QuickTopic logo Create New TopicNew Topic My TopicsMy Topics News
Skip to Messages

TOPIC:

Retirement Issues for Postal Employees

Welcome to Postal Employee Network Discussions!
Please visit our homepage Postal Employee Network
^     All messages            2513-2532 of 2532  2493-2512 >>
2532
egarkPerson was signed in when posted
03-23-2017
01:49 PM ET (US)
PMR2PSE2PTF /m2529 - could you provide an examples of many states that pay 3% per year? That would give, for example, a 35 year employee 105%. My wife is a retired teacher and got 1.82% a year which has been changed to 1.67% for new hires.
2531
PMR2PSE2PTFPerson was signed in when posted
03-23-2017
10:05 AM ET (US)
/m2530 Because half the payout means half the financial carnage of unsustainability, all else being equal. And at 4.4% contributions it's not even half that, more like 1/3. Even if the model is still more or less the same, the potential bottom-line fiscal impact will be considerably less.
Edited 03-23-2017 10:07 AM
2530
egarkPerson was signed in when posted
03-23-2017
10:01 AM ET (US)
PMR2PSE2PTF /m2529 - yes, I get that. But, until recently, CSRS was getting double the benefit (2% v 1%) for almost 9 times the money (7% v 0.8%). Why, therefore, would FERS style plans be more financially sound than CSRS plans?
2529
PMR2PSE2PTFPerson was signed in when posted
03-23-2017
09:49 AM ET (US)
/m2528 I and all other relatively new hires are paying 4.4% into FERS, for between one-third and one-half the benefit of CSRS.

There is also a TSP match for FERS employees, of course, but those are fixed, knowable and predictable costs incurred in a pay as you go manner, not a ticking fiscal time bomb with a large but unknown future impact.

And in reality, many state and local pensions promise 3% per year, not 2% like CSRS or 1% like FERS. So even CSRS was less flammable than most state and local pension plans, and it didn't have the ease of spiking that many state/local plans allowed. And FERS dials it down another level, especially for those paying more than 0.8% for it. FERS is a good deal for 0.8% for sure.... at 4.4% it's really not a sure thing that it's better than investing the 4.4% yourself and letting it ride for decades.

For what it's worth, earliest retirement for me would be in 2025 at age 59 (MRA+10), and I'll consider myself fortunate if the annuity is enough to just pay my health insurance premiums -- it probably won't be.
Edited 03-23-2017 10:00 AM
2528
egarkPerson was signed in when posted
03-23-2017
12:12 AM ET (US)
PMR2PSE2PTF /m2526 - not sure if the CSRS/FERS comparisons are logical. CSRS employees contributed 7% of their pay for 2% per year, and this is not financially sound, but FERS employees contributing a fraction of a percent for 1% per year is? Makes no sense to me.
2527
Hannah BlectorPerson was signed in when posted
03-22-2017
11:40 PM ET (US)
And now FERS hires pay 4.4% into the system. These newbies have no idea how much they will pay and what they get. There should be a rule that new hires have to be told this before joining the USPS because some definitely would not take the job if they knew what was ahead of them regarding retirement cost and benefits. I knew a new regular who was thinking about quitting due to the way management treats city carriers in my office. When I explained the retirement he was both shocked and gone. I was so happy for him.
2526
PMR2PSE2PTFPerson was signed in when posted
03-22-2017
10:09 PM ET (US)
/m2522 The "killer retirement deal" you see bankrupting cities and some states are where they are still on a CSRS style retirement plan, plus all the abusive pension spiking some local agencies allow in order to give out inflated pension checks. And yes, their assumptions of 8.5% or even 9% rates of return are too optimistic, IMO.

