Any other feds struggling to give a damn long enough to hang on until retirement?

[Anonymous]

I’ve got a little over 5 years till I’m eligible. My agency was heavily affected by RIFs and now the people in my small group are picking up the work of about 70 people who were fired. Hoping to eventually move. This doesn’t seem sustainable.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:This is depressing as a taxpayer. Is any valuable work being done at all. This doesn't help the overall look of feds. I know there are areas that desperately need bodies and I know that their are feds busting their butts. This uneven distribution is what bit us in the first place, everyone thinking that they are all lazy because of a slim demographic.

The reasonable valuable work has stopped so because of the administration hellbent on making Feds miserable and telling people nothing gets done.

[Anonymous]

I don’t see the big deal feds medical. When I retire at 67 and wife 65 I just go on Medicare.

Unless you are retiring early at 55 with a spouse without insurance I don’t see big savings.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I don’t see the big deal feds medical. When I retire at 67 and wife 65 I just go on Medicare.

Unless you are retiring early at 55 with a spouse without insurance I don’t see big savings.

FEHB better than Medicare B

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I don’t see the big deal feds medical. When I retire at 67 and wife 65 I just go on Medicare.

Unless you are retiring early at 55 with a spouse without insurance I don’t see big savings.

You are assuming you will remain employed until 67. That may not be up to you.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I’m confused about the “sweet, sweet subsidized healthcare”

Is it really that great?

Wouldn’t it make more financial sense to work another decade in a higher earning job and invest the money?

I feel like government employees have been gaslit about their benefits. Why should you work a miserable low paying job just for 5-10 years of subsidized healthcare??

Oof. You make a great point.

Signed,

Former Fed that is loving VERA health insurance benefits, but admits they aren't worth staying in an unhealthy environment for.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I’m confused about the “sweet, sweet subsidized healthcare”

Is it really that great?

Wouldn’t it make more financial sense to work another decade in a higher earning job and invest the money?

I feel like government employees have been gaslit about their benefits. Why should you work a miserable low paying job just for 5-10 years of subsidized healthcare??

Oof. You make a great point.

Signed,

Former Fed that is loving VERA health insurance benefits, but admits they aren't worth staying in an unhealthy environment for.

It’s a good point if you can make a LOT more money. At least $250k post tax net, to pay for ACA for 55-67. And not get laid off, at prime ageism weakness. And assuming ACA will be there, but I guess FEHB is equally vulnerable?

[Anonymous]

Yes, but I still have 13 years to go . . .

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This is depressing as a taxpayer. Is any valuable work being done at all. This doesn't help the overall look of feds. I know there are areas that desperately need bodies and I know that there are feds busting their butts. This uneven distribution is what bit us in the first place, everyone thinking that they are all lazy because of a slim demographic.

+1
And why do feds have so much better health insurance than the rest of us?

I’m not so sure they do. So many federal workers only know the benefits of other federal workers. A lot of government workers have convinced themselves that they receive fantastic benefits.

I’m married to a private sector employee who has worked for 5-6 employers during my time as a government worker. Every employer has offered perfectly fine insurance. Sometimes it’s a little more than my insurance, but it’s hardly anything so significant that I’d stay a government worker for it.

Can your spouse take it into retirement for themselves and family?

No but they don’t need to. Whether they work for the government or not they will work until Medicare age. Plenty of Fed employees do this.

Yes, and then they use the fed insurance as supplemental insurance if they choose to go with Medicare. Can’t do that with most private employers.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I don’t see the big deal feds medical. When I retire at 67 and wife 65 I just go on Medicare.

Unless you are retiring early at 55 with a spouse without insurance I don’t see big savings.

FEHB better than Medicare B

How so?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I’m confused about the “sweet, sweet subsidized healthcare”

Is it really that great?

Wouldn’t it make more financial sense to work another decade in a higher earning job and invest the money?

