[ElDiabloJoe]

Originally Posted by Sabella

20 years in the military, protecting the freedom of everyone who lives in the United States and risking death not to mention all the other personal sacrifices that our military people endure . Nothing is too good for the people who sacrifice and and protect you and everybody else in the United States.

^ Absolutely. Amen! FWIW, I am not a vet. My father was - he was in Okinawa from 1946-1947. Wish he had joined USAA though

[kkingston57]

Originally Posted by retiredguy123

If this law is enacted, I may be able to receive a spouse benefit from my ex-spouse's work record. This is based on the GPO (Government Pension Offset) rule that has totally eliminated my spouse benefit since I retired. I don't really need the extra income, but it will help to pay my huge Federal tax bill, which is higher than all of my living expenses combined.

If so, you did well in your business career. After thinking about it, we are in same situation as our retired cost of living has gone down a lot. No mortgage, smaller house, less work related driving, no work clothes, less lunches out.

[Topspinmo]

Originally Posted by Pugchief

Have you served in the military? Otherwise, what are these statements based on?

I did and he’s right on especially enlisted which are treated like bottom crawlers.

[Topspinmo]

Originally Posted by retiredguy123

In my last position as a civilian Federal employee, the newly hired office head was a retired Colonel, who hired no one but retired military personnel. If you were a civilian trying to get promoted, forget about it. There was no way you would be considered. In 3 years, he hired about 10 retired military personnel. He would even bring in GS-14 employees at the step 10 level, when they were supposed to start at Step 1. Many of these jobs were hand crafted so no one else could qualify except the person he wanted to hire.

I think this practice is rampant in the D.C. area in agencies that are controlled by the military. I don't know about other Federal agencies.

It rampant everywhere with GS and WG employees


That way federal government hires nepotism runs rampant when locals get power to hire they friends and their friends hire their relatives seen this 100 times. Sure on paper all the rules are followed except the contact the have in personal office that qualifies applicants and qualifies people with connection and no experience. The system so big 70% coils be let go and nothing would change. Seen this for 40 years. You boss hired the way he seen if happen.

[Topspinmo]

Originally Posted by sedwyer

FERS are not affected as they paid into SS. CSRS did not.

Employee pays into furs and government matches up to 5% or so. Accumulated in stock market over career. If you don’t pay in you don’t get much. Then, when you collect after retirement up to 1/3 taken for taxes depending on amount.

[biker1]

Perhaps. Federal Income Tax rates are marginal tax rates. You would need a sizable taxable income to have 1/3 taken for taxes (Federal taxes) as the highest marginal tax rate is 37%. For example, a taxable income of $1M would have an effective Federal tax rate of about 30%.

Originally Posted by Topspinmo

Employee pays into furs and government matches up to 5% or so. Accumulated in stock market over career. If you don’t pay in you don’t get much. Then, when you collect after retirement up to 1/3 taken for taxes depending on amount.

[Topspinmo]

Originally Posted by biker1

Perhaps. Federal Income Tax rates are marginal tax rates. You would need a sizable taxable income to have 1/3 taken for taxes (Federal taxes) as the highest marginal tax rate is 37%. For example, a taxable income of $1M would have an effective Federal tax rate of about 30%.

I did that one year.

[Pugchief]

Originally Posted by Topspinmo

I did and he’s right on especially enlisted which are treated like bottom crawlers.

Okay.

But I wasn't asking you. I was asking JimJam who made the original statement to which I replied. My point wasn't whether or not it was true, it was the credibility of the source being based on lived experience versus hearsay.

[JMintzer]

Originally Posted by jimjamuser

I only want to comment on one small part of this post - "the other thing it does is protect mostly WOMEN". To me that is a VERY GOOD thing because women typically earn only 70% of what a man does for the SAME job.

Complete nonsense...

[JMintzer]

Originally Posted by Pugchief

Have you served in the military? Otherwise, what are these statements based on?

He makes them up?

[allsport]

Originally Posted by Pugchief

The better solution is to get rid of pensions for all govt employees (federal, state, municipal, county) and put them in a 401k type plan that the employer matches similarly to the private sector.

As far as SS is concerned, it prob makes sense to gradually move that away from the current ponzi structure toward a privatized system, while still honoring benefits to those who have paid in.

Neither of those things are a good solution. I worked for the government for 40 years and was in the original retirement system, a benefit that I looked at when deciding to stay in government. We were not comparably paid to the private sector but retirement was something that kept people in government. You are incorrect to think that current employees have government pensions, sometime in the 80's the retirement system was changed and they now have 401K's SS and a minor government pension. SS was enacted to assist people who are poor and do not have a retirement option. If you pay in, you should be able to collect no matter what other pension you have including the government pension. When my husband died I was denied my widow's pension because I had a federal pension. That would not have happened had I not been on government retirement. That is unfair as he paid into the system for way more than 40 quarters. He has been dead for 6 years and I am wondering if I will be able to back and get his money.

[Bill14564]

Originally Posted by allsport

Neither of those things are a good solution. I worked for the government for 40 years and was in the original retirement system, a benefit that I looked at when deciding to stay in government. We were not comparably paid to the private sector but retirement was something that kept people in government. You are incorrect to think that current employees have government pensions, sometime in the 80's the retirement system was changed and they now have 401K's SS and a minor government pension. SS was enacted to assist people who are poor and do not have a retirement option. If you pay in, you should be able to collect no matter what other pension you have including the government pension. When my husband died I was denied my widow's pension because I had a federal pension. That would not have happened had I not been on government retirement. That is unfair as he paid into the system for way more than 40 quarters. He has been dead for 6 years and I am wondering if I will be able to back and get his money.

But you are collecting the govt pension you did pay into rather than the SS you did not pay onto.

If you were collecting SS instead of your pension then you would have to choose between your SS or the survivor benefit, whichever was larger - you would not collect both. How is that any different than having your survivor benefit reduced to zero today because your current pension is so much larger?

[Topspinmo]

Originally Posted by Pugchief

Okay.

But I wasn't asking you. I was asking JimJam who made the original statement to which I replied. My point wasn't whether or not it was true, it was the credibility of the source being based on lived experience versus hearsay.

I was enlisted for 20 years. Is that live enough experience for you?

[Pugchief]

Originally Posted by Pugchief

Okay.

But I wasn't asking you. I was asking JimJam who made the original statement to which I replied. My point wasn't whether or not it was true, it was the credibility of the source being based on lived experience versus hearsay.

Originally Posted by Topspinmo

I was enlisted for 20 years. Is that live enough experience for you?

I had said "okay" meaning I acknowledge your statement and don't dispute it.

Again, and I don't know how I can be any clearer, my point wasn't whether or not it was true, it was the credibility of the source being based on lived experience of another poster versus hearsay.

[FFlank]

The current timeline, for anyone who is keeping track, is as follows:
The act was presented to President Biden on 12/27.
The ten day period for the President to act starts today (12/28), the day after it's presented.
Sundays are excluded from the calculation, so the 10th day falls on Monday, January 8.
So...what happens on or before January 8?
If the President signs it, it becomes law.
If the President vetos it, it goes back to congress, which can attempt to override the veto.
If the President takes no action AND congress is in session, the bill automatically becomes law.
If the President takes no action and congress adjourns during this period, the bill will probably become a "pocket" veto and it won't become law.