Federal worker/retiree stats

[Escort Rider]

Originally Posted by tom1944

There is no one blanket answer regarding State pensions. Many people who complain about them look at the outliers and make the assumption that that situation is the norm. In most cases that is far from true.

Quite so. I have posted in rebuttal of those "outlier" complaints a number of times over the years. What makes the news? The systems which are over-generous and unsustainable, thus fueling people's (taxpayers') outrage, as if all the many state, county, and city systems were identical. In California, there are two huge state-wide systems, one for state/county/city employees and one for teachers. Even those two systems are completely separate and are structured differently. By the way, they are the first and second largest public pension funds, respectively, in the United States (other than the federal, possibly).

[oldsoldier1976]

Originally Posted by MadManofBethesda

Don't know where you're coming up with that bit of erroneous information. The TSP was created in 1987 and it has been open to CSRS employees since Day 1. There were limitations on investment options back then - in fact, there were no options. CSRS employees were restricted to participating in the G Fund only. Also, the amount that they could contribute was limited to 5% of salary. But then again, FERS employees had a limitation as well: 10% of salary. These contribution limits (not investment limits) were in place from 1987-2000, and then began going up 1% per year from 2001-2005. In 2006, the limits were eliminated and now only the IRS annual limit is applicable.

But to get back to the original issue, once the TSP was created in 1987, there was never a point in time when CSRS employees were not allowed to participate in the TSP.

You are right and I stand corrected. The CSRS employees were not given matching and were not allowed to invest in anything but the G fund. I still stand by my original statement that CSRS and the original FERS balances out and I feel and this is my feeling only that FERS is just a bit better.

Also Escort Rider yes the retirement system is not lavish by any means. It was and still is a means to keeping some good people in the system in spite of low pay rate, problems given in budget and furloughs and government shut downs. I know that the private sector has had its share of troubles but our last pay increase of 1% was offset by our increase in health care premiums of 3%.

So by being frugal and saving, making good investments, living within means and other methods of keeping cost of living down I will make a nice retirement for MRS. Golf and me. Should we make it beyond age 80 with any sense of resonable health we are ahead of the game.

[Carolina65]

I'm relatively new to federal employment - joined in 2009, after many years in the private sector - so my retirement looks something like this - private employer pension (frozen in 2005 or 6, can't recall which) plus private 401K .....in addition to FERS and TSP - so 4 streams altogether.

I am struggling somewhat with federal employment....miss the flexibility and creativity of the prviate sector...next year will hit the 5 year mark, so I will stay in order to qualify for the pension.
I need another 5 years to retire with healthcare....depending on what comes about with the AFA (also known as Obamacare), it may not make sense to stay with the feds another 5 years, since I can more easily get healthcare (theoretically) with the ACA.
I guess I need to investigate and project how the federal retiree employee costs & coverage compare to that offered under AFA.

Any thoughts from others on this issue, are greatly appreciated...thanks!

C

[GreenGene]

Originally Posted by ABQ2015

Yes, I was not trying to imply that FERS employees were severely shortchanged as we have a FERS pension, TSP (401K), and Social Security. As others had already described the FERS system, I was focusing on why the average federal retirement age and years of service might seem lower than it actually was for most. Also that the system is based on years of service and high three salary and a rather set multiplier unlike the California retirement system that rewards those who work into their early 60's.

Having said that, I would much prefer to have contributed 7% into the CSRS system than to contribute the 23% or more that I have put into my FERS pension, TSP, and Social Security for the last 28 years. I would have come out ahead under CSRS. But I count my blessings that I have a good, secure government job and a secure pension.

When FERS was introduced, existing CSRS federal employees (like me) were given the opportunity to switch to FERS. I didn't, and neither did my wife. And we are delighted with our CSRS retirements (coming up on 5-and-a-half years of retired bliss!).

We both paid in a bit to Social Security - mostly summer jobs during high school and college, so we're not talking about big bucks. But being CSRS, we're not eligible for SS, and that's fine with me.

We also began participating in TSP when we could, and slowly increased our contribution to the max allowed.

I think a big drawback to FERS was that employees weren't contributing the maximum to TSP as soon as they could - some weren't contributing anything, and that meant they were missing out on the matching contribution. It's so good that new employees are automatically enrolled in FERS.

Assuming full participation in TSP by FERS employees, I think that CSRS and FERS are relatively close when it comes to retirement benefits ... but I'm still glad I stayed with CSRS.