Well Well Well

DoubleLungRage

DoubleLungRage

Well-known member
I just thought that I would post this for some of you...

You do realize that the FBI, BP, BOP, ICE, etc that you are now calling on and depending on to clean up this mess in LA are the same exact people that just a few weeks ago you were wanting to see lose their jobs, retirements, etc. because they are federal workers.
 
The Federal workers they let go were freeloaders. What’s funny is several of them would post over the years on IG of their jobs and the amount of money they made for doing absolutely nothing. After DOGE they went on social media whining and the folks in the comments screen shot their previous posts and shut them up real quick.
The FBI didn’t need umpteen employees making millions whose only job was to plan parties and meetings.
 
DoubleLungRage said:
You do realize that the FBI, BP, BOP, ICE, etc that you are now calling on and depending on to clean up this mess in LA are the same exact people that just a few weeks ago you were wanting to see lose their jobs, retirements, etc. because they are federal workers.
Click to expand...
Same folks, different leadership. ;)(y)
 
popper43 said:
They are 'civilian' law enforcement persons, not bean counters, lab assistants and 'managers'.
Click to expand...

The same LEO's that the president is trying his best to cut their retirement that they signed contracts for, were promised, have been paying into, and planning their life around their entire career. At least when this has been done before the current employees were grandfathered in, but not this time.

Not to mention the hiring freezes currently in place on some of the federal LEO agencies that are already severely short staff.

See, that's what some of you do not understand. Whenever the president came after the bean counters he also came after federal LEO's across the board.
 
Explain to me how that is any different than what Congress and the Executive Branch has done with Military Members Retirement system over the past 40+ years ?
I never seen anyone get upset when mine was changed after 8 years of service, not one person stood up.
Even though I signed a contract. Underwent at least 4 RIF's (Reduction In Force) through my years.

IMHO there not 1 slightest bit of difference.

You and others my disagree with my statements which is fine.

Don't get me wrong I understand your point. And I have been on the receiving end of this, this holds true with my son as well when he went in he was supposed to be in the same retirement system as mine was modified to. Instead he is now in a "blended" retirement system.
Fact is Federal employee's serve at the pleasure of the President regardless of Branch, Division, etc or, contracts as well as the purse strings set forth by Congress. As it takes both to effect a change in pay and benefits packages for Federal Employees.

Simple fact is I didn't like it when it was done to my son and I. But he and I both had / have a choice either accept it or leave.
But yeah I get your point .. do I think it's fair process .... nope. But it is the process that is used.

How did I survive so long in the system with the RIFs?
Easy and for 75+ % hard to apply.
a. the 1st amendment didn't apply to me. I could have a opinion but keep it to myself. Be apolitical do not use any media social or verbal communication methods to voice my feelings / opinion. Best not to have a "social" appearance at all.
b. perform my duty to the letter, fairly and truthful , don't interpret or go on the sprit of what a ruling, law, or Regulation says but what it actually says. Don't circumvent or make any exceptions period, unless set forth by the document your enforcing. There is no "us" vs "them" attitude there is only us (this part being as among the ranks or population so to "speak").
c. treat folks fairly in the exact same manner, apply a standard as written and stick to it.
 
Last edited:
Sgt_Mike said:
Explain to me how that is any different than what Congress and the Executive Branch has done with Military Members Retirement system over the past 40+ years ?
I never seen anyone get upset when mine was changed after 8 years of service, not one person stood up.
Even though I signed a contract. Underwent at least 4 RIF's (Reduction In Force) through my years.

IMHO there not 1 slightest bit of difference.

You and others my disagree with my statements which is fine.

Don't get me wrong I understand your point. And I have been on the receiving end of this, this holds true with my son as well when he went in he was supposed to be in the same retirement system as I. Instead he is now in a "blended" retirement system.
Fact is Federal employee's serve at the pleasure of the President regardless of Branch, Division, etc or, contracts as well as the purse strings set forth by Congress. As it takes both to effect a change in pay and benefits packages for Federal Employees.

Simple fact is I didn't like it went it was done to me and my son. But he and I both had / have a choice either accept it or leave.
But yeah I get your point
Click to expand...

There is no difference. You are 100% right, I can walk away at 19 years of federal LEO service and start all over or I can put in a few more years and hope that I get what I signed up for whenever I was hired. Something that I hope that no other hard working American has to face. Thank you and your son for your service.
 
