Retirement MRA+30

[MJ]

I’m against anytime other than FAA ATC-2152 time counting. If you weren’t actively moving airplanes with the FAA, it shouldn’t count at all.


Not in the discussion, but figured I’d mention them here.
Two other things:
Military hires shouldn’t have to buy back their time. It should be considered a “recruitment bonus” by the FAA and get added onto your retirement when you’re done.

I’ve been told that the union is pushing to move the mandatory retirement age to 57. That way, if you have 30+ years of governmental service and retire at 57, you’ll get 1.7% for every year of ATC with the FAA (you could even further that and include military/DOD time). I’d like to see 30 years, at any age, gets you retirement at 1.7% for every year of ATC.

I’m not following. What does 57 do?

 

[Aa12]

I’m not following. What does 57 do?

MRA +30. Unless you were born before 1964, you aren't able to get to the MRA +30 to receive 1.7% of your salary for every year you worked. Most people, if they want to receive this need to find another job in the government to get their 30 years of service. Otherwise you only get 1.7% for the first 20 years of service then 1% for every year after.

 

[Dontbotherme]

I’m not following. What does 57 do?

MRA with 30+ years of federal service like Aa12 responded.
Example:
Hired at 23
Eligible at 48 (25 any time)= 39%
Retire at 53 (30 years of service)= 44%
Retire at 56 (33 years of service)= 47%

Retire at 57 (34 years of service at 1.7% for ATC) = 57.8%

Based on $150,000 high 3:
Age 48= $58,500
Age 53= $66,000
Age 56= $70,500

Age 57= $86,700

 

[Move78]

MRA+30 as a controller would be a game changer. I guess I always just assumed that 56 was partially a compromise strictly to prevent MRA+30 cuz it's gotta save OPM a preposterous amount on pensions.

 

[Mike Kilo]

While that might be nice, I’m leary of anything to do with moving up the retirement age. 57 now, 65 later. Without being forced out we would lose the social security supplement, 1.7% good time altogether right?

 

[GulfBravoPapa]

While that might be nice, I’m leary of anything to do with moving up the retirement age. 57 now, 65 later. Without being forced out we would lose the social security supplement, 1.7% good time altogether right?

The President wants to take the social security supplement away anyway

 

[Dontbotherme]

While that might be nice, I’m leary of anything to do with moving up the retirement age. 57 now, 65 later. Without being forced out we would lose the social security supplement, 1.7% good time altogether right?

You’d still be forced out, but it would be at 57 instead of 56. Therefore, you would lose the SS supplement (should you choose to take it) for one year in exchange for every year of ATC counting at 1.7% versus only for the first 20 years.

 

[Mike Kilo]

I know they are trying to take the supplement away, but this feels like we are fighting for just that. I see bad things in the future when our own union is trying to push our retirement age out. Yes, it sounds great. But you start people thinking about whether we need mandatory retirement at 56 (or 57), and then you have old timers filing for wavers to work past 56. To the rest of the country it sure looks like we may as well stay till the normal retirement age and take away the good time. Slippery slope.

 

[breakaway2000]

Let's not forget about one important factor when determining MRA+30 vs. your standard retirement. With MRA+30, you do not receive COLA adjustments until you turn 62. OPM will even say they can't tell you for certainty which option will be better for you in the long run.
Taking @Robertb's example above....

Based on $150,000 high 3:
Retired in 2008 at Age 57= $86,700 (with 1.7% MRA+30)
Income at age 62 still = $86,700

Retired in 1999 at Age 48= $58,500

Age 49 Cola = 2.4% = $59,904
Age 50 Cola = 3.5% = $62,000.64
Age 51 Cola = 2.6% = $63,612.66
Age 52 Cola = 1.4% = $64,503.23
Age 53 Cola = 2.1% = $65,857.80
Age 54 Cola = 2.7% = $67,635.96
Age 55 Cola = 4.1% = $70,409.04
Age 56 Cola = 3.3% = $72,732.54
Age 57 Cola = 2.3% = $74,405.38
Age 58 Cola = 5.8% = $78,720.90
Age 59 Cola = 0.0% = $78,720.90
Age 60 Cola = 0.0% = $78,720.90
Age 61 Cola = 3.6% = $81,554.85
Age 62 Cola = 1.7% = $82,941.28

In this example, from 62 onward you're looking at a difference of $3,758.71 per year each year for the rest of your life. Granted, you're subject to COLA variance each year and the potential for a 0% increase, but in the grand scheme of things, MRA+30 isn't as monumental of an increase as it appears on paper.

This example is why I will be retiring the day I'm first eligible. I value those years in my late 40's, early 50's too highly for what could amount to only a modest increase.

