Welcome Guest! To enable all features please Login or Register.

Notification

Icon
Error

Military


Post your thoughts and opinions here about current military-related news topics.

3 Pages<123
Options
Go to last post Go to first unread
William  
#41 Posted : Wednesday, January 08, 2014 11:56:35 PM(UTC)
MFFJM2

Rank: Newbie

Groups: Registered
Joined: 11/10/2009(UTC)
Posts: 6

Unless you are making a huge salary or getting an exceptionally small retired pay, this is not a good idea. Simply put, FERS employees get 1% for each year, so 20 additional years is an additional 20%. The military gives you 50% of your base pay at 20 years. Using my own case as an example: I receive $3,340. in military retired pay each month. I would need to have as my high three over $200,000/yr just to make up that amount. $200k x .20 = $40k/12 = $3,333/mo

Also you don't keep getting your retired military pay once you do the conversion. It ends forever. However, if you are a reservist, and have completed enough time for reserve retirement, then you can take whatever active time you have and convert that, and you're still going to get your reserve retired pay at age 62.
Pick  
#42 Posted : Thursday, January 09, 2014 12:40:06 AM(UTC)

Rank: Senior Member

Groups: Registered
Joined: 2/6/2010(UTC)
Posts: 2,204

Your military retired pay does not stop when you buy back, it stops at the point you start drawing your civil service retirement. As stated, for many retirees, it doesn't make sense. Folks who took REDUX may want to do a very detailed analysis, as they may realize some added benefit over other military retirees, especially if they are GS13 and above.
edalder  
#43 Posted : Thursday, January 09, 2014 1:46:40 AM(UTC)

Rank: Senior Member

Groups: Registered
Joined: 10/9/2001(UTC)
Posts: 2,267

Thanks: 2 times
Was thanked: 180 time(s) in 155 post(s)
Folks need to do the math on this one. Someone mentioned the FERS supplement. However, the military time is not used in the computation of the supplement, even if you do buy it back. Moreover the supplement ends at age 62.

Most military retirees probably start in Government service in their late thirties or early forties, so they do not qualify for a "full" FERS retirement, including supplement until age 60. The appeal of the buy back is the ability to retire with a "full" retirement earlier than age 60. For most folks, however, that would be, at most, between three and four years (depending upon date of birth). You would need to weigh how much you truly wish to retire at your MRA (to include the supplement) versus what you give up on a long term basis, including the cost of that deposit, the earlier loss of your military retirement pension, etc., when you do retire.

For many folks in FERS, I doubt that this one makes long term financial sense, even if it might mean more monthly money at retirement on a short term basis.

If a civil service military retiree really want to leave at MRA (probably 56 or 57 for most folks these days), that military retirees probably would have enough service time to retire under an MRA + 10 upon reaching MRA. Some might have to work a little longer if they did not start Federal service immediately after retiring from the military so as to reach those ten years.


Kivi
FatHappyCat  
#44 Posted : Thursday, January 09, 2014 2:19:00 AM(UTC)

Rank: Senior Member

Groups: Registered
Joined: 1/9/2011(UTC)
Posts: 380

Thanks: 1 times
Was thanked: 33 time(s) in 26 post(s)
Cause that happens a lot...that E5 retiring then getting an SES.
martyb  
#45 Posted : Thursday, January 09, 2014 10:27:44 AM(UTC)

Rank: Senior Member

Groups: Registered
Joined: 11/3/2006(UTC)
Posts: 3,527

Thanks: 6 times
Was thanked: 14 time(s) in 12 post(s)
MFFJM2 wrote:

However, if you are a reservist, and have completed enough time for reserve retirement, then you can take whatever active time you have and convert that, and you're still going to get your reserve retired pay at age 62.


Age 60martyb2014-01-09 18:34:20
Forum trolls to 0%
Pick  
#46 Posted : Thursday, January 09, 2014 10:33:17 AM(UTC)

Rank: Senior Member

Groups: Registered
Joined: 2/6/2010(UTC)
Posts: 2,204

Or younger with deployment time.
martyb  
#47 Posted : Thursday, January 09, 2014 10:34:54 AM(UTC)

Rank: Senior Member

Groups: Registered
Joined: 11/3/2006(UTC)
Posts: 3,527

Thanks: 6 times
Was thanked: 14 time(s) in 12 post(s)
Pick wrote:
Or younger with deployment time.


True - forgot
Forum trolls to 0%
Not retiring yet  
#48 Posted : Thursday, June 01, 2017 10:03:21 AM(UTC)
Not retiring yet

Rank: Senior Member

Groups: Registered
Joined: 6/23/2010(UTC)
Posts: 538

Thanks: 1 times
Was thanked: 17 time(s) in 17 post(s)
Originally Posted by: IT-Fed Go to Quoted Post
GYSGTJORDAN wrote:
Wow! I had no idea this topic still had legs. I had decided to talk to an experience HR lady here and ask about Special Retirement Supplementunder FERS, as this is another wrinkle to this saga.I must say that yourvery simple break down of the factswere very impressive IT-Fed. Thanks everyone for yourhelp and more importantlyyour service.

Gods Speed.....


Glad to assist. My information is based on years of research and ferreting out facts from fiction.

I just submitted my military deposit. Assuming it's still there (given the latest banter on the hill about potentially doing away with the supplement), being able to retire early (before 60 or later) is important to me. The FERS supplement will be around 60K, so this amount will more than pay for the military deposit.


AMAZING, if this was posted 5 years ago, and talking about the supplement going away, well it is full circle again. Because that is what is in the budget. I was looking for info, and found it here, but, Supplement 60 K Again amazing. Was that a total of annuity? and supplement ? If I could have retired at that figure, it would have been nice.
IT-Fed  
#49 Posted : Friday, June 02, 2017 1:02:10 PM(UTC)
IT-Fed

Rank: Senior Member

Groups: Registered
Joined: 7/23/2010(UTC)
Posts: 267

re: GYSGT Jordan's post (from yesterday)

The $60K was the FERS Supplement alone, based on (then) retiring at my MRA (56) and receiving the supplement for 6 total years. Since I'm still working, the supplement will be much less.

I am closely watching the potential to eliminate the supplement, as well as the proposal to change the "High 3" (to "high 5") years of salary computation and increase contribution amounts to our pension...

These three items will directly influence when I "go."

Edited by user Friday, June 02, 2017 1:04:30 PM(UTC)  | Reason: Not specified

Rss Feed  Atom Feed
Users browsing this topic
Guest
3 Pages<123
Forum Jump  
You cannot post new topics in this forum.
You cannot reply to topics in this forum.
You cannot delete your posts in this forum.
You cannot edit your posts in this forum.
You cannot create polls in this forum.
You cannot vote in polls in this forum.


This page was generated in 0.743 seconds.