What do you say when people keep on asking you when you plan on retiring?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:In my agency, folks tend to work a long time, so retirement chit chat is more about crowd-sourcing TSP strategies or possibly trying to see if someone has a successful spouse that obviates the need to maximize pension.

The reality is that even for those folks that have 30 years in at 55, 1) they still have to work until 57 for an immediate retirement 2) there are pretty significant pension penalties for retiring before 62 regardless of how many years one has in 3) if someone is at MRA but has less than 30 years in, those penalties (5% for every year one is under 62) are REALLY significant.

There are a bunch of really optimistic folks in say r/govfire, but many of them are not looking to live a DC metro-area lifestyle. ONE of my coworkers will hit 30 years before MRA, but most of my team started around 40 and have about 10 years in (several converted from contractor positions). There are only a handful of position types where folks could retire at 50-55 with a penalty-free pension, and those are mostly law enforcement.

keep plugging away, contribute the max to your TSP, and when folks ask about your retirement plans just smile and tell them you love your job.

The reality of my personal situation is that I'll need to work until at least 62, but probably 65, and that seems par for the course for most of the people I work with. A lot of actual non-feds tend to have a really optimistic idea of what the current pension plan looks like and the rules around them, and hear the stories of say, FBI agents that can retire at 50 and then make big consulting dollars while collecting a pension, but that does not describe the bulk of federal employees.

Wait, if at MRA (57) and you have 30 years, aren't you good? No penalty

The multiplier goes up to 1.1 at age 62. So if your MRA is 57 with 30 years and you retire then you get your average high 3 salary x 30%. If you wait until you're 62 you get your larger average high 3 salary x 35% x1.1, which goes up to 38.5%. If you can hold out until age 62 that can be a big difference in pension income.

But most of that difference is from working five extra years, not the 0.1% difference in the multiplier. The pension will always be larger if you work longer, but at some point you have to accept the trade off between more retirement years versus more pension money.

[Anonymous]

They are just making polite conversation.

[Anonymous]

Bizarre. Nobody ever asks me that. Why can’t you just say a lighthearted “no time soon!” or “who knows?!” and keep things moving. I think some people like to talk about retirement because THEY are looking forward to retiring. Don’t read too much into it, OP.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:In my agency, folks tend to work a long time, so retirement chit chat is more about crowd-sourcing TSP strategies or possibly trying to see if someone has a successful spouse that obviates the need to maximize pension.

The reality is that even for those folks that have 30 years in at 55, 1) they still have to work until 57 for an immediate retirement 2) there are pretty significant pension penalties for retiring before 62 regardless of how many years one has in 3) if someone is at MRA but has less than 30 years in, those penalties (5% for every year one is under 62) are REALLY significant.

There are a bunch of really optimistic folks in say r/govfire, but many of them are not looking to live a DC metro-area lifestyle. ONE of my coworkers will hit 30 years before MRA, but most of my team started around 40 and have about 10 years in (several converted from contractor positions). There are only a handful of position types where folks could retire at 50-55 with a penalty-free pension, and those are mostly law enforcement.

keep plugging away, contribute the max to your TSP, and when folks ask about your retirement plans just smile and tell them you love your job.

The reality of my personal situation is that I'll need to work until at least 62, but probably 65, and that seems par for the course for most of the people I work with. A lot of actual non-feds tend to have a really optimistic idea of what the current pension plan looks like and the rules around them, and hear the stories of say, FBI agents that can retire at 50 and then make big consulting dollars while collecting a pension, but that does not describe the bulk of federal employees.

Wait, if at MRA (57) and you have 30 years, aren't you good? No penalty

The multiplier goes up to 1.1 at age 62. So if your MRA is 57 with 30 years and you retire then you get your average high 3 salary x 30%. If you wait until you're 62 you get your larger average high 3 salary x 35% x1.1, which goes up to 38.5%. If you can hold out until age 62 that can be a big difference in pension income.

