7:00 am, May 30, 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.

  • 79

  • Leaner Retirement?
    Yet another breach of contract with Federal Employees and a certain case of rape to those already doing more with less.
    { "Agree":"1","Funny":"1","Insightful":"1","Disagree":"-1","Offensive":"-1","Troll":"-1" }
  • Chained CPI
    This proposal affects Social Security payments, so federal employees don't stand alone on this issue. A problem: A large fraction of expenditures of the retired is dedicated to medical treatment. But medical treatment is always close to the state of the art, so it will not track the CPI in a chained fashion. New medicines and treatments will always be expensive - and one doesn't know how expensive.
    { "Agree":"1","Funny":"1","Insightful":"1","Disagree":"-1","Offensive":"-1","Troll":"-1" }
  • The are hoping that the elderly
    will go with the cheaper option - death.
    { "Agree":"1","Funny":"1","Insightful":"1","Disagree":"-1","Offensive":"-1","Troll":"-1" }
  • disingenuous article
    I love the way this article makes it seem like we federal workers didn't see this coming. No, you reporters focused on other items affecting our retirement. Then, when this proposal comes out, you make it sound like we were blindsided. The analogies about lobsters in the pot and being on the wrong burner were music to your keyboards. Spare us the condescension. All these ideas are old and if you throw enough darts at the board, one of them will hit. Let me summarize: General Schedule salaries are the same as they were in 2010, many Republicans say we were overpaid by 16% four years ago and still are today (how come that number never changes when our pay is frozen?), the social security holiday is over, health insurance costs are up 20%, there are constant threats to our retirement so we will make less today and tomorrow. Few of us Feds will be eating lobster. See, I can write cool analogies too!
    { "Agree":"1","Funny":"1","Insightful":"1","Disagree":"-1","Offensive":"-1","Troll":"-1" }
  • As long as its even
    As a long time federal worker I can swallow the chained CPI. Why, because 1) the country, if not there already, is going the way of Greece and needs to cut spending, and 2) because ALL retirees, including those collecting social security are affected. What I can't agree with is the proposed increase in retirement contributions by federal workers ONLY, while those paying social security are not asked to contribute one cent more. How about raising, or eliminating entirely, the income tax cap on FICA. Strange this proposal is never heard of, but bumping the cap significantly would fund social security forever. But no, this is a no-starter... because the reps call it a tax increase. Where is their defense of the federal worker over this other "tax increase" on them. They are all just a bunch or wind.
    { "Agree":"1","Funny":"1","Insightful":"1","Disagree":"-1","Offensive":"-1","Troll":"-1" }
  • As long as its even
    "How about raising, or eliminating entirely, the income tax cap on FICA." strizhko, I like you idea of eliminating the cap on FICA. Raising the FICA tax will impact those of us who are struggling to make ends meet.
    { "Agree":"1","Funny":"1","Insightful":"1","Disagree":"-1","Offensive":"-1","Troll":"-1" }
  • How about some fairness
    Eaglesmom and everyone else: I agree with Strizhko. The cap on FICA is on the overall salary cap - (not raising the %rate for the rest of us.) For example - The salary cap on FICA was $110,100 for 2012, paying 6.2% to Social Security for a cap of $6,826.20. No one can pay more than that - so if you earned $220,200 in 2012, you still paid $6826.20, for an effective FICA tax rate of 3.1%. So those who earn more have an effective tax rate much lover than those who earn minimum wage, for example. Fair?? I don't think so.
    { "Agree":"1","Funny":"1","Insightful":"1","Disagree":"-1","Offensive":"-1","Troll":"-1" }
  • Maybe, maybe not
    Because benefits are paid based on the taxable social security. The question is will the fund suffer if greater benefits are paid out?
    { "Agree":"1","Funny":"1","Insightful":"1","Disagree":"-1","Offensive":"-1","Troll":"-1" }
  • Social Security is already hugely "progressive"
    The people you are responding to, like most, do not understand the basics of how SS benefits are calculated. Those who earn the least, and hence contributed the least, get a rate of return on their money that is 3x the rate of return that those who earn the $113K or so or still more see. So, it is already a very "progressive" form of taxation. There is nothing "unfair" in that unless it is to higher earners. Whether it should be still more "unfair" to higher earners is a policy question. It's a different matter where federal civil service, especially CSRSers, and military retirees are concerned because their pensions truly were "earned," with no already built in skewing toward lower earners or those in the work force a shorter time. Whether or not this change in the indexing calculation would be fair or not to them is a subjective judgment.
    { "Agree":"1","Funny":"1","Insightful":"1","Disagree":"-1","Offensive":"-1","Troll":"-1" }
  • Leaner retirement in the works
    I'm getting so sick of the Feds taking the brundt of all of the crap going on. I am a retired fed and this stuff just never stops coming. We all know that there is a real $$ problem in this country. We all know that something has to be done. Why is it always on the Feds back? Why don't we pay congress for the hours they work at the minimum wage level. They only work about 24-32 hours per week. Plus - since they don't put a full week in, they shouldn't get any benefits until they do put a full week in. (The owner of the Orioles does that - 39 hours - no insurance or benefits). Why are they "padding" their own pockets? Anyone with half-a-brain knows that the only thing the politicians are working for is their own retirement by way of $$ from corporations. Every time I hear more crap out of their mouths I just want to go to capital hill and ask them "What would your Mothers say about you acting like this". Alas - I would be arrested for "disorderly conduct" or some other trumped up charge. It's time for the feds to really stand up and fight - because apparently the unions are only in it for the $$, too. Now - if I could figure out a way to do all that, I would! Thanks for listening......
    { "Agree":"1","Funny":"1","Insightful":"1","Disagree":"-1","Offensive":"-1","Troll":"-1" }
  • { "Agree":"1","Funny":"1","Insightful":"1","Disagree":"-1","Offensive":"-1","Troll":"-1" }