Op here. Thanks everyone for the input, it gives me some food for thought. I'm going to think about it and likely will consult with an attorney to discuss it a little more. I will admit to not having considered so much the long-term benefit of the survivor part so I need to really think about that.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:For those ignorant about survivor benefits… they reduce your pension to give you survivor benefits.

It makes no sense to take survivor benefits.

Huh? You pay a fee to get the survivors benefit. It’s like an insurance plan.

What? No. Electing a survivors benefit reduces your pension:

If you are married, your benefit will be reduced for a survivor benefit, unless your spouse consented to your election of less than a full survivor annuity. If the total of the survivor benefit(s) you elect equals 50% of your benefit, your annuity is reduced by 10%. If the total equals 25%, the reduction is 5%.

https://www.opm.gov/retirement-center/fers-information/computation/

Where are you getting that there’s a fee instead?

Anonymous wrote:For those ignorant about survivor benefits… they reduce your pension to give you survivor benefits.

It makes no sense to take survivor benefits.

Huh? You pay a fee to get the survivors benefit. It’s like an insurance plan.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:For those ignorant about survivor benefits… they reduce your pension to give you survivor benefits.

It makes no sense to take survivor benefits.

This is just dumb

It’s not. Whoever dies first is a loser in the current divorce agreement. And the survivor could come out a really big winner if they outlive their deceased ex-spouse 10+ years or more…abig win that their deceased spouse paid for out of their own pension benefit. If fairness is the goal here, OP’s attempt at modification is correct: each spouse collects their own earned pension until death with no reduction for continuing the pension at 50% for a surviving (ex-)spouse.

Anonymous wrote:For those ignorant about survivor benefits… they reduce your pension to give you survivor benefits.

It makes no sense to take survivor benefits.

This is just dumb

For those ignorant about survivor benefits… they reduce your pension to give you survivor benefits.

It makes no sense to take survivor benefits.

Anonymous wrote:17:42- I agree, I don't think it works how I think it works! It's confusing and especially with us both being feds. I need to find someone here who understands FERS.

I guess what I am imagining happening is- say I retire and my pension is $1000 (just using a round number for clarity).

I retire.
I get $500 per month. He gets my other $500.

If he retires, same.

What if he, or I , retire first? Or die?

I don't know about federal, but for the military pension, we took the annuity so we pay in every month so I can get the benefit if my spouse dies. I get I think half under the surviver benefit plan (and minor kids get something). Otherwise, if he died, I got nothing. When he dies, his ex-wife stops getting his pension as its only a benefit while he is alive (which is absurd given they were married young for ten years but a different issue).

Anonymous wrote:OP here- to be clear, he and I would be happy to BOTH just keep our own pensions.

Nobody is mooching LOL

Talk to a divorce lawyer. You should be able to modify it.