Trump's Second and Third year in office
Quote: TomGYou hold people to different standards based on their political views, which is one reason everyone sees you as being so similar to liberal women [/q
Nope. Just using their standard since that is what we were told to use. But let me ask, why are you not calling out liberals for their own differing standards on Trump vs. the Clintons?All animals are equal, but some are more equal than others
It worked well as my Father didn't live to cash his second check and my Mother collected for the next thirty eight years.
Quote: billryanI don't know if it still works like this, but my Father gave up a pretty hefty portion of his monthly pension so that my Mother got a Survivors Benefit.
My Mom gets that, too.
Never worked for the federal government a day in her life, but she'll be getting a pension/annuity from them for the rest of her life because that's how my Dad set it up back in the '70's when he first started working a government job.
Sounds like a pretty sweet deal, if you ask me.
Quote: AZDuffmanNope. Just using their standard since that is what we were told to use. But let me ask, why are you not calling out liberals for their own differing standards on Trump vs. the Clintons?
I’m not calling anyone out, I’m lumping you together for having very similar world views
I hope he is tall, intelligent and handsome, it is your turn to be incredibly happy.Quote: beachbumbabsYou make some good points.
I was wondering if you slept at all.Quote:Need a nap,
Quote: TigerWuMy Mom gets that, too.
Never worked for the federal government a day in her life, but she'll be getting a pension/annuity from them for the rest of her life because that's how my Dad set it up back in the '70's when he first started working a government job.
Sounds like a pretty sweet deal, if you ask me.
My Father spent twenty plus years in the military and another ten plus working for the Federal Government. He could have made more elsewhere but the pension plan was the equalizer. He took less money for future security.
Quote: petroglyphI hope he is tall, intelligent and handsome, it is your turn to be incredibly happy.
I was wondering if you slept at all.
This forum has been very labor intensive this week. Lot of stuff going on in the wee hours, and mom is an 18 hr/day job. Sometimes more.
Quote: AZDuffmanBut I am not creating one. Democrats created the "private life" standard. Liberal women decided sexual harassment is OK as long as the offender loves abortion. Now they have no leg to stand on.
Based on this logic Trump has also set whole new standards, or rather lack of standards. Your arguments sucks big buffalo balls.
Quote: petroglyph'm saying he pushed a desk most his life. The types of pay and percs these guys get, needs to be negotiated with somebody that will be paying the tab, for potentially the next hundred years. My gawd, it's ludicrous.
And people who didn't also got compensated in the FBI.
FBI pay
Quote:flight pay, Sunday pay, scheduled overtime pay, hazardous duty pay, foreign COLA pay, post differential, night differential, housing allowance, danger pay, travel per diem,
If he pushed a pencil, how is that different than white collar executive work? Usually, the highest paid jobs are management.
A young lady recently after leaving the emer. room for the third time this month exclaimed, "I'm done, I'm just done", and me being "as I am" said.Quote: beachbumbabsSometimes more.
Try to think of it sometime as if you are sitting on an airplane when the steward is doing the safety demo, and he says, " if others are in your charge, be sure to put your own mask on first". Even when you don't feel like it, carve out at least 15 minutes a day of "me" time. It is so easy to get lost, and difficult to be found. Peace.
Execs compete for their jobs, and don't have paid for life percs. I don't gripe anyone who earned their money.Quote: rxwineIf he pushed a pencil, how is that different than white collar executive work?
McCabe looks like he broke some laws. If not, he will get the money. That is ground for termination. It only looks cruel because it is so close to his full retirement date. The gov didn't set out to "get him" on his last day, like happens in the private sector all the time. It looks like he should have been fired for cause, instead of sweeping it under the rug. Maybe he should have been fired 10 years ago, IDK. That seems more likely.
If he gets full, @ 50 it is likely that he will live to 90 and receive near full salary for 40 years [plus health care] after "working" for only twenty. Forty years of huge benefits for only showing up for twenty years, minus holidays, vacation and sick leave.
And they still don't get there until after the crime is committed. How stressful is that?
Maybe the question shouldn't be "why did Trump fire him", but why did Obama keep him?
Quote: petroglyphExecs compete for their jobs, and don't have paid for life percs. I don't gripe anyone who earned their money.
What makes you think federal employees aren't competing on the work history, performance reports and so forth.
If Federal pensions were such a great thing all the best talent from the civilian sector would be trying to get them.
