|
|
Post by sealaw90 on Dec 10, 2016 23:08:33 GMT -5
An ALJ in my office is one of the 2010 hires who was prior ODAR and went straight to an NHC. They just transferred to my office this summer, not because they didn't like the NHC, but to be closer to family.
As far as attrition, we only have 2 ALJs who are in their late 60's and they do not look to be slowing down anytime soon. As for my dream locale, there are three judges nearing 70, I just hope they hold out until 2018 when I can transfer into one of their hopefully-vacant spots.
|
|
|
|
Post by redryder on Dec 11, 2016 19:39:28 GMT -5
We have talked about judges retiring based on their ages. What we have not considered is their history with government employment. Is the judge covered by civil service or FERS for retirement? If civil service, he has his 30 years plus more then likely. If FERS, it isn't so easy to tell where that judge is on the retirement spectrum. If no prior federal service before his appointment, his Appointment has to be in 1987 to retire in 2017. And then there are the other intangibles as far as the resources one has for retirement. FERS retirement rate is 1 percent per year until you hit the magic 30 when the rate is 1.1 per cent. Was he putting the max into the thrift savings? Or did he have some other retirement plan before he became a judge?
Predicting when sitting judges will retire is no easier than guessing when the agency will next hire and how many.
I was fortunate to come in during the golden years of hiring between 2008 and 2011. Multiple classes every year. But I can also see the end of my career. Sure, I could go out now, but I want that golden thirty-year pin. And the bump in retirement. So I will carry on for a few more years. Then someone can have my seat on the bench. I promise.
|
|
|
|
Post by Pixie on Dec 11, 2016 20:18:04 GMT -5
We have talked about judges retiring based on their ages. What we have not considered is their history with government employment. Is the judge covered by civil service or FERS for retirement? If civil service, he has his 30 years plus more then likely. If FERS, it isn't so easy to tell where that judge is on the retirement spectrum. If no prior federal service before his appointment, his Appointment has to be in 1987 to retire in 2017. And then there are the other intangibles as far as the resources one has for retirement. FERS retirement rate is 1 percent per year until you hit the magic 30 when the rate is 1.1 per cent. Was he putting the max into the thrift savings? Or did he have some other retirement plan before he became a judge? Predicting when sitting judges will retire is no easier than guessing when the agency will next hire and how many. I was fortunate to come in during the golden years of hiring between 2008 and 2011. Multiple classes every year. But I can also see the end of my career. Sure, I could go out now, but I want that golden thirty-year pin. And the bump in retirement. So I will carry on for a few more years. Then someone can have my seat on the bench. I promise. There is also the 1.1% after age 62 and 20 years of credible government service. You don't need 30 years after age 62. Pixie |
|
|
|
Post by zebra51 on Dec 12, 2016 15:24:38 GMT -5
We have talked about judges retiring based on their ages. What we have not considered is their history with government employment. Is the judge covered by civil service or FERS for retirement? If civil service, he has his 30 years plus more then likely. If FERS, it isn't so easy to tell where that judge is on the retirement spectrum. If no prior federal service before his appointment, his Appointment has to be in 1987 to retire in 2017. And then there are the other intangibles as far as the resources one has for retirement. FERS retirement rate is 1 percent per year until you hit the magic 30 when the rate is 1.1 per cent. Was he putting the max into the thrift savings? Or did he have some other retirement plan before he became a judge? Predicting when sitting judges will retire is no easier than guessing when the agency will next hire and how many. I was fortunate to come in during the golden years of hiring between 2008 and 2011. Multiple classes every year. But I can also see the end of my career. Sure, I could go out now, but I want that golden thirty-year pin. And the bump in retirement. So I will carry on for a few more years. Then someone can have my seat on the bench. I promise. There is also the 1.1% after age 62 and 20 years of credible government service. You don't need 30 years after age 62. Pixie Where are you getting 1.1% for 30 years and less that 62 years old. Everything I see on OPM web site says the 1.1% is tied solely to the age of 62. |
|
|
|
Post by jonsnow on Dec 12, 2016 16:08:09 GMT -5
My understanding from looking at my retirement book is that 1.1 is tied only to 62 + 20 years of service.