I got 70$ a month if I carried 15 hrs (GI bill), nothing else, except a bunch of nasty looks - Nam. Got terminated from many companies as my work was done. Just go out and get another job, whining doesn't work. I did quit once when requested to do a 6 mo stint on an island at the end of the aleutians to service RJ and RB radio stuff. 2 toddlers at home.
 
DoubleLungRage said:
I can walk away at 19 years of federal LEO service and start all over or I can put in a few more years and hope that I get what I signed up f
Click to expand...
Brothers first off Thank You for your service as you did the role I wouldn't / couldn't.
That role is NOT easy, Military service in my opinion is way easier. Even though you go through those ranks on the civilian side there are a a Lot of vets. funny how that works

Hopefully Congress can see a way to ease your pain within the budget and do what is right inside the senate now, as it's not finalized yet.
Federal service be it SSA, DHS, DOJ, DoD, etc is at the whims of the Executive branches wishes and Congress budget constraints /staffing. It sucks at times we all get shafted at times, although not all at the same time. Time in the barrel I guess is a good way to put it.

MANY Americans do Not understand the system, Some do.
My hat goes off to any active / former /retired Federal Government employee (yes Virginia, Vet's are in that crowd, remember my us vs them statements, yes it is U.S. ) they have /had a "tuff row to hoe" so to speak.

popper43 said:
I got 70$ a month if I carried 15 hrs (GI bill), nothing else, except a bunch of nasty looks - Nam. Got terminated from many companies as my work was done.
Click to expand...


Yes popper43 you as well (especially your era of vets), the Vietnam era Vets was treated the worse of any, outside the WWI era via news/ social protests. My father was retired Army that served from the end of Korea to the end of Vietnam. The way that era of Vets was treated is in my opinion the shame of the nation. JFK's vision was not met when he attempted to help that nation .

So I grew up as a Army Brat that joined in 1980, I served until literally I reached a time frame that Federal law said I couldn't serve a day more. I was forced into retirement when Trump went into office in his first term (June). I caught Grenada to Iraq / Afghanistan during my time in. I chose to serve, and honestly didn't want to do any other type of employment. My son joined that same June and continues today (whom caught the tail end of Afghanistan ) which I find great pride in that he carries the torch of his Grandfather's legacy whom was drafted, and passed away later that same year of cancer related to agent orange exposure, yet the VA gave him a 5% disability award. It was a bitter sweet two years. And that I was allowed to serve a nation as great as ours for as long as I legally could (which far outweighs any bitterness I could ever feel).

My point in all of this is NOT to get any sort of thanks or praise, as honestly I'm not a fan of receiving thanks when a era of Vets close to mine was spit on (which I'm bitter about). I do understand why folks do the "thank you for your service", some actually mean it, some just don't know what else to say, to some it is a nice catch phrase.
But I did want to post to sort of publicly say "I understand and have been in your shoes / situation" and your gripes, or rather statements are not falling on deaf ears.

Edit to add:
the very last was not directed to you Doublelungrage as I know you actually mean it, sincerity can't be faked .
Rather it is just me stating my feelings about how I'm treated vs when my father came home from Vietnam.
 
Last edited:
I curious about the retirement issues. My Dad retired from the military in ‘74 I believe. He got a civilian job for 7yrs then went to work as Fed employee for the DOD and ended up retiring from there are well. He’s pulling 2 retirement checks, covered in insurance for life, and according to his CPA has to spend a certain amount every year whether he wants to or not. He hasn’t mentioned anything about losing any money or getting any taken away.
 
@ Spurchaser
That sounds more like an attempt to achieve a lower tax bracket for tax sheltering / lowering rather than a losing or reducing one of the retirements. Now that poophouse lawyer statement I made is based on him having served 20 in the military, Then serving 20 years at the DoD with no overlapping time periods and a 7 year break.

If he used a buy back type program (example in a buy back I could sell / trade say 5 years of my military time and only work 15 years as a civilian for DoD then be eligible for a 20year retirement from DoD, there is another type of program but for the life I can't recall what it is called). This would be considered "double dipping" a buyback would cause a overlap in time periods this would cause him to have to chose one retirement or the other. (Note at this point when he retired from DoD DFAS would have called him and asked him to chose which retirement system on a form to be submitted.)

But like I stated above 20 year time period for Military service, a break of 7 years in civilian market or unemployed (unemployed is the worst way looks bad of the resume most will go back to school and or maybe a internship or two to make that 7 year break for DoD) is what most advised, Then another 20+ years working at DoD. From what I have been told by DFAS (DoD's paymaster and trust me they will not issue two checks unless it's legal, I was briefed this by a DFAS rep during my retirement out brief, most attendees sleep through it or get up and do something because it's death by powerpoint), would result in two Federal retirement checks cut.
Basically if DFAS is cutting the checks, they are legal. As all Military pay including civilian pay (retired and active service) is handled through them, and they don't like overpaying.
Trust me they screen the crap out of their disbursement.
This advice of spending xxxxx.xx amount of money or trying it up in a Roth or 401K is commonly recommended by CPA's for tax purposes.

