Anonymous wrote:I have a pension where the difference between 25 and 30 years is huge. If I retire at 25 I get 2K per month. If I leave at 30 I get almost 4K per month. Since this is for the rest of my life the difference is huge. The pension is structured to reward long term employees.

Anonymous wrote:I have a pension where the difference between 25 and 30 years is huge. If I retire at 25 I get 2K per month. If I leave at 30 I get almost 4K per month. Since this is for the rest of my life the difference is huge. The pension is structured to reward long term employees.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I would like to put some hard numbers on this because some people seem confused.

Let's look at FERS federal pension as an example. Let's say person A retires at 62 with 20 years of service and their salary at retirement (and high-3) is $100k. Their pension benefit (deferred until 62) will be $22k per year.

Person B works another 10 years, retiring at 72 with 30 years of service. Meanwhile, cost of living adjustments have brought their salary up to, say $110k. Their pension benefit will be $36k per year. So the difference will be about $14k per year for working those last 10 years.

That may or may not be "worth it" to someone, depending on their other financial resources, budget, and the value they place on their time. If you also have a 401k, and take social security, the pension at 62/20 years might be "enough" and they can enjoy their 60s in "early" retirement.

There is no one right answer of course. It depends on the individual circumstances.

And of course, other pension systems work differently, further confirming the notion that there is no one "right" answer to when to take your pension.

But person B didn't collect the pension for ten years while person A did. Not worth it.

Right, I should have added, it also depends on how long you think you're going to live. And this was only one example, and the ages and incomes obviously could be changed. The point was only that there is no one-size-fits-all answer. Heuristics like "you should never retire before full pension" are overly simplistic.

I would be surprised if anyone would your scenario of working until 72.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I would like to put some hard numbers on this because some people seem confused.

Let's look at FERS federal pension as an example. Let's say person A retires at 62 with 20 years of service and their salary at retirement (and high-3) is $100k. Their pension benefit (deferred until 62) will be $22k per year.

Person B works another 10 years, retiring at 72 with 30 years of service. Meanwhile, cost of living adjustments have brought their salary up to, say $110k. Their pension benefit will be $36k per year. So the difference will be about $14k per year for working those last 10 years.

That may or may not be "worth it" to someone, depending on their other financial resources, budget, and the value they place on their time. If you also have a 401k, and take social security, the pension at 62/20 years might be "enough" and they can enjoy their 60s in "early" retirement.

There is no one right answer of course. It depends on the individual circumstances.

And of course, other pension systems work differently, further confirming the notion that there is no one "right" answer to when to take your pension.

But person B didn't collect the pension for ten years while person A did. Not worth it.

Right, I should have added, it also depends on how long you think you're going to live. And this was only one example, and the ages and incomes obviously could be changed. The point was only that there is no one-size-fits-all answer. Heuristics like "you should never retire before full pension" are overly simplistic.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I would like to put some hard numbers on this because some people seem confused.

Let's look at FERS federal pension as an example. Let's say person A retires at 62 with 20 years of service and their salary at retirement (and high-3) is $100k. Their pension benefit (deferred until 62) will be $22k per year.

Person B works another 10 years, retiring at 72 with 30 years of service. Meanwhile, cost of living adjustments have brought their salary up to, say $110k. Their pension benefit will be $36k per year. So the difference will be about $14k per year for working those last 10 years.

That may or may not be "worth it" to someone, depending on their other financial resources, budget, and the value they place on their time. If you also have a 401k, and take social security, the pension at 62/20 years might be "enough" and they can enjoy their 60s in "early" retirement.

There is no one right answer of course. It depends on the individual circumstances.

And of course, other pension systems work differently, further confirming the notion that there is no one "right" answer to when to take your pension.

But person B didn't collect the pension for ten years while person A did. Not worth it.

Right, I should have added, it also depends on how long you think you're going to live. And this was only one example, and the ages and incomes obviously could be changed. The point was only that there is no one-size-fits-all answer. Heuristics like "you should never retire before full pension" are overly simplistic.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I would like to put some hard numbers on this because some people seem confused.

Let's look at FERS federal pension as an example. Let's say person A retires at 62 with 20 years of service and their salary at retirement (and high-3) is $100k. Their pension benefit (deferred until 62) will be $22k per year.

Person B works another 10 years, retiring at 72 with 30 years of service. Meanwhile, cost of living adjustments have brought their salary up to, say $110k. Their pension benefit will be $36k per year. So the difference will be about $14k per year for working those last 10 years.

That may or may not be "worth it" to someone, depending on their other financial resources, budget, and the value they place on their time. If you also have a 401k, and take social security, the pension at 62/20 years might be "enough" and they can enjoy their 60s in "early" retirement.

There is no one right answer of course. It depends on the individual circumstances.

And of course, other pension systems work differently, further confirming the notion that there is no one "right" answer to when to take your pension.

But person B didn't collect the pension for ten years while person A did. Not worth it.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:My sister cannot fathom that someone who has a work pension would retire before they get the full amount.
She doesn't get it at all.
For example, most pensionshere in Canada require 30 years before you get the max amount. She cannot get that someone may retire after 20 or 25 years in the plan.
I have a work pension and work part time, I will probably only have 15 years in the pensio and I don't care.
What gives?

What gives OP? You don't want to work until you can get full pension?

Heck no. I have always worked part time. I'm not going to work FT just for a pension.

Most ppl don't have the luxury of having another breadwinner so they can work part-time. Obviously "you" are not the typical pensioner.

Anonymous wrote:I would like to put some hard numbers on this because some people seem confused.

Let's look at FERS federal pension as an example. Let's say person A retires at 62 with 20 years of service and their salary at retirement (and high-3) is $100k. Their pension benefit (deferred until 62) will be $22k per year.

Person B works another 10 years, retiring at 72 with 30 years of service. Meanwhile, cost of living adjustments have brought their salary up to, say $110k. Their pension benefit will be $36k per year. So the difference will be about $14k per year for working those last 10 years.

That may or may not be "worth it" to someone, depending on their other financial resources, budget, and the value they place on their time. If you also have a 401k, and take social security, the pension at 62/20 years might be "enough" and they can enjoy their 60s in "early" retirement.

There is no one right answer of course. It depends on the individual circumstances.

And of course, other pension systems work differently, further confirming the notion that there is no one "right" answer to when to take your pension.