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've worked for big companies, smaller companies and government. My wife has been a government employee since the day we graduated college.
Not even close.In case you missed my earlier statement, my company gives 21 days PTO, but there is no distinction between vacation days, sick days, etc. You get 21 total days. Also get 8 paid holidays.
LOTS and LOTS of people work hard and do not get defined benefit pensions or lots of time off.
Yes, but I am not forced to pay for a company's generosity.
I never was able to take more than 10 days off for the first 25 years of my current job. The last 7 years I've been able to do a couple of 15 days off vacations, but I usually work 2 hours a day half of the days I am "off".
Because the time off is for a given year. Time off is intended to reduce stress and increase productivity. It should be "use or lose it" to accomplish the purpose for which a company gives it.
Because the military is unique and rightly so. You get 60 days of leave a year or 120 days for SLA.
I remember back when the government "shut down" and hardly anyone noticed a difference.
You don't get it in the private sector. SOME companies may offer it, most do not. It is why people buy disability insurance.
The link you posted lists 11paid holidays each year. Who are the nn-educated again?
I'd bet you even have Liberal Arts college degree from some state run public school.[/quote]
Probably given the poor level most state run public schools.
You are right, members are merely vested at 5years. It is at 10 years that they get a FULL pension if they are 60 or older. They CAN retire at full pension and benefits at 62 or older if they have 5 years in Congress and 5 years other federal employment, which could be military, Congressional staffer or executive branch work, for example.
That is much more generous than the private sector.
"Who are the nn-educated again?" And oh, it is UN-educated NOT nn-educated
Good Friday isn't a federal holiday. Remind me again who are the un-educated?[/quote]
If you notice, I COPIED exactly what was said, hence the quotation marks, "2021 Federal Holidays and How They Are Paid The Federal Government provides employees with 10paid holidays each year."
"Who are the nn-educated again?" And oh, it is UN-educated NOT nn-educated
"That is much more generous than the private sector." NOT always
The fed pension itself is very SMALL today. The bulk come from theh TSP (401K) if the employee used it to it's fullest.
I've worked for big companies, smaller companies and government. My wife has been a government employee since the day we graduated college.
Not even close.In case you missed my earlier statement, my company gives 21 days PTO, but there is no distinction between vacation days, sick days, etc. You get 21 total days. Also get 8 paid holidays.
LOTS and LOTS of people work hard and do not get defined benefit pensions or lots of time off.
Yes, but I am not forced to pay for a company's generosity.
I never was able to take more than 10 days off for the first 25 years of my current job. The last 7 years I've been able to do a couple of 15 days off vacations, but I usually work 2 hours a day half of the days I am "off".
Because the time off is for a given year. Time off is intended to reduce stress and increase productivity. It should be "use or lose it" to accomplish the purpose for which a company gives it.
Because the military is unique and rightly so. You get 60 days of leave a year or 120 days for SLA.
I remember back when the government "shut down" and hardly anyone noticed a difference.
You don't get it in the private sector. SOME companies may offer it, most do not. It is why people buy disability insurance.
The link you posted lists 11paid holidays each year. Who are the nn-educated again?
I'd bet you even have Liberal Arts college degree from some state run public school.[/quote]
Probably given the poor level most state run public schools.
You are right, members are merely vested at 5years. It is at 10 years that they get a FULL pension if they are 60 or older. They CAN retire at full pension and benefits at 62 or older if they have 5 years in Congress and 5 years other federal employment, which could be military, Congressional staffer or executive branch work, for example.
That is much more generous than the private sector.
Good Friday isn't a federal holiday. Remind me again who are the un-educated?[/quote]
"Good Friday isn't a federal holiday. Remind me again who are the un-educated?"
I did NOT say it was a FEDERAL holiday.
I only said MANY people get off that day.
Not my problem you have a reading comprehension problem.
"and they both have pensions that are crazy lucrative.'
And they gave you their numbers? I don't think so.
When you say, "and they both have pensions that are crazy lucrative.", are you including their TSP?
I know, details, details, details.
If those agents were 60 years old, they could have been some of the last folks to be in the old CSRS system. Many of those retirees, depending on years of service can pull down 80-90% of what their high three working salary was. The difference is that they don't get social security (and never paid into it). If they did do part time work, then of course, they could get social security based off the other employment they had.
