Question:
Should Government workers have Social Security as their retirement package?
2010-05-29 20:36:43 UTC
Currently most government employees get a much better retirement package than do the rest of us. If they work for 20-30 years in government they retire at somewhere around 90% of their salary (congress is even better). Then the government borrows from social security, doesn't pay it back, so they raise the retirement age or reduce benefits at will. Not so with their own packages, however. And they don't pay social security taxes. Unless of course they work another job during their career in which case they get both.

If these government workers were forced to use the same Social Security system as the rest of us would they maybe work to improve it. Would they be less likely to steal from Social Security to fund their pork projects.

We have been hearing for years that Social Security is going broke and all the time government continues to borrow from it and threaten to raise the retirement age or reduce benefits as the only solution. How about this solution, STOP BORROWING FROM IT.
Five answers:
2010-05-30 12:31:17 UTC
I worked in Payroll for 13 years for the Dept. of Veterans Affairs, so know the following. Around 1985, the government switched from CSRS (Civil Service Retirement System) to FERS (Federal Employees Retirement System). Under CSRS, If you work 40 or more years, I think you could retire at about 80% of your pay. After 40 years, retirement did not increase, but of course you continued to earn full income rather than retirement income. A lot of these employees have retired with some encouragement ("early out" options, buy outs). These CSRS employees will never receive Social Security income unless they worked enough quarters somewhere else to qualify. They also never put into the Social Security coffers unless through another job.

FERS retirees do not have it nearly as well. They DO put into the Social Security coffers, and have the same eligibility/benefits as anyone else contributing to the system. They also have a separate retirement account, into which they and the government contribute, which yields 1% of your income for each year you have worked. Of course, other requirements must be met, such as meeting time in service and age requirements. If you don't retire until you are 65, it goes up to 1.1%. So if you work 30 years, from age 35 to 65, your retirement will be 33% of your "high three" salary (the three consecutive years of federal service with the highest income). If you were to work 30 years from age 30 to 60, your retirement would be 30% of your "high three".

There are a couple of things which make federal service still a pretty good deal. There is a 401(k) system into which the government contributes 1% of your base pay, will match your contributions of 1% - 3% dollar for dollar, and match your contributions of 4% - 5% at 50 cents on the dollar. The employee may contribute more, up to the IRS limit for IRAs. One can then choose between a variety, or combination thereof, of places it is invested (stocks, bonds, international stocks, etc.) depending on the risk one wants to take. Of course, the really low paid employees have trouble contributing much to the 401(k). The other thing that federal employees get is to carry their health benefits into retirement (again, there are some qualifying conditions). Naturally, premiums are paid by the retiree just as they were when still an active employee.

CSRS employees may contribute to the 401(k) but get no "matching" dollars.



Federal employees generally make less than their "counterparts" on the "outside". This used to be worth it because of the job security and benefits. The benefits are still in place although the FERS retirement is lacking (the switch from CSRS was to bail out Social Security at that time - CSRS was doing well and actually making a profit). The job security is not nearly as good as it used to be. They are hiring more people on temporary or term appointment status, intermittent (labor pool) status, and using more contractors (when you work for a contractor, you are not a federal employee and only have the benefits offered by the contractor. You also have less job security).



Just like the private sector, more and more work is being piled onto employees. Administrative staff is horrifically understaffed as it is better to cut positions there than from nursing, etc., when the money is lessened. After all, patients really can't do without nurses or medicine, so those areas really can't be cut. Not to say that they haven't been cut some; the staff nurses where I worked had to do a lot and many contributed "free" hours of overtime off the record to catch up on their paperwork, etc.