But most of that difference is from working five extra years, not the 0.1% difference in the multiplier. The pension will always be larger if you work longer, but at some point you have to accept the trade off between more retirement years versus more pension money.

Two factors 1) the 10% bonus you get at 62, and 2) the fact that you will not receive cost-of-living adjustments until you turn 62.

So a GS-14 who retires at 57, making 166k a year with say 32 years in might have a pension of $54k. That pension will not increase until COLAs apply, for 5 years. Or they could coast along for another 5 years (banking that salary and raises), and have a pension of $72k a year, and get annual cost-of-living increases thereafter.

Maybe you did good and your TSP is 3 mil and so that extra pension money won't be noticed. But for a lot of folks, $18k a year is a lot to leave on the table.

[Anonymous]

I'm 61 and sometimes the question comes up with friends or at work. I lightly shrug it off as I can't imagine giving up paid work for the foreseeable future. I did one of those online calculators with my income, savings, expected expenses and age; it said I've got nine more years ahead of me.

The question bugs some folks more than me, I guess.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:In my agency, folks tend to work a long time, so retirement chit chat is more about crowd-sourcing TSP strategies or possibly trying to see if someone has a successful spouse that obviates the need to maximize pension.

The reality is that even for those folks that have 30 years in at 55, 1) they still have to work until 57 for an immediate retirement 2) there are pretty significant pension penalties for retiring before 62 regardless of how many years one has in 3) if someone is at MRA but has less than 30 years in, those penalties (5% for every year one is under 62) are REALLY significant.

There are a bunch of really optimistic folks in say r/govfire, but many of them are not looking to live a DC metro-area lifestyle. ONE of my coworkers will hit 30 years before MRA, but most of my team started around 40 and have about 10 years in (several converted from contractor positions). There are only a handful of position types where folks could retire at 50-55 with a penalty-free pension, and those are mostly law enforcement.

keep plugging away, contribute the max to your TSP, and when folks ask about your retirement plans just smile and tell them you love your job.

The reality of my personal situation is that I'll need to work until at least 62, but probably 65, and that seems par for the course for most of the people I work with. A lot of actual non-feds tend to have a really optimistic idea of what the current pension plan looks like and the rules around them, and hear the stories of say, FBI agents that can retire at 50 and then make big consulting dollars while collecting a pension, but that does not describe the bulk of federal employees.

Wait, if at MRA (57) and you have 30 years, aren't you good? No penalty

The multiplier goes up to 1.1 at age 62. So if your MRA is 57 with 30 years and you retire then you get your average high 3 salary x 30%. If you wait until you're 62 you get your larger average high 3 salary x 35% x1.1, which goes up to 38.5%. If you can hold out until age 62 that can be a big difference in pension income.

But most of that difference is from working five extra years, not the 0.1% difference in the multiplier. The pension will always be larger if you work longer, but at some point you have to accept the trade off between more retirement years versus more pension money.

Two factors 1) the 10% bonus you get at 62, and 2) the fact that you will not receive cost-of-living adjustments until you turn 62.

So a GS-14 who retires at 57, making 166k a year with say 32 years in might have a pension of $54k. That pension will not increase until COLAs apply, for 5 years. Or they could coast along for another 5 years (banking that salary and raises), and have a pension of $72k a year, and get annual cost-of-living increases thereafter.

Maybe you did good and your TSP is 3 mil and so that extra pension money won't be noticed. But for a lot of folks, $18k a year is a lot to leave on the table.

But you missed my point, which is that most of the difference comes from staying in the workforce and getting the additional years, not the additional 0.1%. But it’s always true that more years (and presumably higher salary) will get you a higher benefit than fewer. It’s not some “penalty” to retire sooner, just a choice for more years of retirement instead of higher benefit. That’s the trade-off I mentioned.

In your example of a person making $166k, at 1% and 32 years they would have a benefit of just over $53k. But someone with the same salary and years at 1.1% gets $58k. It’s not a massive difference.