I feel like government employees have been gaslit about their benefits. Why should you work a miserable low paying job just for 5-10 years of subsidized healthcare??

No, no matter how much you invest for the nest 3 years, it won't cover the lifetime subsidized healthcare. I assume OP is going to retire before 65.

Plus, you assume a life time government worker who is 50+ can find a job in the private sector.

-private sector employee who is only working for the healthcare because private care is very very very expensive.

True. Fed here retired at 58 with 30 yrs. Wife is 7 yrs younger. The health benefit will save 500-600k over our standard lifetime. Ran numbers with financial planner. If I die earlier then of course spouse just continues on with fed healthcare for life. Good deal for us!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I’m confused about the “sweet, sweet subsidized healthcare”

Is it really that great?

Wouldn’t it make more financial sense to work another decade in a higher earning job and invest the money?

I feel like government employees have been gaslit about their benefits. Why should you work a miserable low paying job just for 5-10 years of subsidized healthcare??

No, no matter how much you invest for the nest 3 years, it won't cover the lifetime subsidized healthcare. I assume OP is going to retire before 65.

Plus, you assume a life time government worker who is 50+ can find a job in the private sector.

-private sector employee who is only working for the healthcare because private care is very very very expensive.

True. Fed here retired at 58 with 30 yrs. Wife is 7 yrs younger. The health benefit will save 500-600k over our standard lifetime. Ran numbers with financial planner. If I die earlier then of course spouse just continues on with fed healthcare for life. Good deal for us!

This isn’t that impressive. Most people I know leaving a government job are earning around 75-100k more each year. You could easily invest just a fraction of it over say, the course of a decade, and end up with more than 500-600k.

What you share further supports my opinion that Fed employees think they have these amazing unique benefits that really aren’t that great.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This is depressing as a taxpayer. Is any valuable work being done at all. This doesn't help the overall look of feds. I know there are areas that desperately need bodies and I know that there are feds busting their butts. This uneven distribution is what bit us in the first place, everyone thinking that they are all lazy because of a slim demographic.

+1
And why do feds have so much better health insurance than the rest of us?

Fed health insurance isn't that great unless by the rest of us you mean someone working at Walmart that doesn't get benefits. Its comparable/slightly worse than what my spouse at a large corporation gets.

But, a lot of feds can retire before 65 and get the subsidized healthcare. Most private sector employees don't get that. They have to wait till 65 to qualify for medicare.

This!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I’m confused about the “sweet, sweet subsidized healthcare”

Is it really that great?

Wouldn’t it make more financial sense to work another decade in a higher earning job and invest the money?

I feel like government employees have been gaslit about their benefits. Why should you work a miserable low paying job just for 5-10 years of subsidized healthcare??

No, no matter how much you invest for the nest 3 years, it won't cover the lifetime subsidized healthcare. I assume OP is going to retire before 65.

Plus, you assume a life time government worker who is 50+ can find a job in the private sector.

-private sector employee who is only working for the healthcare because private care is very very very expensive.

True. Fed here retired at 58 with 30 yrs. Wife is 7 yrs younger. The health benefit will save 500-600k over our standard lifetime. Ran numbers with financial planner. If I die earlier then of course spouse just continues on with fed healthcare for life. Good deal for us!

This isn’t that impressive. Most people I know leaving a government job are earning around 75-100k more each year. You could easily invest just a fraction of it over say, the course of a decade, and end up with more than 500-600k.

What you share further supports my opinion that Fed employees think they have these amazing unique benefits that really aren’t that great.

Was not trying to impress you, just stating facts. 75k-100k more in salary is not impressive especially after taxes, lol. Spouse has been self employed over 20 yrs and always made 370k+. I started independent consulting after fed retirement and clear 280k just at part time work. Both of us fully remote. Also already have enough in stock market and homes.Both of us are trying to wind down as don’t need the $$. Wife is now 56.

[Anonymous]

^^oh, and have the pension of course.😁