Should Congress continue to receive a pension and free healthcare?

[onecaliberal]

I think it's time for them to be expected to save for retirement with a 401k like we do. They think it's good enough for us. They should also have to buy healthcare on the market with their salary or use Medicare like the rest of us when they reach the age.

What do you think?

[raccoon]

1. No. I mean ,no they shouldn't. Nt

[bottomofthehill]

2. They already do both of those.

They buy their insurance under the same program that all federal employees do and if they want care under the Capitol Physician they pay an additional annual fee of about 700 dollars I think.

Additionally, they contribute to their pension, pay social security and can choose to participate in the TSP, the government 401k type plan. They can choose to put money into that or not.

If a person who is 50 years old gets elected this November and serves 20 years, they would get roughly $34,000 dollars a year when they retire at age 70. So would any other federal employee with the same age and numbers.

[onecaliberal]

3. I do not think we should subsidize their retirement in any way shape or form.

[bottomofthehill]

4. Then only the rich can afford to be Members of Congress

[onecaliberal]

5. 2018 would not support that assertion. We should also have only publicly funded campaigns.

[bottomofthehill]

8. In 2018 we have Member who are in a pension system

So it is not only the rich who can afford to be there.

[elleng]

7. THANKS, bottom, and ditto!

[elleng]

6. They pay into both, like other Federal government employees.

They (we, I'm a retired federal employee) benefit from very good choices for health care, which can be taken with them (and us) during retirement (plus medicare.)

And a good pension program, into which they (and we) contribute.

[bottomofthehill]

9. Not sure when you retired but it is now 1 percent for each year you work

It is way better than nothing don’t get me wrong but a 25 year career in federal service gets you 25 percent of an average of your high 3. Again, better than many, but hardly generous.

[bottomofthehill]

10. The new formula.

As part of the Middle Class Tax Relief and Job Creation Act of 2012, mandatory employee contribution rates were increased substantially. Feds hired after December 31, 2012 contribute a mandatory 3.1% of their annual salary.

The Bipartisan Budget Act of 2013 increased the contribution rate further to 4.4% for those hired after December 31, 2013. Agency contributions have also been increased.

So before 2012 a Fed contributed .08 percent and now a new hire including a Member of Congress contributes 4.4 percent.

[elleng]

11. I retired almost 10 years ago, and am/was in the 'old' program,

'FERS? or CSRS.'

I also get a SMALL SocSec, from work I did before and after my federal employment.

'Big' benefit may be I also receive as survivor from husband, also a Federal employee (and his SocSec.)

(AND I maintain FEHBP, covers prescription $$ unlike medicare; I guess it's my 'supplement.')

[bottomofthehill]

12. The pension system has come a long way since then.

A 25 year career under FERS averaging (high 3) $100,000 dollars a year would net you a $25000 dollar pension. Take the survivor benefit option and it drops to just below $22000 and my wife would get a little more than $19000 a year. Again, better than a lot of people but hardly generous. The big plus is the health insurance. Also if you can contribute heavily to the TSP but working. In DC 100000 dollars only goes so far with the cost of housing and property taxes.

[elleng]

13. Had a decent TSP,

but took it out (for 'necessity.')

Husband, much less than 25 years, ended up with very high annual, much higher than mine was tho I was longer term. I never made $100,000/year.

[roamer65]

14. Hell no.

I would take it away from all of them.

[bottomofthehill]

16. Again, this is a right wing talking point

Members of congress do not get free health care and participate in FERS which is the same plan that any federal employee is under. It is no more or less generous to them then it is to a clerk at social security or a teacher in a federal daycare.

[I_UndergroundPanther]

15. No.

They have tons of money they can pay for it.

[bottomofthehill]

17. We don't want only the rich to be able to servi in congress or we will get laws only for the rich

[Steelrolled]

18. I'm ok with it.