Eugene Freedman, World Class Dope

Somenewguy said:
I agree with you. If the agency was willing to pay the same or more and just put it in a different place I would be open to that.

I just don't think what you’re talking about is ever going to be offered. We are in a place where the government is looking to cut costs and cut employee benefits.
Click to expand...
The thing is, that would be cutting costs for the agency. If this year they paid in 67k into my fers, 1% auto tsp was $1800, and match was 7200. That’s 78k from them on my behalf just this year. Then when I retire, they will have to keep paying me. Imagine if they just put in the max 69k into tsp instead and they are done with me. No need to pay me in retirement. No need to have employees running the pension program. That’s savings on their end. And I would take that all day for the money to be in the market.
 
I think there is a lot of confusion because you're throwing a lot of different things into the ring at once. "IF this year", but they didn't this year. And also you said your pay was 120/year so I'm not sure how 1% match is 1800. I'm having to imagine a lot and you're not providing any real example as a fair comparison of why your system would be better.

It's possible to make more money with retirement accounts (you can already do this with the TSP and 401k/IRA accounts) but you will always carry a higher risk. The advantage of a pension is that the only real risk is governmental collapse, in which case your investment returns won't mean that much anyway.

My take is the TSP is designed to make you money (and if you hit max contributions for 20 years, it should). The FERS is a safety net.

And even if you're in a good situation to throw away your safety net, that doesn't mean it's a good idea for all BUEs
 
Somenewguy said:
I think there is a lot of confusion because you're throwing a lot of different things into the ring at once. "IF this year", but they didn't this year. And also you said your pay was 120/year so I'm not sure how 1% match is 1800. I'm having to imagine a lot and you're not providing any real example as a fair comparison of why your system would be better.

It's possible to make more money with retirement accounts (you can already do this with the TSP and 401k/IRA accounts) but you will always carry a higher risk. The advantage of a pension is that the only real risk is governmental collapse, in which case your investment returns won't mean that much anyway.
Click to expand...
Never said I make 120k. And all those numbers came directly from my last LES.
 
My LES says 50k for FERs under benefits paid by government. We should absolutely be able to take the contributions as a lump sum at any time and rollover into a 401k or IRA. DOGE wants to vilify Federal employees. Give us our money and watch us leave. Planes can stay on the ground.
 
If they're able to toss 30% of your pay into a tax advantaged account that incentivizes long term holdings, that seems like an ok alternative to FERS. But I do think you should look at the numbers for life expectancy, potential risk from down stock years close to retirement, and the impact of low paying years on your retirement for those stuck in low levels for the first decade of the career when compounding interest makes the biggest difference. After we agree to go full TSP, then we are also up against changing the TSP maximums every year to increase our pay. These are all non issues with FERS. Is it worth it to probably make more money? I think that's a conversation that NATCA should have with the membership if it's on the table, because it will impact different members differently.

On forums to share and learn different perspectives, and I hear what you're saying and agree with some of it, even if I don't think we agree on the right course of action. I wouldn't say the sky is falling and the world is going to end if we switched to cashout/all benefits into TSP, just don't think it's the better of two good options.
 
Back
Top Bottom