We can’t control what others do and we can’t stop misfortune from striking. But we can control our own actions. Those who are financially prudent will most likely enjoy success, even if events don’t always go their way.
Do Members of Congress pay Social Security payroll taxes (and Obamacare health insurance premiums)? Yes‼️
Are Members of Congress eligible for a pension? Yes, with required minimum service‼️
Do Members of Congress contribute toward their pensions? Yes‼️
Here are the details.
Members of Congress first elected in 1984 or later are covered automatically under the Federal Employees’ Retirement System (FERS). All Senators and those Representatives serving as Members prior to September 30, 2003, may decline this coverage.
Representatives entering office on or after September 30, 2003, cannot elect to be excluded from such coverage. Members who were already in Congress when Social Security coverage went into effect could either remain in CSRS or change their coverage to FERS. Members are now covered under one of four different retirement arrangements:
CSRS and Social Security; The CSRS Offset plan, which includes both CSRS and Social Security, but with CSRS contributions and benefits reduced by Social Security contributions and benefits;
FERS, which includes the FERS basic retirement annuity, Social Security, and Thrift Savings Plan (TSP); or
Social Security alone. Congressional pensions, like those of other federal employees, are financed through a combination of employee and employer contributions. All Members pay Social Security payroll taxes equal to 6.2% of the Social Security taxable wage base ($160,200 in 2023).
Members first covered by FERS prior to 2013 also pay 1.3% of full salary to the Civil Service Retirement and Disability Fund (CSRDF). Members of Congress first covered by FERS in 2013 contribute 3.1% of pay to the CSRDF.
Members of Congress first covered by FERS after 2013 contribute 4.4% of pay to the CSRDF. Members covered by CSRS Offset pay 1.8% of the first $160,200 of salary in 2023, and 8.0% of salary above this amount, into the CSRDF.
Under both CSRS and FERS, Members of Congress are eligible for a pension at the age of 62 if they have completed at least 5 years of service. Members are eligible for a pension at age 50 if they have completed 20 years of service, or at any age after completing 25 years of service. The amount of the pension depends on length of service (as measured in months) and the average of the highest three years of salary.
By law, the starting amount of a Member’s retirement annuity may not exceed 80% of his or her final salary. There were 619 retired Members of Congress receiving federal pensions based fully or in part on their congressional service as of October 1, 2022. Of this number, 261 had retired under CSRS and were receiving an average annual pension of $84,504. A total of 358 Members had retired with service under FERS and were receiving an average annual pension of $45,276 in 2023.
Members of Congress are not “employees” – elected officials are a unique class, for sure, and I don’t have a problem with some type of retirement plan for them, but I do not believe it should be more generous than what is available in the private sector.
We just had an elected official here in NJ, Ricard Codey, retire after serving for 50 years. I heard he’s a good guy (even though he plays for the other team) and the papers were full of laudatory articles. I think it’s a good thing for politicians to serve for a lifetime (even if they are up for election every few years).
New Members in Congress have very different financial status when first elected. Yet isn’t it a common pattern that their financial status improves, especially for the not so rich, significantly improves as they continue in Congress. This is independent of their “meager “ legally paid compensation. Has there been any published report documenting this general trend?
The point I’m getting at is that once elected some Congress people are on the “money train” to get richer. That is motivation to run for reelection for an extended time. The value of an eventual pension is kinda chump change?
Not exactly true. The very wealthy were that way before being elected, others reported wealth actually belongs to their spouse. Outside income is limited to $31,800 and Members cannot accept fees for speaking. They can write books and many leverage their influence after leaving Congress. There are several members who are heavily in debt and have a negative net worth. I see those folks are a greater risk at being influenced than the wealthy.
So what if you vote for a new guy–the question is always; “does he represent my views”? So replace Dave with Diane but if they are both from the same party with similar views nothing changes but the name. If I reject Bernie the socialist/far left in the primary to vote for Mary the socialist/far left what changes–nothing but the name.
If you vote for a “D” you get the Squad–vote for the “R” you get the Freedom Caucus–thinking folks make that kind of decision.
No matter what– the amount of years one has to serve before getting a pension is very generous compared to most working folks.
On the pension topic, the other day I commented on the problem of automatically enrolling the 6 million or so workers in Social Security to ease the funding of the program. As you can see, even the feds didn’t collect payroll tax from every representative on a certain day. They set up a start day for new people and the rest could opt what to do.
Anyway, this was what I meant by it would create problems for all these currently employed people in transition to social security from their current pension setting. Universal coverage is always mentioned when funding for social security comes up and it’s always assumed that the payroll tax can be implemented on the 6 million immediately if not sooner. I’ve always scoffed at that idea.
It’s simple. They represent districts and in each district, people say our guy is a good guy, it’s the trouble makers in the big city or the rural bumpkins who are causing trouble. The same people get elected each term and their voters are fine with them. It’s the other representatives the voters have a problem with. But you can only vote for the choices you have in your area.
QUINNSCOMMENTARY 
Members of Congress are not “employees” – elected officials are a unique class, for sure, and I don’t have a problem with some type of retirement plan for them, but I do not believe it should be more generous than what is available in the private sector.
We just had an elected official here in NJ, Ricard Codey, retire after serving for 50 years. I heard he’s a good guy (even though he plays for the other team) and the papers were full of laudatory articles. I think it’s a good thing for politicians to serve for a lifetime (even if they are up for election every few years).
LikeLike
New Members in Congress have very different financial status when first elected. Yet isn’t it a common pattern that their financial status improves, especially for the not so rich, significantly improves as they continue in Congress. This is independent of their “meager “ legally paid compensation. Has there been any published report documenting this general trend?
The point I’m getting at is that once elected some Congress people are on the “money train” to get richer. That is motivation to run for reelection for an extended time. The value of an eventual pension is kinda chump change?
LikeLike
Not exactly true. The very wealthy were that way before being elected, others reported wealth actually belongs to their spouse. Outside income is limited to $31,800 and Members cannot accept fees for speaking. They can write books and many leverage their influence after leaving Congress. There are several members who are heavily in debt and have a negative net worth. I see those folks are a greater risk at being influenced than the wealthy.
LikeLike
So what if you vote for a new guy–the question is always; “does he represent my views”? So replace Dave with Diane but if they are both from the same party with similar views nothing changes but the name. If I reject Bernie the socialist/far left in the primary to vote for Mary the socialist/far left what changes–nothing but the name.
If you vote for a “D” you get the Squad–vote for the “R” you get the Freedom Caucus–thinking folks make that kind of decision.
No matter what– the amount of years one has to serve before getting a pension is very generous compared to most working folks.
LikeLike
Eliminate the pensions, put them all on SS only, and let’s see how many bail out.
LikeLike
On the pension topic, the other day I commented on the problem of automatically enrolling the 6 million or so workers in Social Security to ease the funding of the program. As you can see, even the feds didn’t collect payroll tax from every representative on a certain day. They set up a start day for new people and the rest could opt what to do.
Anyway, this was what I meant by it would create problems for all these currently employed people in transition to social security from their current pension setting. Universal coverage is always mentioned when funding for social security comes up and it’s always assumed that the payroll tax can be implemented on the 6 million immediately if not sooner. I’ve always scoffed at that idea.
LikeLike
It’s simple. They represent districts and in each district, people say our guy is a good guy, it’s the trouble makers in the big city or the rural bumpkins who are causing trouble. The same people get elected each term and their voters are fine with them. It’s the other representatives the voters have a problem with. But you can only vote for the choices you have in your area.
LikeLike