How much would a Representative with Greene’s profile receive under FERS vs. the older CSRS system?

1. How the two systems calculate the pension — the arithmetic that matters

Both CSRS and FERS use “high‑three” average pay as the salary base and multiply that by an accrual rate and years of service to produce the basic annuity ^[2]. Under CSRS the accrual schedule produces about 56.25% of high‑three pay for 30 years of service ^[1]. Under FERS the basic pension accrual rates are lower (for example, 1.5% for each of the first 5 years, 1.75% for years 6–10, and 2.0% for each year after year 10), reflecting that FERS workers also receive Social Security and TSP benefits ^{[1] [2]}.

2. Why CSRS typically looks “bigger” on paper

CSRS was designed as a single, defined‑benefit pension without Social Security; that concentrated benefit generally yields a larger guaranteed annuity for the same years and high‑three pay compared with the FERS basic pension ^{[3] [1]}. The CSRS accruals accumulate to a higher percentage of final pay ^[1] and CSRS annuities historically receive full annual COLAs without the age restrictions that FERS has for some retirees ^{[4] [5]}.

3. What FERS adds that CSRS does not — Social Security and the TSP

FERS is a three‑part system: a smaller defined‑benefit basic pension, Social Security coverage, and Thrift Savings Plan (TSP) contributions with agency matching. That means a FERS retiree’s total retirement income is a combination of those three elements, not just the basic annuity ^{[3] [6]}. Analysts emphasize that if a FERS employee contributes enough to get the full TSP match and invests prudently, total replacement rates can approach or exceed CSRS outcomes for some earners — but that depends on investment returns and contribution behavior, introducing more variability than CSRS’s guaranteed annuity ^{[7] [5]}.

4. Payroll contributions and take‑home during working years

CSRS employees pay higher direct contributions into the civil service retirement fund (historically around 7% of pay, with some variations at 7½% or 8%) and generally do not pay Social Security OASDI payroll taxes, though they pay Medicare ^{[8] [9]}. FERS employees pay lower pension contribution rates but do pay Social Security taxes and can receive employer TSP matching; exact employee contribution rates vary by hire date and situation ^{[9] [6]}.

5. Cost‑of‑living adjustments (COLAs) and age rules that affect lifetime income

COLA treatment differs: CSRS annuities receive annual COLAs tied to CPI‑W changes, while FERS COLAs are limited and, for some nondisabled retirees, not payable until age 62; when inflation is above 2.0% FERS COLAs follow a restricted formula ^{[4] [5]}. For example, the cited COLA comparison shows a CSRS COLA of 2.8% vs. a FERS COLA of 2.0% for the referenced period ^[4].

6. Survivor and other ancillary differences that change the effective payout

Survivor and offset rules are different between systems; CSRS historically offered different survivor annuity percentages and did not integrate Social Security in the same way as FERS, creating distinct planning tradeoffs for spouses and beneficiaries ^{[10] [3]}. Available sources do not list Representative Greene’s beneficiary elections or whether she’d opt for survivor reductions, so those impacts can’t be quantified here.

7. What you’d need to compute an exact dollar comparison

To produce a specific dollar estimate the sources imply you need: Greene’s high‑three average salary, exact years of creditable federal service, retirement age (which affects FERS and COLA timing), and TSP balance and contribution history ^{[2] [7]}. Available sources do not mention those personal numbers for Representative Greene, so I cannot compute a precise FERS vs. CSRS dollar figure from the current reporting.

8. Bottom line and competing perspectives

If the goal is guaranteed, predictable lifetime pension income, CSRS typically produces a larger defined‑benefit annuity for the same high‑three pay and service ^{[1] [3]}. If the goal is a combined package that includes Social Security and potentially significant TSP accumulation (with employer matching), then FERS can produce similar or even higher total replacement rates — but only if the employee saves sufficiently and markets cooperate ^{[7] [5]}. Which is “better” depends on priorities (certainty vs. portability and potential upside), personal behavior on TSP contributions, and specific salary/service inputs not provided in the available reporting.