U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 1.5 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Jump to a detailed profile or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Business Search - 14 Million verified businesses
Search for:  near: 
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 03-21-2009, 08:29 PM
 
19,178 posts, read 18,935,139 times
Reputation: 3895
Quote:
Originally Posted by GOPATTA2D View Post
I suggest you read the link you just posted. Senators serve a six year term.

From your link:
Members become vested in (legally entitled to) a pension benefit under CSRS or FERS after five years of service. Retirement Under FERS: Retirement with a deferred, full pension is available at age 62 to former Members of Congress with at least five years of federal service.

Since six is greater than five, they get the full pension for serving just one term under FERS.
The "full" FERS benefit accrued in 6 years worth of service is 10.2% of the average of the highest consecutive three years of salary, and one would have to wait until age 62 to begin receiving it.

Quote:
Originally Posted by GOPATTA2D View Post
There is also the alternate CSRS Plan:
Retirement with a deferred, full pension is available if the Member leaves Congress before reaching the minimum age required to receive an immediate, unreduced pension and delays receipt until reaching the age at which full benefits are paid. A full pension can be taken at age 62 if the Member had five through nine years of federal service, or at age 60 if the Member had at least 10 years of service in Congress. At the time of separation, the Member must leave all contributions in the plan in order to be eligible for the deferred pension.
CSRS is NOT an alternative to anyone except those members of Congress who were first elected prior to 1984 and who chose to remain in the CSRS system rather than convert to FERS. Unless you already had significant years of service, conversion to FERS was to your advantage. No one first elected over the past 25 years has ever had the option of choosing to be included in the CSRS system.

Quote:
Originally Posted by GOPATTA2D View Post
The amount they receive is determined by years of service. A Senator who serves just one term would only receive about $30K a year. A two term Senator would receive about twice that. Not bad for 12 years of work. If they can manage to get re-elected twice they are close to $90K a year.
Per the above, after one term, a Senator would be eligible at age 62 to begin collecting a pension equal to 10.2% of the average of his or her highest three consectutive years of salary. A Senator elected in 2002 who did not return in 2009, would therefore be eligible to receive about $16,750 per year upon reaching the age of 62. That amount would be reduced if he or she chose a survivor annuity for a spouse. The amount would be double for a Senator first elected in 1996.

In 2006, there were 123 retired members of Congress receiving pensions under FERS. Their average age was 69. Their average length of service in Congress was 16.3 years. Their average federal pension was $35,952.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 03-21-2009, 08:36 PM
 
4,090 posts, read 2,994,790 times
Reputation: 1226
Quote:
Originally Posted by NewToCA View Post
The full pension being available at age 62 means there is not a reduction for age, it doesn't mean they get the full benefit.

Of course they do, they are fully vested. The get the full benefit according the formula.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-21-2009, 08:49 PM
 
Location: Sacramento
13,390 posts, read 15,237,474 times
Reputation: 5104
Quote:
Originally Posted by GOPATTA2D View Post
Of course they do, they are fully vested. The get the full benefit according the formula.
That isn't how the OP defined getting the full benefit, it meant max pension (as if you collect as much after one term as you would after multiple terms).
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-21-2009, 08:50 PM
 
4,090 posts, read 2,994,790 times
Reputation: 1226
Quote:
Originally Posted by saganista View Post
The "full" FERS benefit accrued in 6 years worth of service is 10.2% of the average of the highest consecutive three years of salary, and one would have to wait until age 62 to begin receiving it.
I think I already said that.

Quote:
Originally Posted by saganista View Post
CSRS is NOT an alternative to anyone except those members of Congress who were first elected prior to 1984 and who chose to remain in the CSRS system rather than convert to FERS. Unless you already had significant years of service, conversion to FERS was to your advantage. No one first elected over the past 25 years has ever had the option of choosing to be included in the CSRS system.
Agreed


Quote:
Originally Posted by saganista View Post
Per the above, after one term, a Senator would be eligible at age 62 to begin collecting a pension equal to 10.2% of the average of his or her highest three consectutive years of salary. A Senator elected in 2002 who did not return in 2009, would therefore be eligible to receive about $16,750 per year upon reaching the age of 62. That amount would be reduced if he or she chose a survivor annuity for a spouse. The amount would be double for a Senator first elected in 1996.
I already posted $30K - we are saying the same thing.


My position is simple: The OP stated that Senators get full pensions after one term. Another person posted a link stating that this was false. The link posted clearly indicated that they are eligible for a full pension (fully vested) subject to the terms and conditions of the plan they fall under, and in an amount determined by the benefit formula.

Name a private company that will allow a worker to vest in five years in a defined benefit plan and receive a pension at retirement age with only six years of active service? Almost every defined benefit plan I have seen requires at least 20 years of service. At least in private industry.

Do the math - the average Senator is elected at age 42. Lets assume he or she serves one term. At age 62, he begins collecting for his estimated lifespan of 20 years. He pays his 1.3% into FERS for six years. He gets his pay raises which are automatic. At age 62 he collects in his first year more than he paid into the plan in the six years he was in office. The next 19 years are compliments of Uncle Sam.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-21-2009, 09:47 PM
 
19,178 posts, read 18,935,139 times
Reputation: 3895
Quote:
Originally Posted by GOPATTA2D View Post
I think I already said that.
No, you didn't. You deliberately allowed the OP's misconception of the word "full" to stand (as has been pointed out) on the basis of vesting.

Quote:
Originally Posted by GOPATTA2D View Post
Agreed
I would think so.

Quote:
Originally Posted by GOPATTA2D View Post
I already posted $30K - we are saying the same thing.
No, you claimed $30K for a one-term Senator. That isn't possible.

