For the TSP participants - How do your compare?

[Just_Me]

When I first got on this track, someone mentioned the possibility of doing unpaid leave as a trial run. Are you talking about essentially going PT without declaring it as such, or something else? There are a lot of different ways it might be used.

Musing at this point. This is the post that brought it up. And yes, sol, LWOP is how I assumed it would be done.

[zephyr911]

When I first got on this track, someone mentioned the possibility of doing unpaid leave as a trial run. Are you talking about essentially going PT without declaring it as such, or something else? There are a lot of different ways it might be used.

Musing at this point. This is the post that brought it up. And yes, sol, LWOP is how I assumed it would be done.

OK, but on an infrequent basis as opposed to just checking out for long periods.

Here's another one I just heard of: supposedly two people can share one FTE position (??)
I'm doing a developmental this week and next, in another state but within my organization, and my temp boss said they used to have two people who shared a job and coordinated their hours so they added up to 40.

[Yaeger]

Alright, I'm in the 2nd bracket at 33 in the military. I've only been using TSP for 5 years though so I feel like I'm doing pretty good. I'm contributing the max to it every year and will continue to do so. My taxable account is growing at a faster rate though.

TSP is just my 60+ retirement account, my taxable will be my 40-60 burn account once I retire from the military in about 8 years. Can't wait.

I'd like to echo what a lot of people here said in that it's stunning how many people, especially in the military, don't start saving when they're young. I'm all for these new military retirement reforms rolling out in 2018.

[Travis]

Also looking forward to the military's contribution match in 2018 (although I guess I should only get about 2 years of the benefit).

Ditto.  I'm about the same timeline as you.  Frustrating that I missed out on all of the matching that I wish had been there in the first place.  At least the future guys will get something out of it.

Yeah, I am curious how they're going to treat people who are already in the military when the change happens. They are supposed to start matching at the 3 yr point (I also saw that they were trying to push this out to the 5 yr point). Does our time in service count and will we see matching contributions immediately?

If you entered before 1-Jan-2006 you have to remain with the 20 year cliff vesting. If you joined 2006-2018, you get to choose which system to cleave to. I'm sure you'll do this already, but really look at the math, especially if you see yourself sticking the 20. I joined in 2007, so I could choose the new system, but the multiplier isn't as sweet and I would only have a decade of matching. I'll be sticking with the 20 year pension.

I'm in a niche spot that makes me nervous.  I was commissioned in 2003 so I'm on the 20 year plan, but I'll be eligible for O-5 after the TERA authority expires so if I'm passed over (currently 50% promotion rate) I won't qualify for the prorated retirement.

[mdharmandm]

Also looking forward to the military's contribution match in 2018 (although I guess I should only get about 2 years of the benefit).

Ditto.  I'm about the same timeline as you.  Frustrating that I missed out on all of the matching that I wish had been there in the first place.  At least the future guys will get something out of it.

Yeah, I am curious how they're going to treat people who are already in the military when the change happens. They are supposed to start matching at the 3 yr point (I also saw that they were trying to push this out to the 5 yr point). Does our time in service count and will we see matching contributions immediately?

If you entered before 1-Jan-2006 you have to remain with the 20 year cliff vesting. If you joined 2006-2018, you get to choose which system to cleave to. I'm sure you'll do this already, but really look at the math, especially if you see yourself sticking the 20. I joined in 2007, so I could choose the new system, but the multiplier isn't as sweet and I would only have a decade of matching. I'll be sticking with the 20 year pension.

Yeah I get how they are splitting up old/new system according to the period you joined the military. My main concern was how they are going treat people who are already in the service with respect to vesting. My current contract will take me to just over 10yrs and I don't have any intentions to stay past that (I have said this before and still somehow talked myself into signing on the dotted line), so it would be foolish for me to not go to the new system. My concern was the government wasn't going to count us as vested until we also reach the 3 yr point under the new system. Or would we would be vested immediately (and have matching) based on already having more than 3 yrs of service?  My contract would take me out to April 2020, so a little over 2 yrs after they make the change.