Instead, the extra benefits come from the additional years and higher salary used in the calculation. But that’s as true for retiring at 67 as 62, and retiring at 72 instead of 67. Each five years in your example would get you an extra ~$9k/year, not even including the higher salary (so probably more like $12-15k in reality). The point is you have to pull the trigger at some point. For some people, including many that I’ve known personally, that was before they turned 62.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Moved to the DC area due to a career change after being laid off in midlife--starting over and plan on working until I qualify for social security (or longer) because of financial reasons. Now that I am working for the feds, coworkers and neighbors and people I meet in the DC area constantly ask me when I am planning to retire!

I tell them the truth--not anytime soon because it will be about 15 years or so before I reach retirement age and have 20 years in. They look at me blankly and ask me the same question the next time they see me. I understand that lots of people here have been feds most of their working lives and that many might be able to afford to retire at 55. It's frustrating to me because I don't necessarily want to work for years, but it is what it is.

It seems like yet another reminder I don't really fit in here, and also makes me so sad at times. Is there anything I can say or do to convince others not to bring this subject up again, once I've covered it once with them?

If a woman asks, ask her when is she expecting. Awkward silence for both of you. I'm sorry people are idiots, OP.

Love this! ~ NP

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Federal employment lawyer here. Your coworkers should not be asking you that. Of course, if it's a collegial conversation and it's coming up naturally, that's one thing. But if they are asking a lot, that's age discrimination. And your division head needs to put the kibosh on that -- not by naming you, but by letting the entire division know that retirement plans are personal.

You must be loads of fun at a dinner party.

Was she supposed to be fun when pointing out age discrimination?

[Anonymous]

That is really weird - I don;t work in the federal government so maybe it's a thing, but I wouldn't even as that of an 80 year old unless they brought it up, and even then, I'd treat lightly

do you look really old? do a bad job? have a coveted job?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:That is really weird - I don;t work in the federal government so maybe it's a thing, but I wouldn't even as that of an 80 year old unless they brought it up, and even then, I'd treat lightly

do you look really old? do a bad job? have a coveted job?

I agree with one of the PPs; it's just someone trying to make conversation

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:That is really weird - I don;t work in the federal government so maybe it's a thing, but I wouldn't even as that of an 80 year old unless they brought it up, and even then, I'd treat lightly

do you look really old? do a bad job? have a coveted job?

I agree with one of the PPs; it's just someone trying to make conversation

Yes, you can probably tell from the context. I’m hoping to retire at 57, early 50s now, not sure about it, might wait until 62 but I have a lot of coworkers who have spouses that make a lot more money so a lot of them are thinking earlier also (my spouse doesn’t have a huge income but we still may be able to swing it). For a lot of us it’s become sort of a casual conversation topic. We don’t hate our jobs and aren’t counting down but as many become empty nesters etc it’s just started to be on our minds.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:In my agency, folks tend to work a long time, so retirement chit chat is more about crowd-sourcing TSP strategies or possibly trying to see if someone has a successful spouse that obviates the need to maximize pension.

The reality is that even for those folks that have 30 years in at 55, 1) they still have to work until 57 for an immediate retirement 2) there are pretty significant pension penalties for retiring before 62 regardless of how many years one has in 3) if someone is at MRA but has less than 30 years in, those penalties (5% for every year one is under 62) are REALLY significant.

There are a bunch of really optimistic folks in say r/govfire, but many of them are not looking to live a DC metro-area lifestyle. ONE of my coworkers will hit 30 years before MRA, but most of my team started around 40 and have about 10 years in (several converted from contractor positions). There are only a handful of position types where folks could retire at 50-55 with a penalty-free pension, and those are mostly law enforcement.

keep plugging away, contribute the max to your TSP, and when folks ask about your retirement plans just smile and tell them you love your job.