 

[MJ]

MRA+30 is minimum retirement age and 30 years of service. We are subject to a maximum retirement age of 56, giving us an exemption to the MRA+30 criteria. For us, at 30 years of good time service, regardless of age, each year is credited at 1.7%.

This is why I said I don't follow what's special about 57... am I not thinking about the same thing?

Edit: all years as a CPC only (not management) are credited at 1.7, anything else is 1.0.
Also the name of the retirement is still MRA+30 even though it’s really not.

edit2: disregard everything i said. see last post.

 

[Mike Kilo]

If you had to spend 29 as a CPC earning 1.7 and decided to do a MSS-1 position until your qualified, would you get 29 at 1.7% and the one or two years staff specialist at 1%? (Current rules).

 

[MJ]

If you had to spend 29 as a CPC earning 1.7 and decided to do a MSS-1 position until your qualified, would you get 29 at 1.7% and the one or two years staff specialist at 1%? (Current rules).

yes

 

[rugbydog11]

MJ... There is an actual MRA that is set by your birth date for OPM/FERS, and has nothing to do with our force out at 56. So to meet the mra30+ you must meet your minimum retirement age on the chart. Which for people born after 1964 is beyond 56. And born after 1970 its 57. This is why you will see tons of older folk near retirement now looking to fill a staff job for like 2 months.


Year of Birth FERS Minimum Retirement Age

Before 1948 55

1948 55 and 2 months

1949 55 and 4 months

1950 55 and 6 months

1951 55 and 8 months

1952 55 and 10 months

1953–1964 56

1965 56 and 2 months

1966 56 and 4 months

1967 56 and 6 months

1968 56 and 8 months

1969 56 and 10 months

1970 and after 57

* Does not apply to CSRS

 

[Dontbotherme]

Let's not forget about one important factor when determined MRA+30 vs. your standard retirement. With MRA+30, you do not receive COLA adjustments until you turn 62. OPM will even say they can't tell you for certainty which option will be better for you in the long run.
Taking @Robertb's example above....

Based on $150,000 high 3:
Retired in 2008 at Age 57= $86,700 (with 1.7% MRA+30)
Income at age 62 still = $86,700

Retired in 1999 at Age 48= $58,500

Age 49 Cola = 2.4% = $59,904
Age 50 Cola = 3.5% = $62,000.64
Age 51 Cola = 2.6% = $63,612.66
Age 52 Cola = 1.4% = $64,503.23
Age 53 Cola = 2.1% = $65,857.80
Age 54 Cola = 2.7% = $67,635.96
Age 55 Cola = 4.1% = $70,409.04
Age 56 Cola = 3.3% = $72,732.54
Age 57 Cola = 2.3% = $74,405.38
Age 58 Cola = 5.8% = $78,720.90
Age 59 Cola = 0.0% = $78,720.90
Age 60 Cola = 0.0% = $78,720.90
Age 61 Cola = 3.6% = $81,554.85
Age 62 Cola = 1.7% = $82,941.28

In this example, from 62 onward you're looking at a difference of $3,758.71 per year each year for the rest of your life. Granted, you're subject to COLA variance each year and the potential for a 0% increase, but in the grand scheme of things, MRA+30 isn't as monumental of an increase as it appears on paper.

This example is why I will be retiring the day I'm first eligible. I value those years in my late 40's, early 50's too highly for what could amount to only a modest increase.

Also, granted you’re at work for those years versus being retired, but you’d...
-be making $150,000 + premium pay for each year
-add another $18,500 and matching $7,500 for each year until age 50. ($52,000)
-add another roughly $224,000 between age 50 and 57 (maxing out, catchup, and matching)

$150K+ a year plus another $276K in TSP contributions (without a return) to be at work and get no COLA from 57 to 62. Then, you’ll make $86,700 for each year from 57 to 62 without touching your TSP or receiving a Social Security supplement. With a life expectancy of roughly 78-80, it’s worth considering...

 

[MJ]

MJ... There is an actual MRA that is set by your birth date for OPM/FERS, and has nothing to do with our force out at 56. So to meet the mra30+ you must meet your minimum retirement age on the chart. Which for people born after 1964 is beyond 56. And born after 1970 its 57. This is why you will see tons of older folk near retirement now looking to fill a staff job for like 2 months.


Year of Birth FERS Minimum Retirement Age

Before 1948 55

1948 55 and 2 months

1949 55 and 4 months

1950 55 and 6 months

1951 55 and 8 months

1952 55 and 10 months

1953–1964 56

1965 56 and 2 months

1966 56 and 4 months

1967 56 and 6 months

1968 56 and 8 months

1969 56 and 10 months

1970 and after 57

* Does not apply to CSRS

disregard. reading is hard. i figured i had to be missing something. here's links for future reference.