[Sailor Sam]

If you entered before 1-Jan-2006 you have to remain with the 20 year cliff vesting. If you joined 2006-2018, you get to choose which system to cleave to. I'm sure you'll do this already, but really look at the math, especially if you see yourself sticking the 20. I joined in 2007, so I could choose the new system, but the multiplier isn't as sweet and I would only have a decade of matching. I'll be sticking with the 20 year pension.

Yeah I get how they are splitting up old/new system according to the period you joined the military. My main concern was how they are going treat people who are already in the service with respect to vesting. My current contract will take me to just over 10yrs and I don't have any intentions to stay past that (I have said this before and still somehow talked myself into signing on the dotted line), so it would be foolish for me to not go to the new system. My concern was the government wasn't going to count us as vested until we also reach the 3 yr point under the new system. Or would we would be vested immediately (and have matching) based on already having more than 3 yrs of service?  My contract would take me out to April 2020, so a little over 2 yrs after they make the change.

Yeah, I missed the original intent of your question. Sorry 'bout that.

I went hunting for an answer, and I realized that your question is a damn good one. I read a couple articles saying the vesting period for the automatic 1% would be 2 years of service, but no mention if time already served counts towards vesting.

The articles made it sound like the 5% matching was automatically vested. But I freely admit I'm getting my info from internet articles, and not an official circular.

I guess we'll just have to wait for things to become clearer?

[Just_Me]

I've thought about leaving federal service to retire early, then returning at age 54 to work until 57 (my minimum retirement age). That way, my high three would "catch up" with inflation (assuming my high three would be those last three years) and it would help counteract the effect of the intervening years eating away at the FERS pension from inflation. Anyone know of anyone that has done this?

You could,  but I'm pretty sure for FEHB you need 5 years of continuous coverage prior to retirement to continue those benefits.

You also would need to be competitive after leaving work to be hired at those higher grades to get the high three.

[doggyfizzle]

I've thought about leaving federal service to retire early, then returning at age 54 to work until 57 (my minimum retirement age). That way, my high three would "catch up" with inflation (assuming my high three would be those last three years) and it would help counteract the effect of the intervening years eating away at the FERS pension from inflation. Anyone know of anyone that has done this?

You could,  but I'm pretty sure for FEHB you need 5 years of continuous coverage prior to retirement to continue those benefits.

You also would need to be competitive after leaving work to be hired at those higher grades to get the high three.

This, plus you need to see if you'll have enough years of service to receive an unreduced annuity (if you only reach MRA+10 for example you get a reduced FERS annuity by 5% a year for each year of age under 62).  I'd also suggest that the social security offset payment that complemented your FERS annuity that is paid until you reach 62 if you go at 57 is quite valuable.

As far as the OP: I'm 31.5 with a bit more than $200k in my TSP, 5 years as a fed, with 5 years of industry experience before that with access to a mediocre 401k plan (at best).  Besides some of the plans I've seen at Conoco and Chevron, the TSP is just about the best plan in terms of low fees and decent employer contribution.

[abhe8]

That's good to know. This is the first job I've had with a 401k option, so I didn't really know if TSP is a good deal or not.

[wenchsenior]

TSP is one of the best retirement vehicles going. I remember a couple years ago, Marco Rubio was sensibly proposing opening it up to the general public as their 401k option, which I thought was a very good idea given the spotty offering/quality of private 401k plans.

[jexy103]

I feel pretty good about where DH and I sit- we're each in the second bracket with less than 9 years participation each. I did four years AD; I contributed 10% the entire time, thinking at the time that I was being smart (found MMM the year I got out). When I left AD in 2012, its value was around $8K or $9K, and it has peaked at over $14K (just under that now). Right after leaving AD, I became a FERS GS civilian; after 3.5 years of federal service with continual 5% match, my civilian TSP is now just over $50K (and about $66K combined), so, yay- second bracket! :-) DH has almost 9 years of AD in, and his TSP balance is a just a bit higher than my civilian account. 2014 was the first year either of us maxed out our TSPs (and we have both maxed out 2014 and 2015). We're both 31.

