FERS Question

[Anonymous]

Does it really make sense to stay past 62 in order to get the extra .1 percent? I've never understood this with our retirement system as a Fed. People with 20+yrs of service who are younger than 62 seem to be leaving my office in droves. I will hit 20 years in about 4 more years but I'll only be 50 by then. I'm maxed out at the GS level, so basically I need to work another 12 years for another .1%? Sigh. Seems kind of worthless if you ask me, but I have no other plans beyond that so guess I'll just stick it out. Can't complain that I get a pension, but the 1 vs 1.1% doesn't seem like much of an incentive.

[Anonymous]

12 years of raises add up

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Does it really make sense to stay past 62 in order to get the extra .1 percent? I've never understood this with our retirement system as a Fed. People with 20+yrs of service who are younger than 62 seem to be leaving my office in droves. I will hit 20 years in about 4 more years but I'll only be 50 by then. I'm maxed out at the GS level, so basically I need to work another 12 years for another .1%? Sigh. Seems kind of worthless if you ask me, but I have no other plans beyond that so guess I'll just stick it out. Can't complain that I get a pension, but the 1 vs 1.1% doesn't seem like much of an incentive.

This question would make more sense if you had other plans. Since you don't, it's the best option available right?

[Anonymous]

Your pension does not start indexing for inflation until age 62. So if you retire at 55, the real value of the pension declines.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:12 years of raises add up

If you assume we'll get raises. Not always guaranteed.

[Anonymous]

my pension at 62 is 16% greater than my pension at 60. Extra two years seem worth it.

[Anonymous]

As opposed to the 0% you’d get elsewhere? You’re still getting an additional 1% each year you stay.

[Anonymous]

I believe my spouse is planning to leave at 50, but that's partially influenced by being able to find private sector work that pays 2-3x his current salary.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I believe my spouse is planning to leave at 50, but that's partially influenced by being able to find private sector work that pays 2-3x his current salary.

Don't count on it. Most guys say that, not many actually make it happen

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Does it really make sense to stay past 62 in order to get the extra .1 percent? I've never understood this with our retirement system as a Fed. People with 20+yrs of service who are younger than 62 seem to be leaving my office in droves. I will hit 20 years in about 4 more years but I'll only be 50 by then. I'm maxed out at the GS level, so basically I need to work another 12 years for another .1%? Sigh. Seems kind of worthless if you ask me, but I have no other plans beyond that so guess I'll just stick it out. Can't complain that I get a pension, but the 1 vs 1.1% doesn't seem like much of an incentive.

But it is to many people. 10% bump for your lifetime (plus your spouse's lifetime) is no chump change. Also, if you retire before 62, you don't get COLA until you turn 62. That loss will last you lifetime too.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Does it really make sense to stay past 62 in order to get the extra .1 percent? I've never understood this with our retirement system as a Fed. People with 20+yrs of service who are younger than 62 seem to be leaving my office in droves. I will hit 20 years in about 4 more years but I'll only be 50 by then. I'm maxed out at the GS level, so basically I need to work another 12 years for another .1%? Sigh. Seems kind of worthless if you ask me, but I have no other plans beyond that so guess I'll just stick it out. Can't complain that I get a pension, but the 1 vs 1.1% doesn't seem like much of an incentive.

But it is to many people. 10% bump for your lifetime (plus your spouse's lifetime) is no chump change. Also, if you retire before 62, you don't get COLA until you turn 62. That loss will last you lifetime too.

Good point.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Does it really make sense to stay past 62 in order to get the extra .1 percent? I've never understood this with our retirement system as a Fed. People with 20+yrs of service who are younger than 62 seem to be leaving my office in droves. I will hit 20 years in about 4 more years but I'll only be 50 by then. I'm maxed out at the GS level, so basically I need to work another 12 years for another .1%? Sigh. Seems kind of worthless if you ask me, but I have no other plans beyond that so guess I'll just stick it out. Can't complain that I get a pension, but the 1 vs 1.1% doesn't seem like much of an incentive.

But it is to many people. 10% bump for your lifetime (plus your spouse's lifetime) is no chump change. Also, if you retire before 62, you don't get COLA until you turn 62. That loss will last you lifetime too.

NP and maybe. Let's say your pension is $50K per year so the 16% is like $7.5K per year or about $650 per month. In the meantime, 2 years of time at age 60 is probably 10% of your remaining life and likely a much higher percentage of the good active years you have left. Just saying the time you are giving up is worth serious consideration. At least for me with my TSP it won't make a difference but I realize others may have different views.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Does it really make sense to stay past 62 in order to get the extra .1 percent? I've never understood this with our retirement system as a Fed. People with 20+yrs of service who are younger than 62 seem to be leaving my office in droves. I will hit 20 years in about 4 more years but I'll only be 50 by then. I'm maxed out at the GS level, so basically I need to work another 12 years for another .1%? Sigh. Seems kind of worthless if you ask me, but I have no other plans beyond that so guess I'll just stick it out. Can't complain that I get a pension, but the 1 vs 1.1% doesn't seem like much of an incentive.

But it is to many people. 10% bump for your lifetime (plus your spouse's lifetime) is no chump change. Also, if you retire before 62, you don't get COLA until you turn 62. That loss will last you lifetime too.

NP and maybe. Let's say your pension is $50K per year so the 16% is like $7.5K per year or about $650 per month. In the meantime, 2 years of time at age 60 is probably 10% of your remaining life and likely a much higher percentage of the good active years you have left. Just saying the time you are giving up is worth serious consideration. At least for me with my TSP it won't make a difference but I realize others may have different views.

Yes, I am fully aware. I think anyone who is thinking about retirement goes thru that mental thought process. I also think there are other factors in play too. In my case, my youngest kid will be out of school when I turn 62. So, it makes sense for me to hang on until then. On the other hand, one of my coworkers just retired at 60 due to family history of health issues. Everyone is different. Then people argue about how Special Supplement makes up for the money lost.

[Anonymous]

New poster. I’ll hit 30 years at age 57. If I retire then, what am I giving up? What incentive do I have to wait until age 62?

FYI that I’m 50 now.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:New poster. I’ll hit 30 years at age 57. If I retire then, what am I giving up? What incentive do I have to wait until age 62?

FYI that I’m 50 now.

- 5 years of earning
- 5 years of pension
- 5 years of COLA adjustment
- 10% bump

but you gain SS supplement until you turn 62.