Federal Employees: Are you Ready for the 5% Paycut/Tax Increase Next Year?

[Fergasun]

I'm posting this because:

1) I haven't seen enough Federal employees talking about this at my workplace.

2) I want to point out the irony of GOP saying "we won't raise taxes to reduce our deficit" while at the same time taxing Federal employees.

Basically Federal Employees are going to see a 5% decrease in pay next year (under the current FY2012 budget that has passed the House) because the GOP wants to change the way the retirement system is funded (currently the government picks up that 5%).

I like the fact that the GOP is adamant that taxes not be raised for the wealthy or already "over-taxed" businesses; but Federal Workers who by definition are all middle class (since we can't make more than $200k) are ripe for the taking.

I wouldn't mind it if this was phased in plus we weren't under a pay freeze... so it we be like a minimal% "pay increase" (of course this doesn't take into account health insurance premium raises which would either stagnate or decrease take home). But this proposal is all wrong; furthermore we don't get the large pay/bonuses that private sector workers get when the economy is booming... that's part of the Federal worker trade-off.

[Pick6]

Yes I am pretty sick of the federal employee being the continuous scapegoat in this whole mess.

[Popeman38]

So, you consider it a tax increase on you because you have to fund 5% more of your federally guaranteed retirement that all tax payers have been paying over the last how-many-ever years?

---------- Post added May-17th-2011 at 02:55 PM ----------

Yes I am pretty sick of the federal employee being the continuous scapegoat in this whole mess.

No one is picking on the federal employee. During the recession, how many federal employees took pay cuts? How many were laid off? Now, compare that to the private sector (the majority of whom also earn below the $200k limit).

[The Evil Genius]

Considering most federal employees (and public sector employees in general) take a pay cut to actually work for the government, I would say almost all of them, Popeman.

[Predicto]

No one cares. You are a government worker. You are therefore evil and greedy and overpaid, and always will be.

---------- Post added May-17th-2011 at 12:00 PM ----------

Considering most federal employees (and public sector employees in general) take a pay cut to actually work for the government, I would say almost all of them, Popeman.

I took a 54% pay cut to work for the government. I'm so greedy.

[Fergasun]

So, you consider it a tax increase on you because you have to fund 5% more of your federally guaranteed retirement that all tax payers have been paying over the last how-many-ever years?

---------- Post added May-17th-2011 at 02:55 PM ----------

No one is picking on the federal employee. During the recession, how many federal employees took pay cuts? How many were laid off? Now, compare that to the private sector (the majority of whom also earn below the $200k limit).

Yes. It's essentially a "tax for being a federal employee". Federal employees are being taxed to reduce the deficit.

---------- Post added May-17th-2011 at 11:03 AM ----------

Who else is being taxed to reduce the deficit?

[Popeman38]

Considering most federal employees (and public sector employees in general) take a pay cut to actually work for the government, I would say almost all of them, Popeman.

So, a decision you made when it comes to your employment is grounds for taxpayers to fund your retirement? This happens in the private sector all the time. My health insurance went up like 12% this year. Does that mean I have the right to complain about a 12% tax hike after Obama promised his healthcare reform would cut my costs?

The government is broke. When the govt goes broke, the people it is paying tend to make less, just like everyone else that works. And please, don't bring up CEOs making millions. That is like me lumping you in with Sen and Congressmen making millions in a down economy.

---------- Post added May-17th-2011 at 03:07 PM ----------

Yes. It's essentially a "tax for being a federal employee". Federal employees are being taxed to reduce the deficit.

You are being told to contribute 5% towards your retirement. You know, the check you will get in the mail from when you retire until the day you die?

[The Evil Genius]

To be honest though, I think public employees should have to contribute to their retirement (especially if its a defined benefit pension system).

Most state workers here are under a formula where they contribute 5-8% (depending on your contract). They get in return a system that pays them 2% of their salary (averaged over the last 3 years) x the number of years served. The 2% can go up to 2.5% if they retire at 63 vs 55.