The reality of my personal situation is that I'll need to work until at least 62, but probably 65, and that seems par for the course for most of the people I work with. A lot of actual non-feds tend to have a really optimistic idea of what the current pension plan looks like and the rules around them, and hear the stories of say, FBI agents that can retire at 50 and then make big consulting dollars while collecting a pension, but that does not describe the bulk of federal employees.

Wait, if at MRA (57) and you have 30 years, aren't you good? No penalty

The multiplier goes up to 1.1 at age 62. So if your MRA is 57 with 30 years and you retire then you get your average high 3 salary x 30%. If you wait until you're 62 you get your larger average high 3 salary x 35% x1.1, which goes up to 38.5%. If you can hold out until age 62 that can be a big difference in pension income.

But most of that difference is from working five extra years, not the 0.1% difference in the multiplier. The pension will always be larger if you work longer, but at some point you have to accept the trade off between more retirement years versus more pension money.

Two factors 1) the 10% bonus you get at 62, and 2) the fact that you will not receive cost-of-living adjustments until you turn 62.

So a GS-14 who retires at 57, making 166k a year with say 32 years in might have a pension of $54k. That pension will not increase until COLAs apply, for 5 years. Or they could coast along for another 5 years (banking that salary and raises), and have a pension of $72k a year, and get annual cost-of-living increases thereafter.

Maybe you did good and your TSP is 3 mil and so that extra pension money won't be noticed. But for a lot of folks, $18k a year is a lot to leave on the table.

But you missed my point, which is that most of the difference comes from staying in the workforce and getting the additional years, not the additional 0.1%. But it’s always true that more years (and presumably higher salary) will get you a higher benefit than fewer. It’s not some “penalty” to retire sooner, just a choice for more years of retirement instead of higher benefit. That’s the trade-off I mentioned.

In your example of a person making $166k, at 1% and 32 years they would have a benefit of just over $53k. But someone with the same salary and years at 1.1% gets $58k. It’s not a massive difference.

Instead, the extra benefits come from the additional years and higher salary used in the calculation. But that’s as true for retiring at 67 as 62, and retiring at 72 instead of 67. Each five years in your example would get you an extra ~$9k/year, not even including the higher salary (so probably more like $12-15k in reality). The point is you have to pull the trigger at some point. For some people, including many that I’ve known personally, that was before they turned 62.

Different poster but I take your point. If I can afford to retire at my MRA of 57 I will, though without access to the tsp until 59.5 I would need significant additional income. If I’m still in the federal workforce at 60 or 61 I would probably still around until the multiplier kicks in at 62, seems worth it

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:In my agency, folks tend to work a long time, so retirement chit chat is more about crowd-sourcing TSP strategies or possibly trying to see if someone has a successful spouse that obviates the need to maximize pension.

The reality is that even for those folks that have 30 years in at 55, 1) they still have to work until 57 for an immediate retirement 2) there are pretty significant pension penalties for retiring before 62 regardless of how many years one has in 3) if someone is at MRA but has less than 30 years in, those penalties (5% for every year one is under 62) are REALLY significant.

There are a bunch of really optimistic folks in say r/govfire, but many of them are not looking to live a DC metro-area lifestyle. ONE of my coworkers will hit 30 years before MRA, but most of my team started around 40 and have about 10 years in (several converted from contractor positions). There are only a handful of position types where folks could retire at 50-55 with a penalty-free pension, and those are mostly law enforcement.

keep plugging away, contribute the max to your TSP, and when folks ask about your retirement plans just smile and tell them you love your job.

The reality of my personal situation is that I'll need to work until at least 62, but probably 65, and that seems par for the course for most of the people I work with. A lot of actual non-feds tend to have a really optimistic idea of what the current pension plan looks like and the rules around them, and hear the stories of say, FBI agents that can retire at 50 and then make big consulting dollars while collecting a pension, but that does not describe the bulk of federal employees.