Retirement
https://pointsixtyfive.com/files/misc/Special Provisions ATC Vision 100.pdf
https://pointsixtyfive.com/files/misc/ATC Vision 100 FAQs.pdf

 

[rugbydog11]

Also, many management position do still receive 1.7 for good time. Doesn't need to be as an active ATC... ATMs at 7 and belows are getting 1.7 because there is no OM between them and the sups.
Ideal for most people born after 1970 would be to work ATC or sup or anything with 1.7 per good year until 56, then 1 year as an ATM at a 5 6 or 7, or a staff support specialist for 1 year and retire the day after you turn 57. I'm personally planning on punching out the day I am eligible or going to 50 depending on TSP withdraw rules.

 

[Mike Kilo]

yes

So what you are gained by is .7 percent for an extra year, unless the problem you believe is being solved is that people cannot find another federal job to hold them over for a year. It seems like MSS-1 positions, QA etc are filled with the folks that need that extra year that I have noticed.

 

[MJ]

So what you are gained by is .7 percent for an extra year, unless the problem you believe is being solved is that people cannot find another federal job to hold them over for a year. It seems like MSS-1 positions, QA etc are filled with the folks that need that extra year that I have noticed.

yeah, I understood all that. For various reasons, I was of the (incorrect) understanding that all you needed was 30 years, regardless of age, as we were exempt (we are not). So changing 56 > 57 in that scenario would mean nothing.

Thanks for clearing it up.

 

[KevH]

Let's not forget about one important factor when determining MRA+30 vs. your standard retirement. With MRA+30, you do not receive COLA adjustments until you turn 62. OPM will even say they can't tell you for certainty which option will be better for you in the long run.
Taking @Robertb's example above....

Based on $150,000 high 3:
Retired in 2008 at Age 57= $86,700 (with 1.7% MRA+30)
Income at age 62 still = $86,700

Retired in 1999 at Age 48= $58,500

Age 49 Cola = 2.4% = $59,904
Age 50 Cola = 3.5% = $62,000.64
Age 51 Cola = 2.6% = $63,612.66
Age 52 Cola = 1.4% = $64,503.23
Age 53 Cola = 2.1% = $65,857.80
Age 54 Cola = 2.7% = $67,635.96
Age 55 Cola = 4.1% = $70,409.04
Age 56 Cola = 3.3% = $72,732.54
Age 57 Cola = 2.3% = $74,405.38
Age 58 Cola = 5.8% = $78,720.90
Age 59 Cola = 0.0% = $78,720.90
Age 60 Cola = 0.0% = $78,720.90
Age 61 Cola = 3.6% = $81,554.85
Age 62 Cola = 1.7% = $82,941.28

In this example, from 62 onward you're looking at a difference of $3,758.71 per year each year for the rest of your life. Granted, you're subject to COLA variance each year and the potential for a 0% increase, but in the grand scheme of things, MRA+30 isn't as monumental of an increase as it appears on paper.

This example is why I will be retiring the day I'm first eligible. I value those years in my late 40's, early 50's too highly for what could amount to only a modest increase.

You adjusted the pension amounts for COLA but didn't adjust the salary of the controller who continued to work for pay increases. The annual difference in pension between the early retiree and the MRA controller is substantial, much greater than $3,758.71. The early retiree does get the benefit of retiring earlier though, which is pretty sweet.

Edited to add: An example where it can become trickier is retiring at 56 with a smaller pension, SS supplement, and immediate COLA increases vs. 57 with a larger pension but no SS supplement or COLA until 62. Depending on several factors such as size of the supplement and size of COLA increases, the traditional ATC retirement could beat out the MRA retirement.

 

[breakaway2000]

You adjusted the pension amounts for COLA but didn't adjust the salary of the controller who continued to work for pay increases. The annual difference in pension between the early retiree and the MRA controller is substantial, much greater than $3,758.71. The early retiree does get the benefit of retiring earlier though, which is pretty sweet.

Given @Robertb's static example above, it was an assumption of being at the band maximum. Similar to COLA being variable, band increases (increasing band min/max with the Jan raise is one of the many reasons we have a hell of a contract), locality increases, etc are all variable. If you haven't hit band maximum, you're certainly leaving a lot on the table regardless.

In terms of a true static example, I've known a few guys who retired at 30 years with the option of 44% +COLA (1.7% for 20 years, 1.0% for 10) vs 51% + No COLA til 62 (MRA+30) and have chosen 44%+COLA. If you're faced with this exact example, it's a crap shoot. Looking at the data from 1987-2010 and assuming you retired at 56 with this option (6 potential years of COLA), 12 years would've benefited you to select 44%+COLA and 12 years would've benefited you to select 51% (MRA+30).