He can legally draw both and his SSI without any affecting the other, just put's him in a higher tax bracket.
Now if he drew a VA Disability of course a 50+% award of disability must be awarded or the amount is deducted from the military retirement check . But the amount of disability is tax free on the Federal level (most states echo this but not versed on all the states, for sure I know Arkansas, Texas, and both the Carolina's it's tax free) so that does not count to determine tax brackets.

Situation dependent (being the stars and moon align within the Federal Retirement System) one could draw Full:
military retired pay (taxable)
military disability (if filed with the first year of retirement is back dated to the first date of retirement and is non-taxable)
Federal Gov't from DoD retirement (taxable)

or say I went to work for say Border Patrol or say the Forrest Service for 20 + years and reach the required age bracket and then retire from there as well. DFAS (DoD's paymaster) doesn't cover their retirement system. I Think OPM has a role there, they do handle the Mil-Tech side of the house, I do know that they DFAS and VA talk, so then is when the FERS rules comes into play (that is the other program I was attempting to think of earlier). And honestly without a LOT of research I can't speak to but I do know there are ways to draw from both but it's not easy but can be done. And a lot do it, if they retire early enough from Military Service (other wise a age out can occur to gain employment)

SSI (reduced at age 62, or could draw at the age based on birth year for the full amount ... it is or is not taxable depending on IRS calculation but most cases not taxed)
I would list medicare but that is a cost of mandatory insurance not a income pay, usually most elect to have the SSI reduce /transferred to pay the medicare cost.
I hope this makes sense.
(man I am so far off Topic now it's not funny, My apologies to the OP and others participating)
 
Last edited:
@DoubleLungRage

After our conversation here I decided to actually tear into HR 1, Focusing on the FERS section which is your basic federal retirement package to see what was altered for LEO's and BP etc. in the words of my favorite Commander - in- Chief ------ "Trust but Verify"
here is the text in HR 1 dealing with FERS.
IX
Committee on Oversight and Government Reform
90001.
Increase in FERS employee contribution requirements
Section 8422(a)(3) of title 5, United States Code, is amended—

(1)
in subparagraph (A), by amending the table to read as follows:


Employee7January 1, 1987, to December 31, 1998.
7.25January 1, 1999, to December 31, 1999.
7.4January 1, 2000, to December 31, 2000.
7January 1, 2001, to December 31, 2025.
8.8January 1, 2026, to December 31, 2026.
10.6After December 31, 2026.
Congressional employee7.5January 1, 1987, to December 31, 1998.
7.75January 1, 1999, to December 31, 1999.
7.9January 1, 2000, to December 31, 2000.
7.5January 1, 2001, to December 31, 2025.
9.3January 1, 2026, to December 31, 2026.
11.1After December 31, 2026.
Member7.5January 1, 1987, to December 31, 1998.
7.75January 1, 1999, to December 31, 1999.
7.9January 1, 2000, to December 31, 2000.
8January 1, 2001, to December 31, 2002.
7.5January 1, 2003, to December 31, 2025.
9.3January 1, 2026, to December 31, 2026.
11.1After December 31, 2026.
Law enforcement officer, Firefighter, member of the Capitol Police, member of the Supreme Court Police, or air traffic controller7.5January 1, 1987, to December 31, 1998.
7.75January 1, 1999, to December 31, 1999.
7.9January 1, 2000, to December 31, 2000.
7.5After December 31, 2000.
Nuclear materials courier7January 1, 1987, to October 16, 1998.
7.5October 17, 1998, to December 31, 1998.
7.75January 1, 1999, to December 31, 1999.
7.9January 1, 2000, to December 31, 2000.
7.5After December 31, 2000.
Customs and border protection officer7.5After June 29, 2008.
 