[dude]

I've been really fortunate, and fairly serendipitously, that I started my job at 32, and in a LEO position.  This makes a 20-year career possible with an immediate pension benefit (and FEHB) upon retirement, AND, with the new LEO rules for TSP, makes penalty-free withdrawals available to me as soon as I retire as well -- at just shy of 54, because I screwed up and wound up with 2 years of non-LEO time, so I have to do 22 years; but with my military buy-back, I'll go out with 42% of my High-3. But with that pension, a robust  TSP account, and SS down the road, I've got a pretty gold-plated retirement ahead (assuming one of the current nutjobs vying for the POTUS position doesn't burn it all to the ground).

[fattest_foot]

I ran the numbers on buying back my ~6yrs active duty, and I couldn't justify it. The same $$ dumped into real estate in my 30s will add more to my income in my 40s than the buyback would at any age.

I did the same (also with 6 years active duty) and found that it wasn't worth it. In the grand scheme the buyback is a small amount, but the actual annuity it provides isn't worth it. Worse, the earlier I retire, the more inflation erodes my top 3 making it an even worse deal.

[tiger002]

I'm easily in the lowest bracket, but considering I've been with the Fed less than a year, that's not a bad thing.

[zephyr911]

I did the same (also with 6 years active duty) and found that it wasn't worth it. In the grand scheme the buyback is a small amount, but the actual annuity it provides isn't worth it. Worse, the earlier I retire, the more inflation erodes my top 3 making it an even worse deal.

I know people who it worked out for, or so they say.
Were you an E or an O? My number was not a small amount, especially for pre-MMM me. IIRC, it would have been $14K+ in 2011 to add a few hundred bucks 30 years later.
By comparison, $20K invested in rentals from 2014-2016 will be spitting out at least a grand a month, in just 5 years. Yes, I realize there's time and effort involved there... I have those things to give, and I do so gladly. FERS is great for career types, but I always knew I wasn't. It's only by chance that I'll make 5 years, which at least provides extra beer money someday.

[DoubleDown]

Hey, I'm the guy in the article that has the $4.7 million! I felt pretty good about being the top person, but then the end of the article mentioned that kid Richie Rich has an estimated net worth of $17 billion and I didn't feel so special.

In the land of reality, I'm in the $500 - 750k bracket (97th percentile); I retired at age 47 after 18 years of federal service (and used the LWOP loophole as part of my exit strategy).

@Dude: Thanks for posting the article. I'm personally not worried about inflation ravaging my high-3 calculation too much, especially with the lame (non)-raises that have been given to Feds in recent years and will likely continue. It is something people should look into before deciding to leave, as you said, but that concern was not enough to keep my working unnecessarily for another 9+ years. Given that in your case you can leave with full benefits after just a few more years and at a younger MRA, I understand your sticking it out a little while longer.

[zephyr911]

I retired at age 47 after 18 years of federal service (and used the LWOP loophole as part of my exit strategy).

Can you describe in more detail what you did with LWOP?

It really might help me with my eventual transition.

[kendallf]

I'm in the upper end of the 3rd bracket, 23 years and a fair number of stupid money moves behind me. 

I've taken loans to buy property and a house, which can be viewed as either diversification or stupidity, depending on your viewpoint.  Bought 10 acres in late 2006, probably the worst financial move I've made.  It's still worth some small fraction of the purchase price, ten years later.

You know what though? It's survivable, and my savings rate now will have us very comfortable if I stay to MRA (6 years).

[onehair]

I am in the below $50k bracket $15531 at my last look online.  I have been guilty of not maxing out and I took a loan from the TSP (please no facepunches I needed it at the time) to help my son through his illness a few years ago.  I am now increasing my contributions I should have been putting more in over the years.  The loan is a quarter paid off and I plan on increasing my contributions again soon.

[zephyr911]

Nothing wrong with TSP loans in my book, as long as you have a plan to pay 'em off, and execute it well. I've used them several times.

[sol]

Nothing wrong with TSP loans in my book, as long as you have a plan to pay 'em off, and execute it well. I've used them several times.