Seniority and the Peter principle. Go along to get along. All the cliches about these employees didn't come out of a vacuum.Quote: rxwineWhat makes you think federal employees aren't competing on the work history, performance reports and so forth.
Do you see droves of government employees competing to go outside, before their 1st retirement?Quote:If Federal pensions were such a great thing all the best talent from the civilian sector would be trying to get them.
Is that how you think of government employees as top talent? Try the DMV or the SS admin for a look see.
Quote: petroglyphExecs compete for their jobs, and don't have paid for life percs. I don't gripe anyone who earned their money.
McCabe looks like he broke some laws. If not, he will get the money. That is ground for termination. It only looks cruel because it is so close to his full retirement date. The gov didn't set out to "get him" on his last day, like happens in the private sector all the time. It looks like he should have been fired for cause, instead of sweeping it under the rug. Maybe he should have been fired 10 years ago, IDK. That seems more likely.
If he gets full, @ 50 it is likely that he will live to 90 and receive near full salary for 40 years [plus health care] after "working" for only twenty. Forty years of huge benefits for only showing up for twenty years, minus holidays, vacation and sick leave.
And they still don't get there until after the crime is committed. How stressful is that?
Maybe the question shouldn't be "why did Trump fire him", but why did Obama keep him?
Nonetheless that is how it works. All those that do there time (20 years) get the pension. Retirement at 50 live to 90 yeah 40 year's of benefits. It's what makes many people take these job's. I have a friend due to retire in 3 years at age 54 worked post office then tsa. He only went into civil service because of those long term benefits
Are you arguing no civil servant should get it or just McCabe
Quote: petroglyphSeniority and the Peter principle. Go along to get along. All the cliches about these employees didn't come out of a vacuum.
Do you see droves of government employees competing to go outside, before their 1st retirement?
Is that how you think of government employees as top talent? Try the DMV or the SS admin for a look see.
Actually, the more qualified you are, the more a government job is an underpaid affair.
The less qualified you are, the better the deal at lower levels.
So, for some reason, you think people in the highest levels are going to work for even less?
Quote: petroglyphExecs compete for their jobs, and don't have paid for life percs. I don't gripe anyone who earned their money.
McCabe looks like he broke some laws. If not, he will get the money. That is ground for termination. It only looks cruel because it is so close to his full retirement date. The gov didn't set out to "get him" on his last day, like happens in the private sector all the time. It looks like he should have been fired for cause, instead of sweeping it under the rug. Maybe he should have been fired 10 years ago, IDK. That seems more likely.
If he gets full, @ 50 it is likely that he will live to 90 and receive near full salary for 40 years [plus health care] after "working" for only twenty. Forty years of huge benefits for only showing up for twenty years, minus holidays, vacation and sick leave.
And they still don't get there until after the crime is committed. How stressful is that?
Maybe the question shouldn't be "why did Trump fire him", but why did Obama keep him?
I have to correct the money thing. McCabe would be retiring under FERS rules, first activated in 1986, and backdated to include hiring dates in 1984. I was hired under CSRS, a much more generous plan, and backdated into FERS.
If McCabe were to retire with his minimum 20 years, he would receive 20 years credit *1.7% per year, on the average of his highest 3 year average pay. In other words, 34% of his hi-3, likely his last 3, given his current position.
This would be augmented by health benefits for which he pays a monthly fee, probably based on a family plan, which is several hundred dollars a month, a social security supplement which becomes active at age 50, but which he also paid extra to receive, and is significantly less than if he waited until age 62 or 67 to begin receiving, and has a Thrift Savings Plan, to which the government contributed initial and matching percentages, but which also has a relatively low ceiling for allowed contributions per year.
His retirement is probably roughly 7-8k per month gross, on which he pays federal and state taxes and Healthcare premiums. Net might be 45-55k/year. He can't do anything much with his TSP, which operates similarly to an IRA, at his age. And with the ceilings on contributions, if he only had 20 years in, it might be worth 200-300k at the moment.
Hardly a fortune. And I don't begrudge him a penny of it.
He may be under a different retirement plan. Most of this would not apply to a standard civil service retirement. But if he's under the LEO special provisions, it's probably pretty accurate.
I figure we all paid for it, might as well know what it's worth.
Bah, no spin, thanks.Quote: rxwineSo, for some reason, you think people in the highest levels are going to work for even less?