Last edited:
here is Section 8422(a)(3) of title 5, United States Code currently specifically the table modified above.
(A)
The applicable percentage under this paragraph for civilian service by employees or Members other than revised annuity employees or further revised annuity employees shall be as follows:
Employee7January 1, 1987, to December 31, 1998.
7.25January 1, 1999, to December 31, 1999.
7.4January 1, 2000, to December 31, 2000.
7After December 31, 2000.
Congressional employee7.5January 1, 1987, to December 31, 1998.
7.75January 1, 1999, to December 31, 1999.
7.9January 1, 2000, to December 31, 2000.
7.5After December 31, 2000.
Member7.5January 1, 1987, to December 31, 1998.
7.75January 1, 1999, to December 31, 1999.
7.9January 1, 2000, to December 31, 2000.
8January 1, 2001, to December 31, 2002.
7.5After December 31, 2002.
Law enforcement officer, firefighter, member of the Capitol Police, member of the Supreme Court Police, or air traffic controller7.5

7.75

7.9

7.5		January 1, 1987, to December 31, 1998.
January 1, 1999, to December 31, 1999.
January 1, 2000, to December 31, 2000.
After December 31, 2000.
Nuclear materials courier7January 1, 1987, to October 16, 1998.
7.5October 17, 1998, to December 31, 1998.
7.75January 1, 1999, to December 31, 1999.
7.9January 1, 2000, to December 31, 2000.
7.5After December 31, 2000.
Customs and border protection officer7.5After June 29, 2008.
 
So looking at the Table and the amendments I'm not seeing where LEO's or BP pay percentage deducted or withheld is increasing for the LEO's or Border Patrol.
I do see where other federal employees deductions are being increased.
Of course table A is not the only table modified Table B is as well So I''l copy and paste the proposed changes in HR1 to Table B

; and
(2)
in subparagraph (B), by amending the table to read as follows:

Employee9.3January 1, 2013, to December 31, 2025.
9.95January 1, 2026, to December 31, 2026.
10.6After December 31, 2026.
Congressional employee9.3January 1, 2013, to December 31, 2025.
9.95January 1, 2026, to December 31, 2026.
10.6After December 31, 2026.
Member9.3January 1, 2013, to December 31, 2025.
9.95January 1, 2026, to December 31, 2026.
10.6After December 31, 2026.
Law enforcement officer, Firefighter, member of the Capitol Police, member of the Supreme Court Police, or air traffic controller9.8After December 31, 2012.
Nuclear materials courier9.8After December 31, 2012.
Customs and border protection officer9.8After December 31, 2012.
 
here is Section 8422(a)(3) of title 5, United States Code table B current and before the modification above

(B)
The applicable percentage under this paragraph for civilian service by revised annuity employees shall be as follows:
Employee9.3After December 31, 2012.
Congressional employee9.3After December 31, 2012.
Member9.3After December 31, 2012.
Law enforcement officer, firefighter, member of the Capitol Police, member of the Supreme Court Police, or air traffic controller9.8After December 31, 2012.
Nuclear materials courier9.8After December 31, 2012.
Customs and border protection officer9.8After December 31, 2012.
 
I don't see a change there in table B either.

Scrolling down in HR1 I do find this immediately after the table modifications list in the bill
"
90002.
Elimination of FERS annuity supplement

(a)
In general

Section 8421(a) of title 5, United States Code, is amended—

(1)
in paragraph (1), by inserting separated from service under section 8425 after individual; and

(2)
in paragraph (2), by inserting separated from service under section 8425 after an individual.

(b)
Applicability

The amendments made by this section shall not apply with respect to any individual entitled to an annuity supplement under section 8421 of title 5, United States Code, prior to the date of the enactment of this Act.
--------------------------------------------------------
I'm in hopes you find this bit of information to your pleasure. I highlighted in bold what I thought to be the grandfathering provision for annuity supplement.
I'm sure the Union for you guys is screaming because of the increases for the other Gov't employees and not telling the whole truth. I'm not versed in the FERS,
but from what I can see it doesn't look like the LEO's /BP deduction or honestly anything changed, looks to be status quo.
I maybe wrong. Give it a look over as I may have missed something, and have formed the wrong opinion

There was a bunch of verbiage on FERS after my cut and paste but it dealt with lowering the FERS contributions and that employees will have to be elect to be "At Will" etc etc.
links so you can peruse it yourself.
Current
www.law.cornell.edu

5 U.S. Code § 8422 - Deductions from pay; contributions for other service; deposits

www.law.cornell.edu www.law.cornell.edu
www.law.cornell.edu

5 U.S. Code § 8421 - Annuity supplement

www.law.cornell.edu www.law.cornell.edu
Link to HR1
 
Last edited:
I do know that they have not posted the proposed changes from the Senate (after passing the House).
Which I'm not a fan of. Personally I am of the opinion is they should post add-ons, proposals, deletions and even speeches as the bill passes through.
 
Back
Top