Again, those are pension plans much more reminiscent of CSRS, which Uncle Sam took away from new hires more than 30 years ago. A FERS retirement still gives a good deal on health insurance benefits (for now) but the pension part is not even close to what is bankrupting local governments. FERS pensions are not out of control.
Edited 03-22-2017 10:10 PM
2525
Hannah BlectorPerson was signed in when posted
03-22-2017
07:28 PM ET (US)
Well, that is one way to avoid the "i before e except after c (most of the time)" thing.
2524
82% RetiredPerson was signed in when posted
03-22-2017
02:58 PM ET (US)
egark, I do not disagree. Pay them what you promised. I just agreed it was a "killer retirement plan." Bad financial decisions were made on assumptions that the stock market had no celing. Bad investments were made. At some point there will not be enough money to pay what was promised.
2523
egarkPerson was signed in when posted
03-22-2017
02:34 PM ET (US)
82% Retired /m2522 - So? Raise taxes then. A deal is a deal. The time for the "good citizens" to object was BEFORE, not now.

"Paid"
2522
82% RetiredPerson was signed in when posted
03-22-2017
12:59 PM ET (US)
/m2517 You are correct, it is a "killer retirement plan." It will be killing the tax payer when the amounts payed out are greater than the amounts paying in. Some cities have huge deficits in their pension plans. So much so they will have to raise taxes on the good citizens or cut pension payments.
2521
TommiPerson was signed in when posted
03-22-2017
12:37 PM ET (US)
Thanks all for taking the time to answer my questions. I was being asked by my children and I just didn't know. Hannah, I did get the phone counseling with help on completing paperwork. It makes sense at the time, I just didn't think of anything until later when I was being questioned. I found it to be very overwhelming. I actually made the decision to retire so I was able to continue to pay my bills. OWCP has been pushing and it seems I have myself in a very difficult position. OWCP also pushes their demands until Drs get disgusted. No one, including the majority of the medical field have a masters in completing paperwork to the satisfaction of OWCP. I was fortunate to have the time and age to retire but is not something I had planned to do soon. But, it's done. So now once I receive my pension it will close my time with USPS and I can finally put the bitterness behind me. Not so easy with a broken body, just for mental health
2520
egarkPerson was signed in when posted
03-20-2017
11:47 PM ET (US)
Tommi /m2515 - ok, I got it, I misunderstood your question. The "so you are saying..." you asked is incorrect, he didn't say that. Your pension $ amount is based on the number of years you work, but you collect as long as you live.
2519
Hannah BlectorPerson was signed in when posted
03-20-2017
11:06 PM ET (US)
Tommi since you are eligible for retirement you can request a retirement counseling session from HR if you wish.
2518
Hannah BlectorPerson was signed in when posted
03-20-2017
11:04 PM ET (US)
Tommi, thanks for all those years you paid into SS for which you will see no benefit now. I am in the same situation. I have paid in since the year I was 13/14. You won't get anything for 20 of the years you have paid in if you have paid in for all 50 years.
2517
Hannah BlectorPerson was signed in when posted
03-20-2017
11:00 PM ET (US)
/m2515 Now it makes sense. The municipality where I deliver has a killer retirement plan. If someone retires at age 65 they get 100% pay for as many years as they had worked. WAY better than FERS. If they retire before age 65 the amount is reduced by 5% per year. Work 30 years to age 60, get 75% for the next 30 years. Work 30 years to age 65, get 100% for the next 30 years.
2516
RIKSNYPerson was signed in when posted
03-20-2017
09:47 PM ET (US)
Your pension continues as long as you live.
2515
TommiPerson was signed in when posted
03-20-2017
09:36 PM ET (US)
Thanks Hannah & Old and Tired. Your info really helped. I am 66 so no problem onMRA.
Egark2514-My father-in-law was still getting a pension from his company up until he passed which was well over the amount of years he worked.
Technically I have worked from the age of 16 paying taxes and the last 25 with our beloved postal service. I find this to be a valid question since Iknew nothing different
2514
egarkPerson was signed in when posted
03-20-2017
04:37 PM ET (US)
Tommi /m2510 - don't understand the question. Why would you get a pension for more years than you worked?
2513
Hannah BlectorPerson was signed in when posted
03-20-2017
03:55 PM ET (US)
It is so sad to see the dismay when FERS employees learn they won't get the retirement they thought they would get.

New hires need educated that they are paying 4.4% for the same retirement others are getting for paying .8%.
^     All messages            2513-2532 of 2532  2493-2512 >>