Rahm Emanuel Proposes Mandatory Retirement at 75 — Would It Actually Save Money?
Written by
Heather Altamirano
Edited by
Rebekah Evans
Commitment to Our Readers
GOBankingRates' editorial team is committed to bringing you unbiased reviews and information. We use data-driven methodologies to evaluate financial products and services - our reviews and ratings are not influenced by advertisers. You can read more about our editorial guidelines and our products and services review methodology.
20 Years
Helping You Live Richer
Reviewed
by Experts
Trusted by
Millions of Readers
Chicago’s former Mayor Rahm Emanuel has proposed an age limit of 75 for federal leaders across all three branches of government, including the Supreme Court and all federal courts.
“You’re 75 years old? Done,” Emanuel said at an event in Washington, D.C., per CBS News. He added that we must stop resembling a “poor imitation” of the Politburo.
Beyond the political implications of forcing a turnover in leadership, would requiring federal officials to step down at 75 years old reduce taxpayer costs? Not really. Here’s why.
Salaries Don’t Disappear — They’re Replaced
Members of Congress earn $174,000 per year (according to Congress) and mandating a 75-year retirement for federal officials sounds like Americans could save money because older officials would stop earning six-figure salaries and move onto pensions. But the savings isn’t there. A new official would be elected or appointed and would earn the same amount.
Pension Savings Would Likely Be Small
Members of Congress participate in the Federal Employees Retirement System (FERS), the same plan available to other federal employees. Under the federal retirement system, benefits are earned by years of service rather than granted automatically at a certain age.
“Federal pensions under FERS are formula-based (usually tied to ‘high-3’ pay and years of service), so the main effect would be stopping future accrual for anyone who would’ve kept working past 75, not taking away what they’ve built up,” said Danny Ray, founder of PinnacleQuote.
So the financial impact would likely be modest.
Taxpayers Would Not Notice Meaningful Savings
Emanuel’s proposal primarily focuses on leadership change rather than cost-cutting. It would mainly change who holds federal official positions, not budgeting.
According to Ray, if 75 were the mandatory retirement age for federal leaders, taxpayersprobably wouldn’t notice big savings right away.
“You might save some salaries, but some of that could be offset if people start collecting pensions sooner,” he said. “Any savings would likely be small and gradual.”
A forced retirement age could reshape Washington, but it likely wouldn’t make much difference to your wallet.
More From GoBankingRates