Did you get to vote on a labor contract, that future employees would get a lesser plan? Or was the change just dictated?Quote: beachbumbabsI was hired under CSRS, a much more generous plan, and backdated into FERS.
Quote: djatcWhen's this wall being built tho
As soon as Mexico pays for it
Quote: petroglyphDid you get to vote on a labor contract, that future employees would get a lesser plan? Or was the change just dictated?
No. The 1998 FAA Reauthorization Plan took us out of the GS pay schedule. It went with a new contract, but all ATC pay rose appreciably. 2003 Contract held the same pay plan provisions as an extension of the 98 contract.
The 2006 contract was rejected but imposed on the ATC workforce by the FAA after Congress refused to step in and stop them. We were very, very close to a walkout that year. It didn't get covered much, but we hunkered down rather than walking out. That contract allowed for a b-scale imposition on new employees. Also many "screw-you" articles from the FAA.
I retired in 2009, before negotiations began with a new White House. The 2006 contract was nullified in many ways, but some provisions remain. I'm far enough out of it that I don't know what the current contract says, but I doubt it will be a favorable negotiation next time .
From 2003 on, there have been numerous Congressional.proposals to significantly cheapen most or all sectors of federal retirement, and to privatize all or significant segments of ATC. So far, all of that legislation has been quashed or left unpassed, in part through our efforts, but the push continues. The latest privatization bill, our leadership (idiots) infamously endorsed, the rank-and-file had a cow, and it finally died last week, though Trump had endorsed its passage. If you want to look it up, it was introduced by Bill Shuster of Ohio.
I kept this short out of respect for the 99.9% of forum members who could GAS. I could write a book. But thanks for asking. :)
Edit: I just realized you were referring to the CSRS to FERS transition. That was govt wide, and imposed by Congress to shore up Social Security with our contributions. My backdate was involuntary and unexpected. And I still maintain, illegal. Legislation should only affect future hires, and the contract you sign at hiring should control things like that. They simply lied to me. I never got anywhere with fighting that, though, and I really can't complain. I have enough.
Quote: beachbumbabsI kept this short out of respect for the 99.9% of forum members who could GAS. I could write a book. But thanks for asking. :)
I think everyone should GAS to see an opinion grounded in actual knowledge of something.
Quote: billryanWasn't there a one time bonus payment that accompanies the transition from the old system to the new?
If there was, I didn't receive it or qualify for it. There might have been an incentive offered for voluntary switches to the new system to some of those who weren't forced, but I don't think there was. I don't know of.anyone at my pay scale who moved voluntarily. But there was a break-even point where some of the lowest GS scale were expected to benefit under FERS.
On mine, I had been paying into the old plan for almost a year. They took that money and dumped it into SSN when I moved, even though I had paid considerably more than a standard SSN deduction during that time. It was a jump-start of many billions into SSN when you figure they probably hired about 200k people during that 2 years.
They are like gods. Did McCabe toss Comey under the bus?Quote: MaxPenMcCabe will just go work for a sympathetic Congress critter for a couple days then, BOOM, pension back on. This is all just a bunch of nothing. These government stooges always get their due.
http://thehill.com/opinion/judiciary/378919-mccabe-just-made-life-tough-for-comey-and-the-special-counsel
And made of teflon.
Quote: petroglyphThey are like gods. Did McCabe toss Comey under the bus?
http://thehill.com/opinion/judiciary/378919-mccabe-just-made-life-tough-for-comey-and-the-special-counsel
And made of teflon.
Now this is a real nothingburger
Quote: MaxPenMcCabe will just go work for a sympathetic Congress critter for a couple days then, BOOM, pension back on. This is all just a bunch of nothing. These government stooges always get their due.
For once, I can agree with MaxPen on something.
This whole McCabe thing doesn't bother me much. He's gonna end up just fine...
Quote: ams288For once, I can agree with MaxPen on something.
This whole McCabe thing doesn't bother me much. He's gonna end up just fine...
Can someone go down and see if Hell has truly frozen over.😃
Quote: 1MatterToMotionYou guys are funny. What will you do when Trump is gone?
I'll probably be celebrating Don Jr.'s inauguration.
Quote: RSI'll probably be celebrating Don Jr.'s inauguration.
Ivanka's.
talk about Obama.Quote: 1MatterToMotionYou guys are funny. What will you do when Trump is gone?