One downside of TSP loans is that they then restrict your eventual withdrawal options, from two events to one.  Which maybe isn't a problem for most people, but I'm planning on doing Roth IRA pipeline rollovers so having both of my withdrawal events available to me could potentially save me thousands of dollars.

[zephyr911]

One downside of TSP loans is that they then restrict your eventual withdrawal options, from two events to one.

I'm not sure I understand this. Can you elaborate?

Which maybe isn't a problem for most people, but I'm planning on doing Roth IRA pipeline rollovers so having both of my withdrawal events available to me could potentially save me thousands of dollars.

Pretend I'm totally ignorant of the process and spell this out for me.
Does a history of TSP loans prevent you from doing this even if they have been paid back? Or is it just having them outstanding @ time of separation that does it?

[wenchsenior]

One downside of TSP loans is that they then restrict your eventual withdrawal options, from two events to one.

I'm not sure I understand this. Can you elaborate?

Which maybe isn't a problem for most people, but I'm planning on doing Roth IRA pipeline rollovers so having both of my withdrawal events available to me could potentially save me thousands of dollars.

Pretend I'm totally ignorant of the process and spell this out for me.
Does a history of TSP loans prevent you from doing this even if they have been paid back? Or is it just having them outstanding @ time of separation that does it?

I am also interested. Not sure we'll ever utilize the Roth pipeline, but we did take out on small loan against our TSP many years ago (long paid back now, and stupid, I know), and I didn't even know about rollovers back then.

[mgnhrvth]

I'm at $87K - 8.5 years in.

Still Active Duty - this will be the first year I max out, very excited!

[kimmarg]

Over 100k with 7 years in and contributing the maximum this year (finally  - thank you MMM).

about the same. just over $100k at 7 years.

[sol]

One downside of TSP loans is that they then restrict your eventual withdrawal options, from two events to one.

I'm not sure I understand this. Can you elaborate?

I was mistaken.  It's having done an in-service withdrawal, not a TSP loan, that restricts your eventual withdrawal options.

All of the details are in the pamphlet but the gist of it is that TSP participants can take a full withdrawal or two partial withdrawals (with the second one being a "full" withdrawal of whatever is left after the first withdrawal).  Each withdrawal can be divided up into any combination of an immediate lump sum payment, a variety of monthly distributions, or an annuity purchase.  If you only have one withdrawal even available to you, then your TSP account is closed as soon as you do it and you can never use the TSP again.  If you have two, you could do two equal ones or one nearly full withdrawal and leave $100 behind, to give you the option to invest in the TSP in the future.  As long as you have an account, you can invest in any of the TSP funds.

Pretend I'm totally ignorant of the process and spell this out for me.
Does a history of TSP loans prevent you from doing this even if they have been paid back? Or is it just having them outstanding @ time of separation that does it?

You need the Roth pipeline method spelled out?  Lots of threads on that topic:
http://forum.mrmoneymustache.com/investor-alley/how-to-withdraw-funds-from-your-ira-and-401k-without-penalty-before-age-59-5/
http://forum.mrmoneymustache.com/investor-alley/traditional-ira-to-roth-conversion-ladder/
http://forum.mrmoneymustache.com/ask-a-mustachian/i-don't-get-the-roth-ira-ladder/
http://www.mrmoneymustache.com/2011/11/11/how-much-is-too-much-in-your-401k/

Having an outstanding loan at the time of separation sucks.  That prevents you from accessing any of your TSP funds until the loan is repaid.  But it doesn't change your withdrawal options, once the loan is repaid.

My general plan, since we have two TSP accounts, is to roll over portions to a tradional IRA (a tax free event, since they are the same type of account) and then make the yearly rollovers from the trad IRA into the Roth IRA to fund the Roth pipeline while staying under the minimum tax bracket. 

[zephyr911]

I was mistaken.  It's having done an in-service withdrawal, not a TSP loan, that restricts your eventual withdrawal options.

Ah, OK. Good to go.

I'm good on the Roth conversion process and plan to use it as well. Under my current plan, I'll have a long period of time to spread the conversions out.

[dude]

One downside of TSP loans is that they then restrict your eventual withdrawal options, from two events to one.

