Readers' Comments
Total Comments: 18
Page 2 of 2
Page 2 of 2
« Previous | Next »
Should Employees be Automatically Enrolled in the TSP?
Total Comments: 18
Page 2 of 2
Page 2 of 2
« Previous | Next »
Free Email Newsletter
| Close | Change | YTD | |
| G | $13.2033 | +0.0011 | +0.64% |
| F | $13.5947 | +0.0048 | +1.95% |
| C | $13.6927 | -0.0027 | +3.59% |
| S | $17.9723 | +0.0233 | +9.18% |
| I | $18.5302 | +0.1287 | -0.04% |
| Close | Change | YTD | |
| L 2040 | $16.1474 | +0.0291 | +3.28% |
| L 2030 | $15.9136 | +0.0249 | +2.93% |
| L 2020 | $15.6956 | +0.0208 | +2.45% |
| L 2010 | $15.4351 | +0.0080 | +1.41% |
| L Income | $14.0647 | +0.0064 | +1.33% |
March 15, 2010
Search:
Custom Search
Home | About Us | FAQ's |
Site Map | Terms of Use |
Privacy Policy |
RSS 
|
Twitter 
| Mobile
© 2010 FedSmith Inc. All Rights Reserved.
Automatic TSP Enrollment
NOAA
Wed Oct 10, 2007 7:25 AM
Post Reply
I don't think it should be automatic to enroll employees because some folks may not stay long, maybe 5 years or less. Can a person get money out or close their TSP if they decide to leave with 5 years service? Some people may not want to be enrolled in TSP. Some people may not have the money to contribute to TSP until sometime later.
Re: Automatic TSP Enrollment
DoD
Wed Oct 10, 2007 10:01 AM
Furthermore, if somebody chooses not to enroll in the TSP (or 401K if they think the may not stay in their next job very long) they will be losing out on the compounding value of early savings. That will significantly reduce their retirement income or force them to work longer than they want to before retiring.
Re: Automatic TSP Enrollment
Home at the Beach
Wed Oct 10, 2007 10:12 AM
Forced enrollment
DOD
Wed Oct 10, 2007 10:42 AM
Post Reply
I am one of the last CSRS employees. I also put in a bit to TSP. I also have an IRA. (The idea is to have SOMETHING if any one of these bites the dust.) My 23 yr old son just got a (real) job that he might just stay with for quite a few years. He was automatically enrolled in their 401K and given an option to cancel it or to increase it. (Bless him, he added more.) We talked about it and he knows that if he ever does leave this company he can "roll" his 401K into a special IRA. The money remains with him even if he leaves this company.
I have great hopes for this kid's future!
Not so automatic
DA
Wed Oct 10, 2007 12:39 PM
Post Reply
While I did contribute to my TSP as a GG-7 in the Washington, DC area supporting a family of three on a single income, it was only 1% and I could barely afford that. Some people when starting out in the government cannot afford to invest much or if anything into retirement, especially if it is a choice between saving money for retirement that will be over 30 years down the road (as in my case) or putting bread on the table now. Personally, I would take the bread. People need to learn individual responsibility and take the appropriate action for them instead of having 'big brother' hold their hand, whether it be saving for retirement or other big items.
YES-MANDATORY ENROLLMENT SHOULD BE REQUIRED!!
USDA Natural Resources Conservation Service
Thu Oct 11, 2007 9:42 AM
Post Reply
I think enrollment should be required and maybe even to the full amount of matching-maybe on a graduated basis. I don't care about the "nanny" naysayers--they will be the same ones boo-hooing because they can't afford to retire and will have to die on-the-job to keep supporting themselves.
Based on the recent AARP study, many elders are filing bankruptcy and don't know the much about the simpliest information about investing. With our current "Entitlement Mentality" generation I think this situation can only get worse-unless something terrible happens-like another stock market crash-which I wish on no one!! I preach TSP to all our employees, but still have a small percentage who have no deductions!
So, yes, I am for mandatory deductions-and tying it up so they cannot easily get it out, or stop contributing to it.
Mandatory TSP Enrollment
OPM
Mon Oct 22, 2007 11:13 AM
Post Reply
Yes. I believe mandatory TSP enrollment should be part of employees' enlightenment because most of them do not have the foresight to understand the implications of not investing. I support the "Ron-the-it-Guy" idea of making it mandatory participation up to the agency's matching percentage. Another idea I use is to invest one percent of the 2.5 or 3.5 annual raise. The philosophy behind this idea is that you cannot miss what you never had. Making it mandatory would also make the government a proud employer having helped their employees prepare for the future as these employees perform their assignments of providing quality service to the society. My vote is to make it mandatory.
Auto enrollment, optional opt out
DOD
Tue Oct 30, 2007 11:16 AM
Post Reply
Make the enrollment automatic at hire. The employee can sign a waiver and opt out. If he doesn't opt out then a percentage, (perhaps the amount that is matched,) automatically is deducted and added to a lifecycle fund tied to the age of the new employee.
That leaves opportunity for anyone who has a different plan to manage it. They can opt out. It also helps take care of those who need a leetle nudge to get started right.
It doesn't have to be all or nothing. It can be automatic with an opt out.
TSP Mandatory with No Option to Opt Out
OPM
Wed Oct 31, 2007 10:17 AM
Post Reply
If the idea of making TSP enrollment mandatory, there ought not be an option to opt out. The idea is to prepare government FERS employees for retirement so let's take the bull by the horn and do it right. Mandatory enrollment up the the government's five percent by adding one percent a year is reasonable. If the employee stays in the government for the five years, hopefully, the employee would start to "smell the coffee." As stated before, the idea is to prepare government FERS employees for the reality of the new type of retirement system consisting of TSP, SS, and a small pension.