Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 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.
I wonder how they come up with those "lifetime" numbers. I guess they are multiplying the yearly take-home amount plus any other health insurance premiums that might be paid and then giving them a lifespan into their 80s plus an inflation factor that, in actuality, has been on hold for 2 years?
As it is for all other federal employees, congressional retirement is funded through taxes and the participants' contributions. Members of Congress under FERS contribute 1.3 percent of their salary into the FERS retirement plan and pay 6.2 percent of their salary in Social Security taxes.
Members of Congress are not eligible for a pension until they reach the age of 50, but only if they've completed 20 years of service. Members are eligible at any age after completing 25 years of service or after they reach the age of 62. Please also note that Members of Congress have to serve at least 5 years to even receive a pension.
The amount of a congressperson's pension depends on the years of service and the average of the highest 3 years of his or her salary. By law, the starting amount of a Member's retirement annuity may not exceed 80% of his or her final salary.
According to the Congressional Research Service, 413 retired Members of Congress were receiving federal pensions based fully or in part on their congressional service as of Oct. 1, 2006. Of this number, 290 had retired under CSRS and were receiving an average annual pension of $60,972. A total of 123 Members had retired with service under both CSRS and FERS or with service under FERS only. Their average annual pension was $35,952 in 2006.
The lifetime numbers I cited came from the National Taxpayers union.
Quote:
Originally Posted by NTU
NTU computes the pension benefit amounts based on public records concerning length of federal service, current age, life expectancy based on standard mortality tables used by the life insurance industry, and COLAs estimated at 3 percent a year, a figure federal actuaries have used in the past for projecting costs of the Federal Employees Retirement System (which contains one of Congress’s two pension plans).
Good for these two Representatives. This is an excellent way to put an end to careers in Congress. It would effect term limits in its own way. This and the STOCK bill against insider trading need to pass if the public is going to even begin to regain trust in elected representatives in Congress.
Actually, what is does is assure that only millionaires and influence peddlers will run for Congress. All other people will shy away. I would rather pay my legislators well and give them a pension and have them work for me instead of selling their soul to the corporations.
As the article notes, Weiner was never charged with any crime, but even if he had been charged and convicted he would still get his pension.
While the $1 million pension is designed to sound inflammatory, the same source said Weiner's pension was $32,357 per year. Tell, someone who earns $32,357 per year that it's like a million dollars.
MAtech, you do realize it's not an either or here??? You're paying them the lavish pensions AND they're selling their souls to the corporations.
edit MAtech the $1 million figure is the total amount based on standard life expectancy.
I have a real problem with congressmen getting rich in the lobbyist game, but I can't really get mad at their pensions. Their pensions are really not that outlandish. They're in line with what other federal employees get.
Actually, what is does is assure that only millionaires and influence peddlers will run for Congress. All other people will shy away. I would rather pay my legislators well and give them a pension and have them work for me instead of selling their soul to the corporations.
We'll have to agree to disagree. This has nothing to do with the salary of legislators or their healthcare benefits while in Congress, only their retirement pensions.
Do you really mean to tell me that for the time period of one term, be it in the US House, or US Senate, you believe that someone would not agree to put a portion their own salary toward a self-funded ROTH or traditional IRA? That they must be furnished a pension from the taxpayers in order to be convinced to serve? Sounds like a character problem to me, not a financial one.
Ron Paul has not sold his soul to the corporations and he has rejected collecting any part of his pension/benefits once he leaves Congress. It is a matter of character.
I have a real problem with congressmen getting rich in the lobbyist game, but I can't really get mad at their pensions. Their pensions are really not that outlandish. They're in line with what other federal employees get.
If you had read the article linked by the OP the long term goal by this action is to also reduce federal pensions with the Congress leading by example (for a change).
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.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 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.
Sounds like a character problem to me, not a financial one.