If these agents weren't in the CSRS system, but instead were FERS retirees, then no, they did not get crazy lucrative pensions at all. They would have their TSP (401K) and their FERS annuity which is a defined pension at either 1% or 1.1% of your high 3 times your years. It's nothing to sneeze at but doesn't fit the definition of "crazy lucrative."
"and they both have pensions that are crazy lucrative.'
And they gave you their numbers? I don't think so.
When you say, "and they both have pensions that are crazy lucrative.", are you including their TSP?
I know, details, details, details.
They said in their early retirement, that they were both making almost 70% of their highest annual salary. They also explained how they were allowed to boost their "highest salary" figure to help this computation by taking on additional assignments, most that required very little of them...mostly to be on-call as back-up.
They did not break out the details of their income. They moved out of their $800k home to a more expensive home on the water, so they could have a boat. They were in their late 50's when we met them. They also had no debt, because we learned that we had that in common. They had several nice new cars/suvs, one for each family member, (kids now in college).
They live a VERY comfortable lifestyle. Great people...conservatives. We were sad to see them go.
Believe me or not, I don't care. I know what I heard, & saw. They were raking it in, & good for them, but not so good for taxpayers. As one of the 40% carrying the load in the USA, I thought it was excessive.
Eventually, you run out of other peoples money to pay for this, & that day is here, but we're masking it w/ monopoly money & $28T in debt. When the lid blows off, most Americans will be traumatized.
Re the government pensions: you liberals going on about how the new pension isn’t as good, etc., etc., ignore the fact that only 20% of Americans even get a pension at all. any the pensions are still good: instead of a person getting $100,000 a year in pension, they’ll get “only” $70,000.
Beyond that, you all claiming that there is waste and redundancy and goof-offs in private, too, are missing a key difference: I’m not helping support them. I’m not paying taxes for them to pretend to work from home, so that they have to hire more work from home people.
And before you rush in with “government workers pay taxes too!,” that’s a ridiculous defense: all it means is that they take slightly less out from the government. For example, someone I know left private industry, earning $88,000 and got a government job for $104,000 (plus all the extra benefits). She has to pay taxes either way, but she’s netting bigtime from the government. In the meantime, she’s the one who told me to give her social calls only during the day, when she’s “working” from home, because her evenings are her time for herself.
We have simply got to cut down on the pervasive waste and redundancy in the government. We, the people, shouldn’t have to pay for it. It took until people starting playing 18 rounds of golf for the government to finally crack down on them. Otherwise, they all look aside, as long as the abuse isn’t THAT over the top.
If those agents were 60 years old, they could have been some of the last folks to be in the old CSRS system. Many of those retirees, depending on years of service can pull down 80-90% of what their high three working salary was. The difference is that they don't get social security (and never paid into it). If they did do part time work, then of course, they could get social security based off the other employment they had.
If these agents weren't in the CSRS system, but instead were FERS retirees, then no, they did not get crazy lucrative pensions at all. They would have their TSP (401K) and their FERS annuity which is a defined pension at either 1% or 1.1% of your high 3 times your years. It's nothing to sneeze at but doesn't fit the definition of "crazy lucrative."
If those agents were 60 years old, they could have been some of the last folks to be in the old CSRS system. Many of those retirees, depending on years of service can pull down 80-90% of what their high three working salary was. The difference is that they don't get social security (and never paid into it). If they did do part time work, then of course, they could get social security based off the other employment they had.
If these agents weren't in the CSRS system, but instead were FERS retirees, then no, they did not get crazy lucrative pensions at all. They would have their TSP (401K) and their FERS annuity which is a defined pension at either 1% or 1.1% of your high 3 times your years. It's nothing to sneeze at but doesn't fit the definition of "crazy lucrative."
OK. So I know someone earning $145,000 a year, and she is on the new system. (She switched over for a cash-payment when the new system was introduced.) She’s already been there more than 30 years (and talking about retiring in a year). So her pension would be $43,000 a year? (Still a good pension, equivalent to an average person’s salary, and more than the vast majority of hard-working Americans get.)
Of course, you have to add in the cash payment she got for switching. I believe it was $20,000 back in the early 80s. Invested at a very conservative 5% annually, it would be more than $100,000.
P.S. she’s kicking herself now for making the switch.
How many times did your employer withheld your check for a month without giving you an interest rate at the end?
And no, essential federal employees like myself were working the whole time.
Guess what? When my employer "withholds my paycheck", meaning I'm laid off, at BEST I get unemployment at a fraction of my normal pay. I don't get "back pay" for not working just because I'm a government drone.
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.
