Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1956-03-01
Federal Annuities

In your recent editorial,
Federal Employe Annuities,"
you advocate that the Federal
employe inform himself Of the
advantages under certain pro-
posed legislation. This is well
and good, but ! don't believe
the average employe has the
ability or the inclination to
dig through the information
available in order to obtain q
comprehensive picture Of the
situation as it applies to his
own particular problem. It
would seem to me that news
paper such as The Star. having
a large circulation among Fed
eral employees, would present
the information in under
standable and objective form
for evaluation by its readers.
I have had many discussions
Of the retirement system with
fellow employees. As a result, I
have concluded that the aver
age Federal employee does not
understand the present retire
ment system. However. he as
sumes or hopes that, since his
contribution is three times as
great as under the Social Sc
curity system, his rights and
benefits must be greater to the
same degree. This. Of course.
is completely fallacious.
Judging from the many
statements that have been is
sued in support Of the john
ston bill, it would appear that
its supporters are primarily
concerned with retirement
benefits. This leads me to be-
lieve that they themselves are
about to retire or are repre-
senting limited segments of
the Federal payroll which are
more concerned with early re-
tirement than with overall
benefits to family members.
My own interest in the pro-
posed legislation arises from
my feeling Of responsibility to
my family. I find that from
the family viewpoint the pres
ent system and the Johnston
bill leave much to be desired.
1t is only by supplementing
the survivorship benefits
hereunder with insurance
programs Of prohibitive cost
that the average employee can
hope to keep his survivors off
public welfare roles.
BY way Of highlighting the
inequities in survivorship ben
ef1ts under the Civil Service
and Social Security systems,
cite my own case in COMPARE
son to another. At present
am approaching 40 years Of
age. having had the privilege
to work for the Government
for more than Is years. Like
many others in my age
bracket, my children were
born in the years since World
War II. They now range in
age from / to 8. For re-
tirement computational pur-
poses my average salary may
be assumed to be on the order
Of $4,000 per year. On this
basis. in event of my prema-
ture death. my family would
receive about $160 per month.
To achieve this benefit, on
the order of $1,000 has been
deducted from my salary
throughout my years of serv-
Ice.
In contrast. a neighbor boy
has worked at an annual sal
airy Of $4,000 for 10 months
under Social Security. Were
he to die prematurely his wife
and children would receive a
survivorship benefit of 5000
per month in return for his
total investment of 1920. Thus
1t would appear to be to my
advantage If I could trade a
$4,000 credit under Civil Serv-
ice retirement for a $3.50 credit
under Social Security.
Under the Kaplan plan, an
inequity Of this nature would
be largely resolved by using
the Social Security system as
a base and adding to this GER
tain benefits under the Civil
Service system. This is a cred
liable solution but apparently
is subject to opposition. one
argument being that it will
lead to the eventual abolition
Of a Civil Service retirement
system.
If this Is the real fear, why
not turn the plan upside down
and use CSR as the working
base and allow the employe
the option of purchasing at
least a portion of the benefits
available under Social Secur-
ity? For my own purpose. I
would gladly pay the $37 per
year, which is the maximum
contribution under Social Sc
curity, for even the minimum
benefits available to my family
under that system.
On the contrary. thu mora