|
|
|
|
Post by Pixie on Dec 12, 2016 16:23:04 GMT -5
This is from the OPM retirement website: I. Computation of Federal Employees Retirement System (FERS) Benefit Generally, your FERS benefit is 1% of your “high-3” average salary multiplied by your years and months of service. If you were at least age 62 at separation and had at least 20 years of service, your annuity is 1.1% of your “high-3” average salary multiplied by your years and months of service. Here is the link: www.opm.gov/retirement-services/publications-forms/pamphlets/ri90-8.pdf |
|
|
|
Post by Pixie on Dec 12, 2016 16:39:34 GMT -5
There is also the 1.1% after age 62 and 20 years of credible government service. You don't need 30 years after age 62. Pixie Everything I see on OPM web site says the 1.1% is tied solely to the age of 62. Redryder referenced the 30 years in an earlier post. I was pointing out that age 62 and 20 years triggers the 1.1% in FERS. Pixie |
|
|
|
Post by zebra51 on Dec 12, 2016 18:16:43 GMT -5
Where are you getting 1.1% for 30 years and less that 62 years old. Everything I see on OPM web site says the 1.1% is tied solely to the age of 62. Redryder referenced the 30 years in an earlier post. I was pointing out that age 62 and 20 years triggers the 1.1% in FERS. Pixie Redryder's post made it sound like 30 years and any age would get 1.1%. I believe you and I are saying the same thing - that there is a absolute age requirement of 62 to get the 1.1%. |
|
|
|
Post by Pixie on Dec 12, 2016 19:06:44 GMT -5
Redryder referenced the 30 years in an earlier post. I was pointing out that age 62 and 20 years triggers the 1.1% in FERS. Pixie Redryder's post made it sound like 30 years and any age would get 1.1%. I believe you and I are saying the same thing - that there is a absolute age requirement of 62 to get the 1.1%. That's the way I read it. Age 62 and 20 years gets the 1.1%. I first I thought she might be under CSRS and needed 30 years under that plan, but CSRS was eliminated in 1984. Anyone hired after that date would be under FERS. 1984 is more than 30 years ago, so even if she came in at the tail end of CSRS, and that plan required 30 years of credible service, she would have already met that requirement. Pixie |
|
|
|
Post by rp on Dec 13, 2016 9:02:12 GMT -5
Nothing is free the reason for the extra .01 is that if you weight to retire at 62 the fed does not have to pay you the soc sec supplement if you retire with 30 and MRA or 20 at 60. Exactly right! |
|
|
|
Post by bayou on Dec 13, 2016 9:02:33 GMT -5
For all of the grumblings at times about the less than desirable aspects of the ALJ gig, the fact that there are so many sitting ALJs that are eligible for retirement and are choosing to continue to work speaks volumes about the overall desirability of the job.
|
|
|
|
Post by Pixie on Dec 13, 2016 11:14:17 GMT -5
For all of the grumblings at times about the less than desirable aspects of the ALJ gig, the fact that there are so many sitting ALJs that are eligible for retirement and are choosing to continue to work speaks volumes about the overall desirability of the job. Most judges come into this job later in life. While technically they may be eligible for retirement, it may not be a practical consideration until they have accumulated additional years of service. So while I agree it is a good job, many of the older judges are still working, not for the love of the job, but because of financial considerations. For me, as you said, it is a desirable enough job that I will probably continue working beyond the point of financial need. Pixie |
|
|
|
Post by christina on Dec 13, 2016 12:14:36 GMT -5
Most judges come into this job later in life. While technically they may be eligible for retirement, it may not be a practical consideration until they have accumulated additional years of service. So while I agree it is a good job, many of the older judges are still working, not for the love of the job, but because of financial considerations. For me, as you said, it is a desirable enough job that I will probably continue working beyond the point of financial need. Pixie Great observation! Say a 50 year old comes on the job, does 12 years and retires at 62. (170,000x.01) =1700 x # of years (12) then the FERS annuity payment is only $20k a year. If you are living a $170k or even a $100k lifestyle then you have to have significan savings or other pension to be able to retire because social security at 62 may be roughly another $20k! ha and this is what i think redryder was pointing out all along... i too may end up retiring later than my first opportunity to do so and i get that more than i care to.  |
|
|
|
Post by stevil on Dec 13, 2016 15:21:19 GMT -5
You show me anyone who works for Uncle Sam and has kids that they helped put through college in the last 10-years, and I'll show you a Fed who is not going to be retiring at 60 or even 62! Plus, longevity gets you 5-weeks paid vacation to go with those 11 federal Holidays - and you need $$$ if you are going to turn those into first class experiences or fly to visit grown children.
