How they can make these possible changes at the end of any Feds 30+ years career is beyond stupidity. Like the Daleks might say in an episode of Doctor Who meets the work challenged Congress, "EXTERMINATE, EXTERMINATE, EXTERMINATE the Congress Dumb Arses".
    { "Agree":"1","Funny":"1","Insightful":"1","Disagree":"-1","Offensive":"-1","Troll":"-1" }
  • my glass is half full
    nom de guerre
    After 4 years in the world's second largest Navy, I worked for 15 years in the private sector before logging 12+ years under FERS. Granted that my private sector jobs were on the lower end of the wage scale, I've still come out way ahead. My entire retirement from outside amounts to $6,000, split between an IRA and an annuity, and no I couldn't contribute to a 401k, not that I could do much with $9/hr. My SSRA is 67, but even if I go at 62 I should be able to realize about 1/2 of what I'm earning now between the TSP, FERS and SS. I figure most feds will end up light years better off than some of the octogenerians still clocking in at my local WalMart...
    { "Agree":"1","Funny":"1","Insightful":"1","Disagree":"-1","Offensive":"-1","Troll":"-1" }
  • FERS Supplement
    FED E GOT FINGERED
    Agree with you totally. Literally hundreds of thousands of federal employees have been financial planning for retirement based on what we understood at the time we accepted employment and were told for decades thereafter. This is essentially criminal and fraudulant in nature. Obviously, this is something which should only apply to new employees since it amounts to a massive modification of an extremely significant portion of the FERS retirement program. Hundreds of thousands of federal employees have been saving for retirement for more than 20 years with this fundamental understanding of their basic retirement packages. This reeks of illegality. It amounts to simple theft of a major component of the FERS. Did not realize my retirement benefits would be stolen from us after 25 years of service. Many will merely stay on significantly longer.
    { "Agree":"1","Funny":"1","Insightful":"1","Disagree":"-1","Offensive":"-1","Troll":"-1" }
  • To DO
    Moderate
    If you have 38 years in, weren't you CSRS? Why did you change with the uncertainty? Reagan was anti fed worker. Reagan offered FERS. If he offered it, it could not be as good as CSRS. I agree with you that changing the system in midstream stinks.
    worker
    { "Agree":"1","Funny":"1","Insightful":"1","Disagree":"-1","Offensive":"-1","Troll":"-1" }
  • GOing by 2012
    Linda
    I know several people (And I am in a small off of 30 people) who will retire before 2012 if the FERS Social Security Supliment (SSS) is lost after that date. All of them would prefer to work 2 or 3 more years, but don't want to have to work 4 or 5 more. Personally, it makes no difference to me. I have 5 years 8 months more years minimum to 56 and 8 month regardless. I was planning on working until 62 for the FERS kicker of 1.1 percent per year rather than 1 percent. And for 1 more year I can say I worked 40 years. But, regardless of what Congress does I have to continue to work, or get another job. And with the time I have in, getting another job isn't worth while. I just wish they would hurry at getting the TSP Roth going so I can put in some retirement funding that isn't going to be taxed at 90 percent when I retire. Tax rates will have to go up, and people will think the rates now are the good ole days!
    { "Agree":"1","Funny":"1","Insightful":"1","Disagree":"-1","Offensive":"-1","Troll":"-1" }
  • 1.1 kicker -- Just wait -- that will be next
    DOtransportation
    If they eliminate the SSS then MANY more folks will plan to just go ahead and work to 62 to get that 1.1% which will then cause another budget delema and so they would logically curtail that tooooooo -- I contend that the extra .1% x 44 years (4.4% a year) that they will have to pay me in FERS basic annuity benefit will cost them more than if they would keep the SSS so I can retire at 57 THINK
    { "Agree":"1","Funny":"1","Insightful":"1","Disagree":"-1","Offensive":"-1","Troll":"-1" }
  • I was thinking the same thing
    contrarian
    If they take away one of the legs on the 3 legged stool, then the only real option is to stick around to 62. Maybe by then the Stock market will turn around if this country gets its act together.
    { "Agree":"1","Funny":"1","Insightful":"1","Disagree":"-1","Offensive":"-1","Troll":"-1" }
  • This is why I really don't read these articles
    GetRidOfTeaParty
    I haven't been reading these articles in while and I find that I left and came back and still all Mike Causey post is DOOM AND GLOOM. Don't you have anything on here position? Why are your articles always so negative? Once again good bye to this drama!
    { "Agree":"1","Funny":"1","Insightful":"1","Disagree":"-1","Offensive":"-1","Troll":"-1" }
  • To GRoTP
    Moderate
    This is because the last year or so has been very negative for the federal worker. Look at what has been proposed. Where is the positive?
    worker
    { "Agree":"1","Funny":"1","Insightful":"1","Disagree":"-1","Offensive":"-1","Troll":"-1" }
  • { "Agree":"1","Funny":"1","Insightful":"1","Disagree":"-1","Offensive":"-1","Troll":"-1" }