Quote:
Originally Posted by GOPATTA2D View Post
My position is simple: The OP stated that Senators get full pensions after one term. Another person posted a link stating that this was false. The link posted clearly indicated that they are eligible for a full pension (fully vested) subject to the terms and conditions of the plan they fall under, and in an amount determined by the benefit formula.
You should have quit right there.

Quote:
Originally Posted by GOPATTA2D View Post
Name a private company that will allow a worker to vest in five years in a defined benefit plan...
Do some research. Five years is the most common private sector vesting point.

Quote:
Originally Posted by GOPATTA2D View Post
...and receive a pension at retirement age with only six years of active service?
What do you think "vested" means? Once vested, you WILL be eligible for a pension benefit once you reach retirement age. It will simply be much smaller with six years of service than it would be with thirty.

Quote:
Originally Posted by GOPATTA2D View Post
Almost every defined benefit plan I have seen requires at least 20 years of service. At least in private industry.
The law requires that private defined benefit pension plans be fully vested after no more than either 5 or 7 years, depending on whether vesting is all at once or graded.

Quote:
Originally Posted by GOPATTA2D View Post
Do the math - the average Senator is elected at age 42. Lets assume he or she serves one term. At age 62, he begins collecting for his estimated lifespan of 20 years. He pays his 1.3% into FERS for six years. He gets his pay raises which are automatic. At age 62 he collects in his first year more than he paid into the plan in the six years he was in office. The next 19 years are compliments of Uncle Sam.
Congressional pay raises are not automatic in any effective sense. The Senator would have to wait through 14 years worth of inflation before collecting any of his benefit. It would be indexed after that. Traditionally, employers paid 100% of defined benefit pension costs. Obviously, one expects to collect more than one paid in. Otherwise, it wouldn't be a benefit.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-22-2009, 02:04 AM
 
412 posts, read 556,659 times
Reputation: 208
Quote:
Originally Posted by saganista View Post
Every lawmaker elected after 1983 pays into Social Security. Their own little program (as you call it) consists of Social Security, a very modest pension, plus whatever they can make out of a 401-k. With some minor differences, it is the same system available to all federal employees It is comparable to systems found in many large private sector corporations. Rumors that lawmakers have some cushy private retirement system of their own are without basis.
I've worked for two large corporations, and neither offered pensions to employees hired within the last 10 years. Most Americans are going to have make retirement work with just Social Security (which probably won't be around after the baby-boomers retire) and 401ks. Our lawmakers can do the same.

The perks that the president and their families receive after leaving office are quite ridiculous, too.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-22-2009, 03:42 AM
 
Location: Earth
24,642 posts, read 13,502,241 times
Reputation: 11057
Quote:
Originally Posted by skchi View Post
I absolutely agree. They should get healthcare and access to a 401K while they're serving. Oh and they should be able to pay for health insurance through COBRA for a maximum of 18 months when they're voted out. That's it.

Why do local, state, and federal government employees, elected or not, even get pensions? How many people working for corporations or small businesses get pensions? Not many! Why are our tax dollars being used to support government workers retirements, when a vast majority of us taxpayers have to fund our own retirements?
There's a difference between elected officials and people who are employees of the government.
Federal employees pay into a retirement system, they have a 401k.
Their salaries are often up to 30% less than the private sector for the same jobs.
Everything is give and take; you work in a job that provides the benefits that you most want.
If you don't like the benefits where you work, get a job elsewhere, where you do like the benefits.

Quote:
Originally Posted by skchi View Post
I've worked for two large corporations, and neither offered pensions to employees hired within the last 10 years. Most Americans are going to have make retirement work with just Social Security (which probably won't be around after the baby-boomers retire) and 401ks. Our lawmakers can do the same.

The perks that the president and their families receive after leaving office are quite ridiculous, too.
Can you please provide some backup to your assertion that "most Americans are going to have make retirement work with just Social Security" and where you learned that SS was going to be the only retirement choice in your life?
It's your choice about where you work based on education and other factors. You have choices in your life, take advantage of them. It's unfair to blame everyone else for your life choices.
I know of companies that do offer retirements, again, look at where you work and the benefits before you accept a job offer.
SS is available to all who pay into it. It is not intended to be the sole retirement income program.

I invest in IRAs to support my retirement, you could be doing the same if you're so fearful about retirement income.
Looks to me like you're unhappy with your life decisions and are crying foul about others who made different decisions.

Last edited by chielgirl; 03-22-2009 at 03:59 AM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-22-2009, 04:42 AM
 
11,962 posts, read 7,025,800 times
Reputation: 2772
Quote:
Originally Posted by chielgirl View Post
It's your choice about where you work based on education and other factors. You have choices in your life, take advantage of them. It's unfair to blame everyone else for your life choices.
HAH! And they say liberals don't believe in personal responsibility!!!
^5 chiel
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-22-2009, 05:26 AM
 
1,643 posts, read 2,387,723 times
Reputation: 732
Quote:
Originally Posted by chielgirl View Post
It's your choice about where you work based on education and other factors. You have choices in your life, take advantage of them. It's unfair to blame everyone else for your life choices.
Does this apply to everyone or just to republicans? So then I guess you agree we shouldn't have to be supporting the ones who never applied themselves. Perfect! We finally agree on something!
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-22-2009, 05:30 AM
 
Location: Earth
24,642 posts, read 13,502,241 times
Reputation: 11057
What are you talking about?
Is this a generic statement or directed at me?
Some people don't have the wherewithal to care for themselves.
Are you saying that you should leave them in the streets to die?

I'm seriously happy not to live in a country where your ideas were law.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:

Over $79,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies

All times are GMT -6.

2005-2014, Advameg, Inc.

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25 - Top