Readers' Comments
Total Comments: 12
Page 1 of 2
Page 1 of 2
« Previous | Next »
"Public Sector Workers Saving Less"
Total Comments: 12
Page 1 of 2
Page 1 of 2
« Previous | Next »
Free Email Newsletter
| Close | Change | YTD | |
| G | $13.0760 | +0.0011 | +2.63% |
| F | $13.4554 | -0.0007 | +6.95% |
| C | $12.9082 | -0.0394 | +23.71% |
| S | $15.5321 | -0.0625 | +27.24% |
| I | $18.2310 | -0.1403 | +27.89% |
| Close | Change | YTD | |
| L 2040 | $15.2768 | -0.0566 | +22.32% |
| L 2030 | $15.1461 | -0.0487 | +19.99% |
| L 2020 | $15.0617 | -0.0401 | +17.13% |
| L 2010 | $15.0897 | -0.0155 | +9.09% |
| L Income | $13.7765 | -0.0111 | +7.76% |
November 22, 2009
Search:
Custom Search
Home | About Us | FAQ's |
Site Map | Terms of Use |
Privacy Policy |
RSS 
|
Twitter 
| Mobile
© 2009 FedSmith Inc. All Rights Reserved.
Public Sector Workers Saving Less
U.S. Forest Service
Wed Sep 12, 2007 8:04 AM
Post Reply
Okay, I thought FERS is a defined contribution plan? Maybe the average amount saved is low because there are still CSRS folks who aren't contributing as much as they could. Perhaps the low average amount saved is because FERS is relatively new and people haven't been putting money in for long enough to raise it above the $48k.
Why Public sector is saving less
USDA
Wed Sep 12, 2007 9:18 AM
Post Reply
In general they get paid less for the similar job requirements. I started working for the Forest Service 4+ years ago and am getting approximately $7,000 less than what I was making in 2001 with the mining industry. At this point I am barely making ends meet here in Nevada.
Retirement Savings
U.S. Dept. of Housing and Urban Development
Wed Sep 12, 2007 9:29 AM
Post Reply
Yes, I believe the Federal sector should have mandatory investment options, because I have seen many low grades and some higher grade employees not saving nearly enough for their retirements. They live from pay check to paycheck and do not have the discipline to save. By having the mandatory savings plan they will be able to live more comfortably in retirement, instead of just living off Social Security.
Automatic TSP enrollment
FAA
Wed Sep 12, 2007 11:58 AM
Post Reply
I believe this is a good idea. Either the "G" or the L2020
fund would be a good choice.
Public Pensions
IRS
Wed Sep 12, 2007 2:32 PM
Post Reply
The federal government should treat it employees the same way the private sector does. Feds are overpaid and have too generous benefits.
Re: Public Pensions
Army
Thu Sep 13, 2007 6:41 AM
Default Plan for Automatic TSP Enrollment
HHS
Wed Sep 12, 2007 3:01 PM
Post Reply
Because it would be an "automatic" enrollment - i.e., non-voluntary - the default plan would have to be the super-safe G Fund. If this automatic feature is implemented, I would hope that there would be some basic investment training - investments 101 as it were - provided as well.
Federal Retirement
DOE
Wed Sep 12, 2007 5:06 PM
Post Reply
I find your analysis interesting but for many years, federal employees under FERS were kept to a percentage of pay and not the maximum allowed by law. Why the difference? Lost tax revenue? It was not until the last couple of years that were were able to put away the IRS limit of $15K. Before that, we were held to a percentage which increased each year. So if I made $60K per year, I was held to 10/11/12/13% etc. of my salary each year depending on the year. For lower salary staff, that does not allow them to save much. I would like to have saved more but my own employer did not allow it.