I'm not sure I understand this. Can you elaborate?

I was mistaken.  It's having done an in-service withdrawal, not a TSP loan, that restricts your eventual withdrawal options.

All of the details are in the pamphlet but the gist of it is that TSP participants can take a full withdrawal or two partial withdrawals (with the second one being a "full" withdrawal of whatever is left after the first withdrawal).  Each withdrawal can be divided up into any combination of an immediate lump sum payment, a variety of monthly distributions, or an annuity purchase.  If you only have one withdrawal even available to you, then your TSP account is closed as soon as you do it and you can never use the TSP again.  If you have two, you could do two equal ones or one nearly full withdrawal and leave $100 behind, to give you the option to invest in the TSP in the future.  As long as you have an account, you can invest in any of the TSP funds.

Pretend I'm totally ignorant of the process and spell this out for me.
Does a history of TSP loans prevent you from doing this even if they have been paid back? Or is it just having them outstanding @ time of separation that does it?

You need the Roth pipeline method spelled out?  Lots of threads on that topic:
http://forum.mrmoneymustache.com/investor-alley/how-to-withdraw-funds-from-your-ira-and-401k-without-penalty-before-age-59-5/
http://forum.mrmoneymustache.com/investor-alley/traditional-ira-to-roth-conversion-ladder/
http://forum.mrmoneymustache.com/ask-a-mustachian/i-don't-get-the-roth-ira-ladder/
http://www.mrmoneymustache.com/2011/11/11/how-much-is-too-much-in-your-401k/

Having an outstanding loan at the time of separation sucks.  That prevents you from accessing any of your TSP funds until the loan is repaid.  But it doesn't change your withdrawal options, once the loan is repaid.

My general plan, since we have two TSP accounts, is to roll over portions to a tradional IRA (a tax free event, since they are the same type of account) and then make the yearly rollovers from the trad IRA into the Roth IRA to fund the Roth pipeline while staying under the minimum tax bracket.

In addition, any unpaid balance on an outstanding loan at separation is taxed as regular income.

As for the limited withdrawal options, the FRTIB has proposed changes, which it seems only a matter of time before they happen.  Here's a good article outlining the proposed changes:

http://www.fedsmith.com/2015/07/28/expanding-withdrawal-options-in-the-tsp/

What I'd really like to see is a mechanism for designating which specific funds to pull withdrawals from, so that one could withdraw solely from G & F Funds during market downturns, and from stock funds during up markets.

[zephyr911]

Eh... anything I don't convert to Roth in year 1 is probably rolling to tIRA so I doubt it'll affect me.

[DoubleDown]

I retired at age 47 after 18 years of federal service (and used the LWOP loophole as part of my exit strategy).

Can you describe in more detail what you did with LWOP?

It really might help me with my eventual transition.

I took one year of LWOP before FIRE'ing for good. I used the year as a trial run to see if I really wanted to make FIRE permanent, to see if spending and finances would pan out as expected, and to see if I enjoyed the time off. For me it really cemented the decision to quit. I did go back after the year was up for a few months just to get my career properly wrapped up and to make sure I had done everything necessary to leave for good.

As I think was already mentioned, one nice benefit of LWOP is that you get up to 6 months of credit towards retirement. So, for example in my case, I worked 18 years as a Fed, but I get credit for 18.5 years.

[zephyr911]

I took one year of LWOP before FIRE'ing for good. I used the year as a trial run to see if I really wanted to make FIRE permanent, to see if spending and finances would pan out as expected, and to see if I enjoyed the time off. For me it really cemented the decision to quit. I did go back after the year was up for a few months just to get my career properly wrapped up and to make sure I had done everything necessary to leave for good.

As I think was already mentioned, one nice benefit of LWOP is that you get up to 6 months of credit towards retirement. So, for example in my case, I worked 18 years as a Fed, but I get credit for 18.5 years.

Ah, gotcha. I have to learn more about how this works.
Does your agency have any say in that? Do they have to approve it, or can you just announce it? And does it hurt them at all? Honestly, I really like my boss and co-workers... I'm assuming there is a way to hire a temp to cover a long-term LWOP, but I'd actually think twice about it if there weren't.
I'm also thinking about asking to go PT just to wind down gradually, but there are pros and cons there too.