I read the other day where the average California State employee retires with a pension of $27,000.

That said..when I hear about other public employees balking about paying into their defined benefit pension plan...I want to slap them.

Just a little though.

[Forehead]

I already contribute 10% towards my retirement, so unless the government is reducing how much they're matching, I don't see why this would affect me too badly.

[Predicto]

To be honest though, I think public employees should have to contribute to their retirement (especially if its a defined benefit pension system).

Most state workers here are under a formula where they contribute 5-8% (depending on your contract). They get in return a system that pays them 2% of their salary (averaged over the last 3 years) x the number of years served. The 2% can go up to 2.5% if they retire at 63 vs 55.

When I hear about other public employees balking about paying into their defined benefit pension plan...I want to slap them.

Just a little though.

I agree with this, but I still get sick of the government employee bashing.

[zoony]

Considering most federal employees (and public sector employees in general) take a pay cut to actually work for the government, I would say almost all of them, Popeman.

I took a 54% pay cut to work for the government. I'm so greedy.

Both those statements are incorrect when you take into account the reduced workload.

As for the topic of the thread, I see no reason why Federal workers shouldn't be tightening their belts during these times as well. They still have jobs while private sectors enjoy 10% unemployment.

As for the argument that Fed workers don't get to enjoy the boom cycles... well, you don't get to enjoy the bust cycles either. You still have jobs. You've been asked to take a 5% pay cut. If you don't like it, quit and join the private sector. You have that option.

By extension, that doesn't mean that the Republican Party doesn't have its own head completely up its own ass. It does.

[Popeman38]

http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2010-03-04-federal-pay_N.htm

Federal employees earn higher average salaries than private-sector workers in more than eight out of 10 occupations, a USA TODAY analysis of federal data finds.

Accountants, nurses, chemists, surveyors, cooks, clerks and janitors are among the wide range of jobs that get paid more on average in the federal government than in the private sector.

Overall, federal workers earned an average salary of $67,691 in 2008 for occupations that exist both in government and the private sector, according to Bureau of Labor Statistics data. The average pay for the same mix of jobs in the private sector was $60,046 in 2008, the most recent data available.

• Federal. The federal pay premium cut across all job categories — white-collar, blue-collar, management, professional, technical and low-skill. In all, 180 jobs paid better average salaries in the federal government; 36 paid better in the private sector.

I know, I know, Cato is a conservative think tank so it will get dismissed.

[zoony]

I agree with this, but I still get sick of the government employee bashing.

me too. We have outstanding people who do very important things working for our government.

That said, I don't see how asking Federal Employees to take a 5% paycut by funding their own pension is "bashing".

.....

[Predicto]

me too. We have outstanding people who do very important things working for our government.

That said, I don't see how asking Federal Employees to take a 5% paycut by funding their own pension is "bashing".

.....

It isn't. I still gotta support my peeps!

(hey, I was able to quote-reply you!)

[The Evil Genius]

The lower pay scaled employees in the pulic sector (oftentimes the blue collar employees like cooks, clerks and janitors) are absolutely paid more than in the private sector. I have seen that first hand.

I would be surprised though that white collar professions though made more in salary than the similar private sector employees...and if you read the article, someone does make the claim that even if you are comparing classes like Senior Accountant (public vs private sector), the actual duties performed might not be comparable.

[zoony]

Who else is being taxed to reduce the deficit?

that's a separate argument.

On another note, I would take a 40% cut in pay IN A SECOND if it meant I could work 40-50 hour weeks,not spend 40 weeks out of the year travelling, and gain job security.

Spare us the martyr routine, it's unbecoming.

[Fergasun]

Forehead,

This is a 5% increase to your FERS contribution (the defined benefit cost). You would see a take-home cut of 5% (or course you could adjust your TSP downward by 5% to compensate). The government is reducing how much they are paying for FERS.

