New Video: 4 ways Trump’s budget slashes income for federal workers and retirees

American Federation of Government Employees ^ | June 15, 2017 | American Federation of Government Employees

[mdittmar]

Budget delivers huge tax breaks to CEOs and wealthy on backs of federal workers, retirees

WASHINGTON –A new video from the American Federation of Government Employees illustrates how President Trump’s proposed budget would cut wages for current federal workers and slash federal retirement benefits for current and future retirees.

“It takes money out of your paycheck right now and cuts the benefits you were promised for retirement,” the narrator intones. “Most employees will be forced to pay nearly eight times more out of every paycheck for a worse pension benefit than you receive today.”

Specifically, the budget would:

• Increase current workers’ out-of-pocket payments toward their pensions from the 0.8 percent most workers pay today to 7 percent over the course of six years. That’s nearly an eight-fold increase – not including payments workers already make into the Thrift Savings Plan and Social Security.
• Reduce pension benefits for future retirees by averaging their highest five years of salary, instead of the highest three years.
• Eliminate annual cost-of-living adjustments for current and future retirees under the Federal Employees Retirement System, and cut the COLA for retirees under the older Civil Service Retirement System by 0.5 percent from the current formula.
• Eliminate supplemental annuity payments to employees who retire before age 62, such as law enforcement agents, firefighters, and workers who take early outs or buyouts.

The retirement cuts alone total about $149 billion over a decade, which would be on top of $182 billion in cuts to federal employees’ pay and benefits since 2010.

“President Trump’s budget continues this race to the bottom by penalizing the working-class people who serve and protect their fellow Americans,” AFGE National President J. David Cox Sr. said.

“And adding insult to injury, the money saved from cutting federal workers’ retirement would go toward a massive set of tax cuts to further enrich corporations and wealthy individuals.”

The video ends by asking current and retired federal workers to call their lawmakers and voice their opposition to budget cuts that threaten their financial security.

[mdittmar]

Well,here's an old song I like;)

Lesley Gore - You Don't Own Me (HD)

[entropy12]

I was the beneficiary of federal contractor employment for 12 years, and the benefits and pay levels were way better than in private sector. If we had surplus in the US Treasury, it would be OK to pay federal workers generously. However we are as a country in worse financial condition than any SP500 US Corporation. So, cuts are required.

[Nifster]

A union griping because they can’t duck the life blood out of us anymore

[NEMDF]

If we had surplus in the US Treasury, the first priority should be income tax decreases for ALL taxpayers. The federal workers would also benefit from this.

[sagar]

Good.

[jdege]

It’s not like I think that the federal payroll shouldn’t be trimmed by $150 or $200 billion - it’s that I think the federal payroll in its entirety shouldn’t be anything like $150 or $200 billion.

In my eyes, if the federal non-military payroll is more that $100 billion, there’s either too many people on it, they’re paid too much, or both.

And if it’s impossible for the federal government couldn’t possibly fulfill it’s obligations with that small a workforce, that clearly indicates that the federal government is doing too damned much.

[Don Corleone]

Access to the trough drying up. Good! MAGA!

[fhayek]

I work in the private sector, and I have had my income slashed. Not for anything I did - it was an across the board move. It sucks, but sometimes readjustments need to be made. If they don’t like it, they can always quit. (Yeah, right.)

[snarkpup]

I seem to recall that in the Federalist Papers, there was a section answering concerns that the proposed federal government would be too expensive. The Framers explained that, except for members of the military, there would be practically no "federal workers." They went on to list the few positions that would actually exist.

[aMorePerfectUnion]

Boo Hoo Federal workers!

Eliminate pensions
Slash wages to no higher than private markets
Slash benefits

[JustTheTruth]

Already earned and vested benefits will presumably be paid out "as promised," but accruals to those retirement accounts going forward will be (should be!) at market rates comparable to those earned in private industry... at least I hope so...

The public-private disparities have been incredibly uneven and unfair. I have no problem with some special premium above market rates specifically for active military and for first responders, but even that should, in my opinion, be explicitly defined and set based on some rational, clear, and known basis.

[mdittmar]

That’s trillion,not billion.

[hanamizu]

Increase current workers’ out-of-pocket payments toward their pensions from the 0.8 percent most workers pay today to 7 percent over the course of six years.

---

Hmm. I’m a retired public-school teacher in Missouri. Our out-of-pocket payment was 14.5%—a bit more than the .8% they’re paying. Hard to feel bad for them.

[hal ogen]

Great! Cut their salaries and perks. Many government “workers” are both not doing anything productive and are mainly goofing-off, waiting for their checks.

[Grimmy]

Considering that the greater portion of The Swamp that needs draining are fed gov employees...

[faithhopecharity]

every federal job I’ve seen and checked into...is grossly over-compensated, by far

at least averaging 30 and sometimes 50 percent.

while the are undoubtably SOME fed posts somewhere that need pay raises, somewhere........that is definitely not the norm, not by far

I would suggest eliminating the union representation model in civil service. civil service provides already far more job security than is called for ! then, slash most federal payscales by 30 percent.. then review

[Sequoyah101]

Sounds pretty reasonable to me and somewhat in line with the private sector considering:

1. I’ve saved between 25 and 50% of my pay for retirement
2. I don’t have a defined guaranteed pension, just my own distributions from savings
3. I don’t have any COLA at all except for what I feel safe with but who knows what that may be?
4. Five year average vs. 3 year? Means they have to sand bag over time for 2 more years.
5. Nobody could afford for LEOs and such to retire when they do with full benefits. It is just not feasible or economically possible

[GSAonce]

In fiscal year 2016, the government spent roughly $215 billion to compensate federal civilian employees. About two-thirds of that total was spent on civilian personnel working in the Department of Defense, the Department of Veterans Affairs, or the Department of Homeland Security. Federal employees typically receive periodic increases in their wages on the basis of performance, longevity, and changes in private-sector pay. However, lawmakers eliminated annual across-the-board increases for most federal civilian workers in calendar years 2011, 2012, and 2013.

https://www.cbo.gov/publication/52637

[Seruzawa]

The Fed retirement system was revamped in the 80s. The new one includes Social Security and is not all that generous. No more retiring at 80%. I think it’s 1% per year. Fed Retirement is nothing like these insane deals you see in the States and cities. My brother retired after 30 years as a civilian engineer for the USAF and I think he gets about 1500 per month from the Fed plus SS. Hardly a fortune. Plus 55 age retirement is done.