GovernmentExecutive.com

Return to Article: House approves TSP automatic enrollment measure

• 58893
  

  I've heard some things about the TSP, found this website. Not sure what to think about it now though. If anyone smarter than me wants to check it out, but it seems legit. Whoever made it has links which seem to back up what they say. I mean, the TSP investing in terrorism? As a military service member I don't want my money going there.

  Stewart Posted September 21, 2008 12:39 AM
• 55627
  

  I am totally in agreement that TSP should be mandatory to protect employees who are not very well informed on retirement accounts. My problem are the choices we are allowed to make. Most of the TSP funds are to conservative and the rate of return is too low, especially for someone like me who entered Federal Service at the age of 48. We need flexibility in our investment accounts and the ability to invest in the standard mutual funds that are available within the US (i.e. T Rowe Price, Fidelity,etc.). I came from a local government (Fulton County, Atlanta, GA) and they allowed us to pick from a host of funds available to most US citizens, not the funds created by the government with limitations on the annual rate of return. I also have a problem with the fact that we allow a company outside of this country to manage our mutual fund accounts. What is wrong with US management companies?

  Earline Shaw Posted August 1, 2008 3:44 PM
• 55622
  

  Why was this not the case at the get go when FERS was enacted? Why all of a sudden does the Guvmint care that we have enough in retirement?

  Keep in mind that the contributions and or matching is money the Guvmint does not have to "payout to you". That saves them guvmint $$$$$, and currently they are desperatly trying to find enough $$$$ to fund Shrubs 100 year war!

  Think about it!

  rooster Posted August 1, 2008 2:16 PM
• 55615
  

  I think that automatic enrollment is a good idea. Although it seems like "big brother", the fact is that some people just don't have the common sense of a rock. I they don't invest any money, then they will end up on welfare when they retire. Putting money aside is not just an option, it's the responsible thing to do.

  If only the Congress would fix the federal disability benefits program so injured federal workers could at least put some money in their retirement accounts.

  Robert M. Posted August 1, 2008 1:04 PM
• 55605
  

  If you sat in the Retirement Counselor's shoes and saw how many folks failed to take advantage of the matching 3% knowing their FERS annuity entitlement was a joke, you would take a different view. I easily sell participation based on advising of the program benefits, (i.e.,TSP is their nest egg, borrow against at a low interest rate, matching contributions up to 5%, etc.).

  Jefe Posted August 1, 2008 11:34 AM
• 55602
  

  The Roth feature is fantastic. I hope this becomes law soon.

  Sean Posted August 1, 2008 11:24 AM
• 55588
  

  Interesting comments so far.

  Basically, the government is trying to GIVE new employees a 100% return on their money.

  Someone making $30,000 would only have to give up $900 year (which wouldn't be taxed) and the government would GIVE them another $900 in matching funds.

  $900 over a year works out to be less than $2.50 a day. Who can't afford that?

  Making people save for their retirment and helping them do it is a bad thing?

  Also, if anyone wanted to opt out of the program, they can. All it would take is simply going to employee express and opting out.

  But that is for people who want to pay more in taxes, not save for retirement adn give up a 100% guaranteed return on their money.

  sarcasm greatly implied.

  gubmintmole Posted August 1, 2008 10:32 AM
• 55528
  

  Although TSP is an excellent savings program, this is just another case of the Gov't believing that it knows what's best for the individual. Our freedoms just continue to be eroded. If TSP and the Gov't managers cannot get the message across to employees about what a good plan it is, then so be it. Joining TSP should be voluntary, not automatic.

  Fed Posted August 1, 2008 7:24 AM
• 55498
  

  Let them pass the a bill preventing participants from suing the fiduciaries. Who cares is there is accountability? If that had been passed, TSP would have had a real estate fund.

  Loose Change Posted July 31, 2008 6:50 PM
• 55490
  

  Big Brother is at it again. 3% wether you want it or can afford it or not will be taken from your salary and invested in TSP. Sounds like another recruitment effort gone bad. Reguardless of the intent, people inherently don't like being told they will or will not do this or that with their money. Damn it,they earn it, they decide where it goes. Americans are individuals don't you get that by now. This administration always says it has this statistic or that study, but you never see them. Just like with the limiting of IFT's they slipped this one through too.

  Frank Gembicki Posted July 31, 2008 5:16 PM
• 55483
  

  This is about the best news I've heard in a LOOOOONG time. Now I only have a couple of years to wait for the ROTH implimentation.

  The liability issue haven't gotten much press by may be an outgrowth from the Supreme Court case where a 401(k) participant sued his fund management for failing to follow his instructions.

  The court found the fund management failed their fiduciary responsibilities and held them liable for the participant's loses.

  I'm STILL a little leery of the boards ability to implement self-directed funds without congressional approval. Now, the possibilities of self-directed funds has interested me for some time; but an new funds should be introduced such that all new costs are obsorbed by themselves.

  Tip off Posted July 31, 2008 4:37 PM