Quote: petroglyph
If he gets full, @ 50 it is likely that he will live to 90 and receive near full salary for 40 years [plus health care] after "working" for only twenty. Forty years of huge benefits for only showing up for twenty years, minus holidays, vacation and sick leave.
The number of years he gets the pension for is irrelevant. The actuarial present value today of the pension is the same, regardless of how long he lives.
Quote: 1MatterToMotionYou guys are funny. What will you do when Trump is gone?
Argue about President Pence.
I'm not sure he walks away with clean hands.
Quote: billryanPence was in charge of the transition team. He was supposed to vet people like Bannon, Gurkha, Portman, the two Flynns and so on.
I'm not sure he walks away with clean hands.
Yeah right now Pence is worth less than a farthing
Quote:The Kushner Cos. routinely filed false paperwork with the city[NYC] declaring it had zero rent-regulated tenants in dozens of buildings it owned across the city when, in fact, it had hundreds.
Quote:most of the tenants were protected by special rules that prevent developers from pushing them out, raising rents and turning a tidy profit.
But that's exactly what the company then run by Jared Kushner did,
https://www.msn.com/en-us/money/companies/ap-exclusive-kushner-cos-filed-false-documents-with-nyc/ar-BBKn1Ig?li=BBmkt5R&ocid=spartanntp
Maybe Trump will say he doesn't know who Kushner is.
Quote: 1MatterToMotionYou guys are funny. What will you do when Trump is gone?
Relax.
I'm not an actuary. Isn't the total of the money he receives from a defined benefit more, the longer he collects it? Versus a defined contribution with the possibility of a lump sum?Quote: rsactuaryQuote: petroglyph
If he gets full, @ 50 it is likely that he will live to 90 and receive near full salary for 40 years [plus health care] after "working" for only twenty. Forty years of huge benefits for only showing up for twenty years, minus holidays, vacation and sick leave.
The number of years he gets the pension for is irrelevant. The actuarial present value today of the pension is the same, regardless of how long he lives.
Also, medical for life for him and his children. Makes a yuge difference if they collect for one month or 480 months, does it not?
I don't understand what you are saying. If he collects 60k per year and only collects for one year versus collecting for 40 years, that is a big difference to the taxpayers, correct?
Quote: petroglyphI'm not an actuary. Isn't the total of the money he receives from a defined benefit more, the longer he collects it? Versus a defined contribution with the possibility of a lump sum?
This is more finance than actuarial I believe. Yes, the longer a person collects the more the PV is. The actuary will figure how long the average life will be, but after that is is just dialing back the PV. It can be done at bankrate.com, where I did one for a relative in a divorce.
Quote: petroglyphI'm not an actuary. Isn't the total of the money he receives from a defined benefit more, the longer he collects it? Versus a defined contribution with the possibility of a lump sum?Quote: rsactuaryQuote: petroglyph
If he gets full, @ 50 it is likely that he will live to 90 and receive near full salary for 40 years [plus health care] after "working" for only twenty. Forty years of huge benefits for only showing up for twenty years, minus holidays, vacation and sick leave.
The number of years he gets the pension for is irrelevant. The actuarial present value today of the pension is the same, regardless of how long he lives.
Also, medical for life for him and his children. Makes a yuge difference if they collect for one month or 480 months, does it not?
I don't understand what you are saying. If he collects 60k per year and only collects for one year versus collecting for 40 years, that is a big difference to the taxpayers, correct?
99% sure he can't leave an indefinite medical benefit to his children, or carry them past 26 if he's alive (used to be 18 - I retired before ACA, not sure what changed on fed med if anything, but 26 would he upper limit).Could be wrong in some specific cases. In general, it doesn't go thru the kids' lifetimes, but if the couple paid into the family benefit and set it up that way, the spouse gets life coverage.
Quote: beachbumbabsI have to correct the money thing. McCabe would be retiring under FERS rules, first activated in 1986, and backdated to include hiring dates in 1984. I was hired under CSRS, a much more generous plan, and backdated into FERS.
Er, I was hired by the federal government at the end of 1984, and not only did FERS already exist, but I don't think CSRS was an option for me.