The current system and levels of pay were established in 1986. One of the problems I have with this is that okay; I can accept that a private sector job doesn't have any defined benefit (we are talking about a limited defined benefit which is something like 30% of high-3-years salary). But the salary is set based upon the benefits. Here we are talking about changing the benefits without subsequent salary adjustment.

Its no wonder changes to Medicare and Social Security and other government programs are as adamantly opposed; however as I stated during the salary freeze discussion; where is the "shared sacrifice"? Politicians are a bunch of *******s

[zoony]

The lower pay scaled employees int he pulic sector (cooks, clerks and janitors) are absolutely paid more than in the private sector. I have seen that first hand.

Again, not true. I would point to the Knox County School System.

I know a small engine mechanic that has worked for the KCSS for 25 years repairing the schools groundskeeping equipment. He makes around $14/hour. If he were in the private sector, he'd probably make double that.

BUT, he gets state and county benefits. Full pension, vacation, He works only 40 hours a week. So little that he is able to get home every day by 3:30 pm and conduct a side business where he repairs lawn equipment for people like me. Which is how I know him .

He wouldn't trade that Knox County job for 4x's the pay. He's told me.

[Burgold]

Semi innocent question...

Are those who claimed that letting the Bush Tax Cuts expire equated to a tax hike being hypocritical when they suggest that Federal workers losing 5% of their income is not a tax increase?

[The Evil Genius]

Semi innocent question...

Are those who claimed that letting the Bush Tax Cuts expire equated to a tax hike being hypocritical when they suggest that Federal workers losing 5% of their income is not a tax increase?

Of course they are. But then again, public sector employees are low hanging fruit and a regular punching bag, so not many will care (or even see it that way).

[Fergasun]

that's a separate argument.

On another note, I would take a 40% cut in pay IN A SECOND if it meant I could work 40-50 hour weeks,not spend 40 weeks out of the year travelling, and gain job security.

Spare us the martyr routine, it's unbecoming.

Nothing is stopping you from dropping your resume at USAjobs.com (I kid, I kid).

I'm more pissed at politicians than anything actually; I know they and their think tank plant these stories in the media regarding government pay. It's all part of the "standard of living adjustment" we're in for due to global wage arbitrage. I think just about the only sector not hit really hard is health care... someone explain to me how everyone's premiums are going up at 5%/year through the years of a recession?

[zoony]

Nothing is stopping you from dropping your resume at USAjobs.com (I kid, I kid).

I would if there was any kind of Federal Job for what I do, seriously.

[The Evil Genius]

Fergasun,

Does this also impact the military employees?

I would guess not - since they are most politicians sacred cow...

[LeesburgSkinFan]

Many large corporations still offer far more generous pensions as well as significantly higher pay. Particularly for professional and technical fields. Just take a look at pension and retirement packages offered to Exxon Mobil retirees as well as many other successful Fortune corporations. This is just one of thousands of examples of far superior private sector retirement packages/pensions/benefits. Not to mention routine five and six figure bonuses as well as stock options and numerous corporate perks. Many are also presently increasing compensation. Federal pay still lags private sector pay by approximately 20 to 30%, particularly in professional fields. Many of my private sector counterparts earn significantly higher salaries with large bonuses sometimes as much as 10 to 50% of salary with better and cheaper benefit packages. It is always easy to say how great we have it when you are comparing to the bottom of the barrel mismanaged corporations often pilfered by CEO thieves. Tell me what sacrifice towards the deficit corporate elite, hedge funds, Wall St., banks, and the wealthy upper 2% crust are making. Give me a break already. Federal retirement plans/pensions/benefits are mediocre to average at best. The federal government is quickly on its way to becoming an employer of last resort heading rapidly to the bottom.

[The Evil Genius]

I would if there was any kind of Federal Job for what I do, seriously.

Lead pisser on libertarians?