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.
Check Out: What You Need To Save Monthly To Retire Comfortably in Every State
See Next: 5 Clever Ways Retirees Are Earning Up To $1K per Month From Home
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, taxpayers
probably 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
- 5 Tax Loopholes the Ultra-Wealthy Use That Most Americans Don't Know About
- I'm an Accountant: 6 'Big Beautiful Bill' Tax Changes That Will Benefit the Middle Class
- 6 Safe Accounts Proven to Grow Your Money Up to 13x Faster
- 7 Tax Loopholes the Rich Use To Pay Less and Build More Wealth
This article originally appeared on GOBankingRates.com: Rahm Emanuel Proposes Mandatory Retirement at 75 — Would It Actually Save Money?