As for FERS, you normally have to be somewhere between 55 and 57, depending on when you were born, to retire, and that's with 30 years of service; with 20-29, you need to be 60. There is a special rule allowing retirement at age 50 with 20 years' service for "law enforcement officers, firefighters, and nuclear weapons couriers." I have heard rumors that some congressmen are trying to have McCabe hired in a federal law enforcement position for two weeks (one pay period) so he would be eligible for his pension. Of course, the response could be, "That next continuing resolution I need to sign by Thursday (remember that?) in order to keep the government running had better have something in it that prevents this sort of loophole, or everybody is out of a job starting on Friday."
Quote: petroglyphI'm not an actuary. Isn't the total of the money he receives from a defined benefit more, the longer he collects it? Versus a defined contribution with the possibility of a lump sum?Quote: rsactuaryQuote: petroglyph
If he gets full, @ 50 it is likely that he will live to 90 and receive near full salary for 40 years [plus health care] after "working" for only twenty. Forty years of huge benefits for only showing up for twenty years, minus holidays, vacation and sick leave.
The number of years he gets the pension for is irrelevant. The actuarial present value today of the pension is the same, regardless of how long he lives.
Also, medical for life for him and his children. Makes a yuge difference if they collect for one month or 480 months, does it not?
I don't understand what you are saying. If he collects 60k per year and only collects for one year versus collecting for 40 years, that is a big difference to the taxpayers, correct?
When someone retires, they purchase an annuity based on benefits per life...like $2000 a month for life. That has a premium of $x. It's bought and then the purchaser is out of the picture. So it doesn't matter when the annuitant lives 2 months or 20 years to the purchaser.
Yes, obviously the longer you live the higher the present value of the annuity...but it isn't determined in retrospect.
This hypothetical has went further down the rabbit hole than I thought.Quote: beachbumbabs[99% sure he can't leave an indefinite medical benefit to his children, or carry them past 26 if he's alive (used to be 18 -
Ok, the kid is 24 and in college on his parents insurance when he receives a disabling injury or disease, even if it's a section 8. TTBOMK, this kid stays on dad's [McCabes] insurance until he is no longer disabled.
As someone else upthread mentioned, McCabe can get [and has already been offered] another fed job and will "get" his two more days, and full pension. It is a sorry state for America when we cannot fire a government employee, for cause, even though they broke the law and the oath they swore. We can not only not fire them, we can't stop paying them after they leave, and if that weren't enough, we have to pay their children also.
You said you get WaPo and NYT, I believe? [WaPo] " So, McCabe was involved in leaks and he lied under oath.
Horowitz found that McCabe had authorized two FBI officials to talk to then-Wall Street Journal reporter Devlin Barrett for a story about the case ..." He leaked.
And then: NYT..."McCabe has met with special counsel Robert Mueller's team and has turned over memos detailing interactions with President Trump,"...McCabe has been holding back on possible evidence, until now? That doesn't sound right? If he knew he had evidence, he was obligated to turn it over much earlier.
This wasn't a surprise to McCabe and his lawyer, the way the media is making it sound, They've known for weeks, and took days to write their response to his termination.
fixed typo
There lies the rub... It does matter to the purchaser. But I get what you are saying.Quote: rsactuaryQuote: petroglyphI'm not an actuary. Isn't the total of the money he receives from a defined benefit more, the longer he collects it? Versus a defined contribution with the possibility of a lump sum?Quote: rsactuaryQuote: petroglyph
If he gets full, @ 50 it is likely that he will live to 90 and receive near full salary for 40 years [plus health care] after "working" for only twenty. Forty years of huge benefits for only showing up for twenty years, minus holidays, vacation and sick leave.
The number of years he gets the pension for is irrelevant. The actuarial present value today of the pension is the same, regardless of how long he lives.
Also, medical for life for him and his children. Makes a yuge difference if they collect for one month or 480 months, does it not?
I don't understand what you are saying. If he collects 60k per year and only collects for one year versus collecting for 40 years, that is a big difference to the taxpayers, correct?
When someone retires, they purchase an annuity based on benefits per life...like $2000 a month for life. That has a premium of $x. It's bought and then the purchaser is out of the picture. So it doesn't matter when the annuitant lives 2 months or 20 years to the purchaser.
That's not McCabe's fault.
Quote: rxwineIf someone intended to punish McCabe by making sure he doesn't get a pension, guess they should know the laws better.
That's not McCabe's fault.
In any case, if Trump could have just kept his yap shut about the investigation and the firing it would not have been such a huge deal. All Trump is doing is undermining his own federal law enforcement officers.
You have to question the partiality of the investigation when Trump appears to have a vested interest in the outcome.