I attended a retirement planning seminar and they pointed out that most people ask the wrong question about retirement. It isn't how much cash you will need, but rather whether you have anything to retire to. I can't golf anymore due to a ruined back, I don't play poker well enough not to bleed too much money, and I'm working too hard to want to pick up a hobby. I might as well keep working and earning so I can afford a lifestyle I've never really had before, even though I am now retirement eligible.
|
|
|
|
Post by jagvet on Dec 13, 2016 15:27:56 GMT -5
You show me anyone who works for Uncle Sam and has kids that they helped put through college in the last 10-years, and I'll show you a Fed who is not going to be retiring at 60 or even 62! Plus, longevity gets you 5-weeks paid vacation to go with those 11 federal Holidays - and you need $$$ if you are going to turn those into first class experiences or fly to visit grown children.
I attended a retirement planning seminar and they pointed out that most people ask the wrong question about retirement. It isn't how much cash you will need, but rather whether you have anything to retire to. I can't golf anymore due to a ruined back, I don't play poker well enough not to bleed too much money, and I'm working too hard to want to pick up a hobby. I might as well keep working and earning so I can afford a lifestyle I've never really had before, even though I am now retirement eligible. , old buddy, how about we get a poker game together? I could use the money to pay to fly and see the kids! |
|
|
|
Post by weisstho on Dec 13, 2016 16:38:07 GMT -5
Great Points.
I tried an early retirement back when it was easy to make money - and I couldn't stand it. Sounds crazy, but it was wayyy too much time. I LOVE the idea of 5-weeks plus 11 days and a regular paycheck offered by Stevil. Now THAT is a wonderful lifestyle option.
|
|
|
|
Post by rp on Dec 13, 2016 19:21:32 GMT -5
You show me anyone who works for Uncle Sam and has kids that they helped put through college in the last 10-years, and I'll show you a Fed who is not going to be retiring at 60 or even 62! Plus, longevity gets you 5-weeks paid vacation to go with those 11 federal Holidays - and you need $$$ if you are going to turn those into first class experiences or fly to visit grown children. I attended a retirement planning seminar and they pointed out that most people ask the wrong question about retirement. It isn't how much cash you will need, but rather whether you have anything to retire to. I can't golf anymore due to a ruined back, I don't play poker well enough not to bleed too much money, and I'm working too hard to want to pick up a hobby. I might as well keep working and earning so I can afford a lifestyle I've never really had before, even though I am now retirement eligible. All good points. For me - I have a beach with my name on it. When I retire - that's where I will be. The kids know the directions! |
|
|
|
Post by frogalj on Dec 13, 2016 19:41:46 GMT -5
I'll still have a kid in college when I am 62. No retirement for me.
I'd just like to have a decent vacation once (twice?) a year.
|
|
|
|
Post by bayou on Dec 13, 2016 22:22:00 GMT -5
You show me anyone who works for Uncle Sam and has kids that they helped put through college in the last 10-years, and I'll show you a Fed who is not going to be retiring at 60 or even 62! Plus, longevity gets you 5-weeks paid vacation to go with those 11 federal Holidays - and you need $$$ if you are going to turn those into first class experiences or fly to visit grown children. I attended a retirement planning seminar and they pointed out that most people ask the wrong question about retirement. It isn't how much cash you will need, but rather whether you have anything to retire to. I can't golf anymore due to a ruined back, I don't play poker well enough not to bleed too much money, and I'm working too hard to want to pick up a hobby. I might as well keep working and earning so I can afford a lifestyle I've never really had before, even though I am now retirement eligible. All good points. For me - I have a beach with my name on it. When I retire - that's where I will be. The kids know the directions! Preach. |
|
|
|
Post by ba on Dec 13, 2016 22:45:18 GMT -5
You show me anyone who works for Uncle Sam and has kids that they helped put through college in the last 10-years, and I'll show you a Fed who is not going to be retiring at 60 or even 62! Plus, longevity gets you 5-weeks paid vacation to go with those 11 federal Holidays - and you need $$$ if you are going to turn those into first class experiences or fly to visit grown children.
I attended a retirement planning seminar and they pointed out that most people ask the wrong question about retirement. It isn't how much cash you will need, but rather whether you have anything to retire to. I can't golf anymore due to a ruined back, I don't play poker well enough not to bleed too much money, and I'm working too hard to want to pick up a hobby. I might as well keep working and earning so I can afford a lifestyle I've never really had before, even though I am now retirement eligible. , old buddy, how about we get a poker game together? I could use the money to pay to fly and see the kids! Can I get in on that action? I'd really love to learn how to play!  |
|