Wait, if at MRA (57) and you have 30 years, aren't you good? No penalty

The multiplier goes up to 1.1 at age 62. So if your MRA is 57 with 30 years and you retire then you get your average high 3 salary x 30%. If you wait until you're 62 you get your larger average high 3 salary x 35% x1.1, which goes up to 38.5%. If you can hold out until age 62 that can be a big difference in pension income.

But most of that difference is from working five extra years, not the 0.1% difference in the multiplier. The pension will always be larger if you work longer, but at some point you have to accept the trade off between more retirement years versus more pension money.

Two factors 1) the 10% bonus you get at 62, and 2) the fact that you will not receive cost-of-living adjustments until you turn 62.

So a GS-14 who retires at 57, making 166k a year with say 32 years in might have a pension of $54k. That pension will not increase until COLAs apply, for 5 years. Or they could coast along for another 5 years (banking that salary and raises), and have a pension of $72k a year, and get annual cost-of-living increases thereafter.

Maybe you did good and your TSP is 3 mil and so that extra pension money won't be noticed. But for a lot of folks, $18k a year is a lot to leave on the table.

But you missed my point, which is that most of the difference comes from staying in the workforce and getting the additional years, not the additional 0.1%. But it’s always true that more years (and presumably higher salary) will get you a higher benefit than fewer. It’s not some “penalty” to retire sooner, just a choice for more years of retirement instead of higher benefit. That’s the trade-off I mentioned.

In your example of a person making $166k, at 1% and 32 years they would have a benefit of just over $53k. But someone with the same salary and years at 1.1% gets $58k. It’s not a massive difference.

Instead, the extra benefits come from the additional years and higher salary used in the calculation. But that’s as true for retiring at 67 as 62, and retiring at 72 instead of 67. Each five years in your example would get you an extra ~$9k/year, not even including the higher salary (so probably more like $12-15k in reality). The point is you have to pull the trigger at some point. For some people, including many that I’ve known personally, that was before they turned 62.

calculations are with both higher and additional salaries. at 57, they'd have a benefit of 53k that will not increase for 5 years, and will then increase much more slowly. at 62 with modest wage increases, they'd have a pension of $72k. sure, at 67 they'd have a pension of $86k, BUT if they had taken the pension at 62, they'd at least have a COLA-adjusted pension of $78k. Their identical twin who took the pension at 57 will be trailing along at $58k from their early pension.

Their 5 year older big brother who started work the same year they did and retired at 62 with 32 years of service and the same salary, will have a starting pension of $60k that grows to $73k at 67.

The biggest increase to pension compensation is always going to be at the age 62 inflection point. I mean, if you truly hate your job and can't stand it anymore and have something concrete (and low cost) that you want to do with your time, I guess retire whenever.

[Anonymous]

Forget govt, even in private money doubles ever 7-10 years on average in a 401k and after 50 you get catch up. If you do catch up between 50-65 your 401k will massively grow

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:In my agency, folks tend to work a long time, so retirement chit chat is more about crowd-sourcing TSP strategies or possibly trying to see if someone has a successful spouse that obviates the need to maximize pension.

The reality is that even for those folks that have 30 years in at 55, 1) they still have to work until 57 for an immediate retirement 2) there are pretty significant pension penalties for retiring before 62 regardless of how many years one has in 3) if someone is at MRA but has less than 30 years in, those penalties (5% for every year one is under 62) are REALLY significant.

There are a bunch of really optimistic folks in say r/govfire, but many of them are not looking to live a DC metro-area lifestyle. ONE of my coworkers will hit 30 years before MRA, but most of my team started around 40 and have about 10 years in (several converted from contractor positions). There are only a handful of position types where folks could retire at 50-55 with a penalty-free pension, and those are mostly law enforcement.

keep plugging away, contribute the max to your TSP, and when folks ask about your retirement plans just smile and tell them you love your job.

