Locksteady
Member
- Joined
- Feb 14, 2012
- Messages
- 696
Could you provide a link to what you're talking about?
At first glance it looks like you may be either misunderstanding your source or just referencing something that is incorrect.
The Trump Presidency 2.0
- Thread starter Box
- Start date
At first glance it looks like you may be either misunderstanding your source or just referencing something that is incorrect.
ThunderHorse
Verified Military
Might
https://www.congress.gov/crs-product/RL30631
So if I did that right just now. 174,000x5x.01 is definitely not 80%. So she she should get $8700/year when she turns 62.
Point kinda stands though, if you got say 5k/year for the rest of your life after 4 years of service things would change a bit on quality of recruits.
Might have been google AI halucinating on me.
https://www.congress.gov/crs-product/RL30631
So if I did that right just now. 174,000x5x.01 is definitely not 80%. So she she should get $8700/year when she turns 62.
Point kinda stands though, if you got say 5k/year for the rest of your life after 4 years of service things would change a bit on quality of recruits.
Locksteady
Member
- Joined
- Feb 14, 2012
- Messages
- 696
Yup, and no worries, because that persistent rumor about Congress folks' retirement plans is so pervasive that it can actually surprising to see they're actually on par with the rest of standard federal workers.
The one I wasn't aware of until recently was that their yearly accrual percentage also matched the standard federal retirement plan rather than the higher percentage reserved for law enforcement, firefighters, and other niche jobs. Senator Rounds from S.D. has a quick blurb on this and other perk myths here.
So while that 5-year vesting also applies to most other feds too, I still agree with you that there should be fewer personal incentives towards running for Congress to discourage bloat.
Similar threads
