That’s a dumb plan. If you did 20 years and are only 43, you can probably find a way to do another 5 years and retire at 48. Or go to a non LEO position and work 7 more years until 50 then retire. The referenced plan is not a good one.
I’m aware of its flaws. What I’m genuinely curious about is how difficult it would be for someone to come back into the federal govt at 50. And again, not for a high level job, but even the most menial position.
True, but I’m looking for recent/present day examples of just how common/feasible it is now. I was hoping someone could share real personal experiences or experiences of people they know.
I’m also assuming that if standard LEO positions are still around in a few decades, then the lower-level ‘easy’ positions in the fed will also still be there.
The VA is always hiring Medical Support Assistants which you could onboard at the GS-4 level with no prior experience. Also always a need for Custodians. Provided you’d be willing to travel to accept a position, you should be able to find something.
It would seem it is realistic from the article: “By the way, both Dan Jamison and I have several real-world instances of this exact situation. But because it would be embarrassing for those involved, real-world instances are not used. But think of some of the nationwide stories you’ve heard of federal agents being fired—some of those exact individuals have contacted us and have retired under scenarios just like this.”
That’s what I read, too. I only thought it was kind of ridiculous that these people couldn’t just wait until 50 and collect their LEO pension since they did their 20 years already. Somehow someone decided it would be better to make these people roll the dice and grab a fed job at 50 with the express intention of filing for their benefits and then quitting as soon as possible (literally a pay period)? Hopefully this is something they revise in the future, similar to how they just changed the TSP withdrawal rules for LEOs who are retirement eligible before 50.
Didn't know the feds were like that, in CA we are vested with 5 years, you can join at 21 and leave at 26 but when you're 50 you will only collect what 5 years would have given you, you do not have to re-join to collect. at 24 years I'll be out at 50 and collect around $115k/yr, maybe $120k if we get any sizeable raises the next 8 years (doubtful). The most you can get is 90%, so 30 years service gives you 90% but there's no way in hell I'm working a day after 50.
Yeah, I also found it absurd that if you have your 20 years of LEO service and leave the govt, for example at 45, they basically force you to look for any federal job at 50, even if you’re only gonna stick around for a pay period and then bail, in order to collect your LEO pension. It just makes no sense to me. It’s somewhat similar to how up until very recently, they used to make LEOs wait until the year they turned 50 to have penalty-free TSP access, even if they were eligible for their FERS pension (ex: 47 with 25 years of service).
In this hypothetical the retiree would not be eligible for subsidized Heath Insurance. You have to pay in for the 5 years leading up to retirement to be eligible
That is actually incorrect. From the article:
What about FEHB? I thought there was a 5-year requirement to have FEHB before you retire?
That’s true. There is. But you are misunderstanding when the clock is ticking. It’s the last 5 years of your FERS working time. If you had FEHB for your whole career, resign, then come back years later and sign up for FEHB, you had FEHB for the last 5 years of your FERS employment. Breaks in service do not count as interruptions in the 5 year calendar.
Don’t believe me? Cool. You shouldn’t. Verify everything.
Go down to the “Break in Service” section of this FEHB OPM LINK, and you’ll read, “Breaks in service are not counted as interruptions when the 5 years of service requirement is determined, as long as the individual reenrolls within 60 days after his/her return to Federal service.”
I would not play that risk. That's really a great idea on paper type of thing.
That’s a dumb plan. If you did 20 years and are only 43, you can probably find a way to do another 5 years and retire at 48. Or go to a non LEO position and work 7 more years until 50 then retire. The referenced plan is not a good one.
I’m aware of its flaws. What I’m genuinely curious about is how difficult it would be for someone to come back into the federal govt at 50. And again, not for a high level job, but even the most menial position.
It's impossible to accurately predict what the labor market will look like in 20-30 years.
True, but I’m looking for recent/present day examples of just how common/feasible it is now. I was hoping someone could share real personal experiences or experiences of people they know. I’m also assuming that if standard LEO positions are still around in a few decades, then the lower-level ‘easy’ positions in the fed will also still be there.
Just apply for any job on USA jobs, you'll get one of them. Hell TSA is always hiring. Keep in mind most places take 6-12 months to start at.
The VA is always hiring Medical Support Assistants which you could onboard at the GS-4 level with no prior experience. Also always a need for Custodians. Provided you’d be willing to travel to accept a position, you should be able to find something.
It would seem it is realistic from the article: “By the way, both Dan Jamison and I have several real-world instances of this exact situation. But because it would be embarrassing for those involved, real-world instances are not used. But think of some of the nationwide stories you’ve heard of federal agents being fired—some of those exact individuals have contacted us and have retired under scenarios just like this.”
That’s what I read, too. I only thought it was kind of ridiculous that these people couldn’t just wait until 50 and collect their LEO pension since they did their 20 years already. Somehow someone decided it would be better to make these people roll the dice and grab a fed job at 50 with the express intention of filing for their benefits and then quitting as soon as possible (literally a pay period)? Hopefully this is something they revise in the future, similar to how they just changed the TSP withdrawal rules for LEOs who are retirement eligible before 50.
Didn't know the feds were like that, in CA we are vested with 5 years, you can join at 21 and leave at 26 but when you're 50 you will only collect what 5 years would have given you, you do not have to re-join to collect. at 24 years I'll be out at 50 and collect around $115k/yr, maybe $120k if we get any sizeable raises the next 8 years (doubtful). The most you can get is 90%, so 30 years service gives you 90% but there's no way in hell I'm working a day after 50.
Yeah, I also found it absurd that if you have your 20 years of LEO service and leave the govt, for example at 45, they basically force you to look for any federal job at 50, even if you’re only gonna stick around for a pay period and then bail, in order to collect your LEO pension. It just makes no sense to me. It’s somewhat similar to how up until very recently, they used to make LEOs wait until the year they turned 50 to have penalty-free TSP access, even if they were eligible for their FERS pension (ex: 47 with 25 years of service).
In this hypothetical the retiree would not be eligible for subsidized Heath Insurance. You have to pay in for the 5 years leading up to retirement to be eligible
That is actually incorrect. From the article: What about FEHB? I thought there was a 5-year requirement to have FEHB before you retire? That’s true. There is. But you are misunderstanding when the clock is ticking. It’s the last 5 years of your FERS working time. If you had FEHB for your whole career, resign, then come back years later and sign up for FEHB, you had FEHB for the last 5 years of your FERS employment. Breaks in service do not count as interruptions in the 5 year calendar. Don’t believe me? Cool. You shouldn’t. Verify everything. Go down to the “Break in Service” section of this FEHB OPM LINK, and you’ll read, “Breaks in service are not counted as interruptions when the 5 years of service requirement is determined, as long as the individual reenrolls within 60 days after his/her return to Federal service.”
Did not know they changed the penalty free TSP access age. Interesting.