Obama's federal worker 'tax'
September 20th, 2011
12:34 PM ET
3 years ago

Obama's federal worker 'tax'

Washington (CNNMoney) - Union groups for federal employees don't like a piece of President Obama's plan to cut $3 trillion from deficits over the next decade - the one that has all federal workers contributing more to their pensions.

President Obama's proposal would call on all federal employees to contribute 2% of their paycheck into their pension benefits, more than double the current 0.8%. The proposal would phase in the hikes for workers starting in 2013.

On this week's Political Notebook, President Obama’s push for deficit reduction and jobs are the main topics for CNN’s Peter Hamby and Bob Costantini. Plus, Rick Perry courts Jewish voters. And the drive for a new bridge with major political lanes.


FULL STORY

Filed under: President Obama • Taxes
soundoff (17 Responses)
  1. As GM goes, so goes the country...Unions/Democrats killed GM, now they are killing the country

    Union groups for federal employees don't like a piece of President Obama's plan to cut $3 trillion from deficits over the next decade – the one that has all federal workers contributing more to their pensions.
    President Obama's proposal would call on all federal employees to contribute 2% of their paycheck into their pension benefits, more than double the current 0.8%. The proposal would phase in the hikes for workers starting in 2013.
    ==================================================================================================
    Obama is actually expecting the unions to contribute a whooping 2%??!!! Oh, the horror, the suffering, the unfairness, babies will starve, the elderly will die, this travesty of justice must be stopped. How about they contribute "their fair share"??!!! How about they contribute the same that the private sector does?!! I guess that would leave less for union dues to funnel to Democrats re-election campaigns?

    September 20, 2011 12:40 pm at 12:40 pm |
  2. Rudy NYC

    They do not have a legitimate complaint. If they simply bought their lunch from home, instead of eating out, they difference would pay for itself.

    September 20, 2011 12:45 pm at 12:45 pm |
  3. Sandy

    That should include members of congress too.

    September 20, 2011 12:46 pm at 12:46 pm |
  4. Can't believe people's backwards thinkging

    Instead of people in the private sector bashing Unions, we should be outraged that the wealthy are 2% of the population while people literally are dying from starvation. We should be asking for the same benefits the Unions are getting not knocking them, time to stop being jealous and start fighting back for the middle class

    September 20, 2011 12:53 pm at 12:53 pm |
  5. Sniffit

    But hey...I suppose only the parts that require something of the the extremely wealthy and corporations are "class warfare," right Astroturf Frankenstein? I mean, there's no reason whatsoever to consider provisions of the bill together or look at the bill globally..no no no...we must pick it apart piecemeal and say things like "small increases in tax rates on the rich are class warfare" followed by "small increases in benefit contribution rates on unions are absolutely necessary, not class warfare and hopefully they screw the union"...right?

    September 20, 2011 01:01 pm at 1:01 pm |
  6. Sniffit

    "I guess that would leave less for union dues to funnel to Democrats re-election campaigns?"

    First, $570 per year is a lot more money to someone only making $30k-$45k per year than $20,000 is to someone raking in well over $1,000,000 per year. Second, by piping up about union dues allover the place, all you do is reveal to everyone that the real reason GOPers/Teatrolls/conservatives won't support infrastructure projects that benefit EVERYONE, including small businesses, and which are an extremely financially responsible investment in our country's future (just look what infrastructure projects gave us int he past...it's not arguable), is because they're trying to scerw with unions for political and electoral leverage. "We're afraid that doing the right thing will help our political opponents" IS NOT AN EXCUSE FOR FAILING TO GOVERN RESPONSBLY.

    September 20, 2011 01:01 pm at 1:01 pm |
  7. R

    Anyone read the full story? Here's an excerpt from it:
    "For a worker earning $47,500, the Obama plan means $570 less brought home each year."

    Which means, that same worker would bring home between $10-$12 less than before. Rudy NYC is right, if they brought their lunch home, the difference would pay for itself. Time for them (and yes Sandy, all members of congress as well) to all suck it up like the rest of us and make a shared sacrifice.

    September 20, 2011 01:01 pm at 1:01 pm |
  8. T'sah from Virginia

    That's the LEAST of the worries – EVERYONE has to sacrifice!! I guess if they chose NOT to contribute 2% then their pension upon retiring will be 2% less!!! I had to "give up" 2% of my salary in order for all of us to keep our job – That happened two years ago and I have not seen a raise since!!! Making 2% less also lowers Retirement contributions and that hurst in the long run.

    And yes, Sandy, it should include members of Congress too!!!

    Obama/Biden 2012!!

    September 20, 2011 01:04 pm at 1:04 pm |
  9. patNY

    Ok...this is rediculous...as a NY state gov't employee, I paid at least 3% of my salary to my pension, and these people are crying about 2%!!! People like that, as well as those crying they have to pay towards their health insurance premium, give us responsible concession giving pension paying, health insurance contributing, public employees like myself a bad name!

    September 20, 2011 01:10 pm at 1:10 pm |
  10. Dominican mama 4 Obama

    The man said SHARED SACRIFICE that means you too gub'mint workers!!
    Hey at least you all still have a pension to contribute into.....a lot of us don't even have a job.

    September 20, 2011 01:11 pm at 1:11 pm |
  11. Rob R

    Man, I wish I could contribute only 2% of my paycheck and get a guarenteed payout when I retire. We are a single income family and I can only contribute 7% to my 401K (though my company has a 100% match up to 6%).

    I have to side with Obama on this one.

    September 20, 2011 01:17 pm at 1:17 pm |
  12. mikle

    Obama mislead in his speech when he say secretary pay more than rich people. What a lair. He did specifically keep out .that tax about rich he mean not fed. tax but gain tax,(15%),but secretary he point % fed. tax. He is con man, not president, who you cannot trust.

    September 20, 2011 01:50 pm at 1:50 pm |
  13. C-Lo

    Typical union lying/mis-representation of facts. My wife works for a large gov't agency–she moved that direction because the pay was about 20% higher than the same job in the private sector. She has received step increases the last couple years–they are not receiving COLA raises, because the cost of living is stangnant. The article says the increases will be phased in, not a one time shot of 1.2%.

    If there was more personal accountability of the gov't workers–the impression of "lazy gov't workers" is not a myth–they could do as much with about 75% of the staff. My wife absorbs 15-20% more work than is originally assigned her because her co-"workers" fit the bill of a "typical" gov't worker.

    There is no reason, with the fat pensions fed workers recieve, they cannot absorb a little more of the costs.

    September 20, 2011 01:52 pm at 1:52 pm |
  14. d

    I hope this does include congress! and if i worked in a union still i would have no problem with this...we all have to pay more...and we should all be willing to help where we can.

    September 20, 2011 02:00 pm at 2:00 pm |
  15. Rick McDaniel

    Federal workers have to pay more of their own retirement costs. There's no way around that.

    September 20, 2011 02:06 pm at 2:06 pm |
  16. terry,va

    They don't need to contribute more to their pensions. We need to fire 30% of them.

    September 20, 2011 02:11 pm at 2:11 pm |