Please Note: Blog posts are not selected, edited or screened by Seeking Alpha editors.

Debunking a federal pension myth: it's not a self sustaining program funded only by members

It was argued to me that Fed gov pensions (response to #6 from previous post) are paid for by payroll deductions made throughout the employee's career. While that statement in and of itself is true, it is not the complete truth, it is not the whole truth, and it does not tell the full story. The full, and whole truth is the story of private sector employees subsidizing a benefit that 82% of them don't receive themselves. 

Current Fed gov employees contribute 1.3% of their payroll into their pension plan (note I used the word plan, as opposed to fund, a detail I will explain in a bit). For reference Social Security taxes are 12.4%. How do you account for pension contributions being only 1/10th of what SS contributions are given that average pension benefits exceed average SS benefits? 

The answer is private sector employees help to pay for public sector employees' retirement benefits. Does the phrase "unfunded liability" ring a bell? There are two types of pensions: 

1. FUNDED: where there is an actual fund/pool of money invested. An actual lump sum, nest egg of principal that will draw interest and pay benefits. This is the type of pension plan used by the few private businesses that still offer a pension. 

2. UNFUNDED: this is the plan used by the Federal government, most state governments, and Social Security itself. There is no nest egg. No lump sum pile of cash. Payments are made from current tax revenues and member contributions. 

The gross underfunding/under contributing of Fed gov employees is what helps to account for the fact that the average Fed gov employee makes 59% more in wages alone, but a whopping 108% more in wages and benefits combined than the average private sector employee.