Anonymous wrote:definitely counting on pensions, not counting on full social security. In fact, as we approach social security eligibility age, wondering whether better to take earlier, for less money, than count on the full benefits at 67 or 70.

if you've retired and aren't getting wage income, then my math is that it's better to just take whatever you're eligible for as soon as you've stopped working. the problem is that if you do continue to work, then your benefit is reduced even further (possibly to nothing) until you reach whatever "full retirement age" is 15 years in the future, or whatever. all depends on how long you think you're going to live past retirement. If all your grandparents made it to their late 90s, and you enjoy your job and aren't laid off, then probably wait. but if several died in their 60s or 70s, well... it would take until I was 75-77 for SS to pay out in larger premiums what I could earn in "reduced" premiums from age 62 on.

my rough assumption is that I'll die around 80, my spouse will have their own social security payment (won't need to leverage mine), and I'd rather have the money sooner if I've decided to stop working. Still on the fence whether i'll want to stop at 62 or 65 though.

Anonymous wrote:definitely counting on pensions, not counting on full social security. In fact, as we approach social security eligibility age, wondering whether better to take earlier, for less money, than count on the full benefits at 67 or 70.

This is how the Republicans do it— they tell everyone not to count on SS so when they cut it people are like “oh yeah but they’ve been talking about it so long it must be justified” instead “eff off you vultures who have stolen government benefits for average people to fund capital gains tax cuts for the wealthy”

definitely counting on pensions, not counting on full social security. In fact, as we approach social security eligibility age, wondering whether better to take earlier, for less money, than count on the full benefits at 67 or 70.

Anonymous wrote:MY BIL company he took a job for less pay as had amazing retirement medical starting 65. She worked there 21 to 62 and they cut it off one day for everyone not already retired. Seems fair. The old people keep it who will slowly did off and stopped adding new people. They should do that for Feds

How is that fair? Your BIL spent 40 years earning less in exchange for that retirement. Someone else could have been retiring the very next week and lost out. Cruel.

MY BIL company he took a job for less pay as had amazing retirement medical starting 65. She worked there 21 to 62 and they cut it off one day for everyone not already retired. Seems fair. The old people keep it who will slowly did off and stopped adding new people. They should do that for Feds

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Question - how do you value your FERS? I don't have an exact number, but say my spouse's last 3 years average out to $220k which equates to $72,600 (33%). What is the total value of that?

What do you need the value for? If you want a number for a net worth pissing competition, assume the value of the annuity is equal to the size of a pot of money that with a 3% annual return would give the same payout. In your case that would be 2.4 M. No one in their right mind would buy the annuity from you for that amount. Further, you would be insane to spend that much money on an annuity of that size. It is, however, the highest number that can be justified in the pissing contest. If you have not guessed, calculating the "value" of an annuity is a stupid exercise.

For retirement planning, treat the annuity like SS. Take you expected expenses in retirement, subtract your estimated SS payment, subtract your estimated pension and whatever expenses that are not covered need to be covered by TSP/IRA/...

What an awful response. Maybe the poster has a number in mind for retirement and wants to see how to include FERS in there. Goodness, some of you people on here need to relax.

I think an easy change would be to cap the high 3/ high 5 salaries at 150k or pin them to the social security cap. Finreg employees are making 100k more than other feds

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I’m counting on it but it’s not that great, at least compared to the old pension by paying 0.8%. My coworkers that started before 2012 or so get a bigger paycheck than me just bc of that

Fun fact Obama increased the required contribution for Fed employees.

Obama did increase to 4.4% contribution from employees but not more since then. There is a significant burden on the Govt to provide pension to all the retirees.

FERS doesn't replace all income and is significantly less generous than the old Civil Service retirement system. It's meant to be combined with SS and TSP / other IRAs.

Anonymous wrote:Question - how do you value your FERS? I don't have an exact number, but say my spouse's last 3 years average out to $220k which equates to $72,600 (33%). What is the total value of that?

What do you need the value for? If you want a number for a net worth pissing competition, assume the value of the annuity is equal to the size of a pot of money that with a 3% annual return would give the same payout. In your case that would be 2.4 M. No one in their right mind would buy the annuity from you for that amount. Further, you would be insane to spend that much money on an annuity of that size. It is, however, the highest number that can be justified in the pissing contest. If you have not guessed, calculating the "value" of an annuity is a stupid exercise.

For retirement planning, treat the annuity like SS. Take you expected expenses in retirement, subtract your estimated SS payment, subtract your estimated pension and whatever expenses that are not covered need to be covered by TSP/IRA/...

Question - how do you value your FERS? I don't have an exact number, but say my spouse's last 3 years average out to $220k which equates to $72,600 (33%). What is the total value of that?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I’m counting on it but it’s not that great, at least compared to the old pension by paying 0.8%. My coworkers that started before 2012 or so get a bigger paycheck than me just bc of that

Fun fact Obama increased the required contribution for Fed employees.

Obama did increase to 4.4% contribution from employees but not more since then. There is a significant burden on the Govt to provide pension to all the retirees.

Anonymous wrote:I’m counting on it but it’s not that great, at least compared to the old pension by paying 0.8%. My coworkers that started before 2012 or so get a bigger paycheck than me just bc of that

Fun fact Obama increased the required contribution for Fed employees.

They are going to go after all kinds of discretionary spending.

It is easy to target FERS than SS and medicare and they would go for the easy one.

The country needs to look at Medicare and SS for savings ...not FERS.

I doubt if FERS would be around if our country continues to take debt like this. FERS is invested in T-bonds and how do you think that would play out?