When I was in Payroll the positions went from four to one (I was the one still standing). I was doing at least 2.5 jobs (some of the work had been passed elsewhere). In my last positions as an Administrative Officer to a large service, I had the responsibility of at least 2 full time positions. In fact, my supervisor became so hostile (it actually became a personal vendetta; long story) that I retired on disability due to psychiatric conditions. And if you're thinking "yeah, right", well think again. This is one of the hardest disabilities to prove as it is so subjective. It is hard to get a doctor to say you cannot work (after all, they could be called into court or whatever so they have to be careful what they put their name to). The employee's word is a small part of the application - medical doctors' opinions are what is weighed most heavily. As it is, I do not qualify for Social Security disability - to receive that, you must establish that you cannot work at all (which is not true for me). For the federal disability retirement, it had to be established that I could not work in my present job or any other positions equivalent to it.



It was not just me. Most people I knew in the workplace were very overburdened with work as attrition without backfilling the positions loaded more and more work onto people. Management didn't
crunch
2010-05-29 21:04:02 UTC
"Borrowing" is not the proper term as that implies it will be paid back.



It will never be paid back so the proper term is theft or fraud.



Here's how the fraud works.



All trust fund surpluses are turned into "debt" by turning the surpluses into government bonds.



When the bonds mature, the government "cashes" them out with other Social security funds. The purpose is to disconnect the trust fund money from the trust funds and out them in the general fund where they are used to support government bureaucracy the government lacks the courage to fund directly through other taxes. The money becomes classified as intragovernmental debt. Let's say the US Education Department is funded by the stolen money. The Department has no means to pay the "loan" back unless it is disbanded and the money used to fund the defunct Department is returned to the "trust fund".



Intragovernmental debt is about half the total national debt.





The only way to prevent the theft is through Constitutional amendment. Congress will never act unless the Constitution forces it and given the nature of our current government, there is no guarantee that would work either.



I believe the current government should be amended out of existence as it has all the attributes of a criminal organization.





If you study the situation with government retirement, it's easy to see that their system is not just seriously underfunded but unfunded. The government will not be able to keep the promise made to private or public retirees. It's estimated promised, but as of yet unfunded, spending for retired and future retired government employees, both military and civilian is 65 trillion dollars; more than current WGP (world gross product).



The government cannot tax, borrow or print its way out of the mess it has created.
MisterTattiePie4U
2010-05-29 20:48:16 UTC
Ummm, your "facts" are wrong. Civil service jobs get roughly 2% per year of employment, at 30 years, you only get 56%, not 90%. Also, unless a civil service employee has paid into the SSI fund with a certain amount of quarters worked, they don't get SSI. If they do have enough time in a job that allows SSI, then they take a reduction on the amount of SSI they can receive. The new FERS employees don't pay into the civil service retirement as theirs is an SSI based retirement. As for stealing from SSI, since your whole argument is full of holes, so are your assumed conclusions.
thimbil
2010-05-29 22:49:28 UTC
we should have the same rights as you and get social security as well! YES, WE PAY SOCIAL SECURITY TAXES! even though i am retired on disability i still pay taxes and i have to file income taxes as well! there is only one social security system. GOVERNMENT WORKERS DO NOT RULE THE ROOST. our elected officials do and THEY HAVE BORROWED FROM SOCIAL SECURITY! we just do our jobs that we was hired to do. we don't have pet projects and we don't have that kind of power. not me or others. it is scary for us that are on social security since we need to be on it. why don't you get a government job? i am sick and tired of hearing this garbage and that is not based on truth. working for the government means less pay. i would have made more money, as an accountant, had i chose to work in the private sector. i don't steal, period.
?
2010-05-30 01:43:46 UTC
one thing is for sure:



We need to immediately put Congress on Soc. Sec and you watch just how fast it becomes a viable retirement program. Any talk from the Repugnant Party a god in A-Mur-A-KA about privatizing Soc. Sec. will immediately be forgotten or, at least, blames on Nancy.



If we can count on Congress for anything, other than 8 years of unbelievable incompetence it's:



making sure T H E Y are taken care of, get lifetime medical care and plenty of money to retire in comfort.



So, lets put those freeloaders on the program they designed for us!.


This content was originally posted on Y! Answers, a Q&A website that shut down in 2021.
Loading...