The reality of my personal situation is that I'll need to work until at least 62, but probably 65, and that seems par for the course for most of the people I work with. A lot of actual non-feds tend to have a really optimistic idea of what the current pension plan looks like and the rules around them, and hear the stories of say, FBI agents that can retire at 50 and then make big consulting dollars while collecting a pension, but that does not describe the bulk of federal employees.

Wait, if at MRA (57) and you have 30 years, aren't you good? No penalty

The multiplier goes up to 1.1 at age 62. So if your MRA is 57 with 30 years and you retire then you get your average high 3 salary x 30%. If you wait until you're 62 you get your larger average high 3 salary x 35% x1.1, which goes up to 38.5%. If you can hold out until age 62 that can be a big difference in pension income.

But most of that difference is from working five extra years, not the 0.1% difference in the multiplier. The pension will always be larger if you work longer, but at some point you have to accept the trade off between more retirement years versus more pension money.

Two factors 1) the 10% bonus you get at 62, and 2) the fact that you will not receive cost-of-living adjustments until you turn 62.

So a GS-14 who retires at 57, making 166k a year with say 32 years in might have a pension of $54k. That pension will not increase until COLAs apply, for 5 years. Or they could coast along for another 5 years (banking that salary and raises), and have a pension of $72k a year, and get annual cost-of-living increases thereafter.

Maybe you did good and your TSP is 3 mil and so that extra pension money won't be noticed. But for a lot of folks, $18k a year is a lot to leave on the table.

But you missed my point, which is that most of the difference comes from staying in the workforce and getting the additional years, not the additional 0.1%. But it’s always true that more years (and presumably higher salary) will get you a higher benefit than fewer. It’s not some “penalty” to retire sooner, just a choice for more years of retirement instead of higher benefit. That’s the trade-off I mentioned.

In your example of a person making $166k, at 1% and 32 years they would have a benefit of just over $53k. But someone with the same salary and years at 1.1% gets $58k. It’s not a massive difference.

Instead, the extra benefits come from the additional years and higher salary used in the calculation. But that’s as true for retiring at 67 as 62, and retiring at 72 instead of 67. Each five years in your example would get you an extra ~$9k/year, not even including the higher salary (so probably more like $12-15k in reality). The point is you have to pull the trigger at some point. For some people, including many that I’ve known personally, that was before they turned 62.

calculations are with both higher and additional salaries. at 57, they'd have a benefit of 53k that will not increase for 5 years, and will then increase much more slowly. at 62 with modest wage increases, they'd have a pension of $72k. sure, at 67 they'd have a pension of $86k, BUT if they had taken the pension at 62, they'd at least have a COLA-adjusted pension of $78k. Their identical twin who took the pension at 57 will be trailing along at $58k from their early pension.

Their 5 year older big brother who started work the same year they did and retired at 62 with 32 years of service and the same salary, will have a starting pension of $60k that grows to $73k at 67.

The biggest increase to pension compensation is always going to be at the age 62 inflection point. I mean, if you truly hate your job and can't stand it anymore and have something concrete (and low cost) that you want to do with your time, I guess retire whenever.

That’s still not a penalty though. The differences in multiplier and COLA are small. The primary driver of the difference in benefit is more years and higher salary. All you’re arguing is that staying longer and at higher salaries gets you a higher benefit. We know.

The point is that everyone has to decide at some point when the trade-off of higher benefit is outweighed by wanting more years of retirement. For lots of GS-14s and 15s who have put in the years, that trade-off hits before 62. Even fairly conservative assumptions of their retirement savings would give them $1.5-2.5m after 30 years. Take a standard 4% rule and the 57 year old has $115-$155k in retirement income between pension and retirement accounts. Add on social security at the relevant age and they bump to anywhere from $150-$200k. And that’s one person. A couple ends up with even more. Most people in that situation are not staying at work an extra five years just to squeeze out another $20k from the pension. But that’s just a decision each person has to make for themselves.

To bring it back to the original post, people may be asking OP when he plans to retire because lots of people in the government retire in their 50s, and have planned for it as such.