[sol]

Does your agency have any say in that? Do they have to approve it, or can you just announce it? And does it hurt them at all? Honestly, I really like my boss and co-workers... I'm assuming there is a way to hire a temp to cover a long-term LWOP, but I'd actually think twice about it if there weren't.
I'm also thinking about asking to go PT just to wind down gradually, but there are pros and cons there too.

I'm pretty sure LWOP is a privilege they can grant or deny, not a right you get to exercise.

[Roman]

Hoping to hit 200k this year, my 11th. I've maxed the last three years and only contributed enough to get matched the years before that. CSI funds.

[danielobvt]

TSP is one of the best retirement vehicles going. I remember a couple years ago, Marco Rubio was sensibly proposing opening it up to the general public as their 401k option, which I thought was a very good idea given the spotty offering/quality of private 401k plans.

I agree that it is a great plan. The irony is that it is only open to those us (I am a 15yr Fed, 410k) who are already are in a defined benefit plan (FERS/CSRS/Military).

[dude]

TSP is one of the best retirement vehicles going. I remember a couple years ago, Marco Rubio was sensibly proposing opening it up to the general public as their 401k option, which I thought was a very good idea given the spotty offering/quality of private 401k plans.

I agree that it is a great plan. The irony is that it is only open to those us (I am a 15yr Fed, 410k) who are already are in a defined benefit plan (FERS/CSRS/Military).

My guess is in the next 10-15 years, the Feds will no longer have a defined benefit plan.  There have already been calls to do away with it.  I think it's inevitable that it goes away.  What takes its place is anyone's guess.  Which is sad, really, because the FERS system should be the model for the whole country.  It is the best three-legged system to date.  The pension is decent, but not overly generous, a fair amount of the burden of retirement saving is placed on the employee, and Social Security taxes are paid.

[wenchsenior]

TSP is one of the best retirement vehicles going. I remember a couple years ago, Marco Rubio was sensibly proposing opening it up to the general public as their 401k option, which I thought was a very good idea given the spotty offering/quality of private 401k plans.

I agree that it is a great plan. The irony is that it is only open to those us (I am a 15yr Fed, 410k) who are already are in a defined benefit plan (FERS/CSRS/Military).

My guess is in the next 10-15 years, the Feds will no longer have a defined benefit plan.  There have already been calls to do away with it.  I think it's inevitable that it goes away.  What takes its place is anyone's guess.  Which is sad, really, because the FERS system should be the model for the whole country.  It is the best three-legged system to date.  The pension is decent, but not overly generous, a fair amount of the burden of retirement saving is placed on the employee, and Social Security taxes are paid.

Maybe, but I listen to Federal News Radio sometimes, and the 'old timers' that are interviewed on that station always mention that the talk we have been hearing about raising pension contributions, going to high five salary to calculate it, changing vesting rules, going to chained CPI for the annual adjustment, etc etc etc has been EXACTLY the same since the early 1980s. The chatter spikes every few years (usually when there is a Dem president and a Republican Congress) and then dies down. So far the only thing that has happened since 83 is that new hires pay a higher percent into their pension (I'd be ok with the rest of us doing this too, as long as they stepped it in gradually). Anything can happen, but I kind of doubt the pension will disappear completely.

[sol]

etc has been EXACTLY the same since the early 1980s. The chatter spikes every few years (usually when there is a Dem president and a Republican Congress) and then dies down. So far the only thing that has happened since 83 is that new hires pay a higher percent into their pension

I'd argue that the switch from CSRS to FERS accomplished 95% of the what the Republicans wanted to do to strip federal employees of their retirement protections, the recent changes to pension contributions for new hires accomplishes about 2% more, and three years of pay freezes followed by three years of 1% raises has done more harm to benefit calculations than switching to a high-5 system every could.  There's not much left to take at this point. 

[dude]

TSP is one of the best retirement vehicles going. I remember a couple years ago, Marco Rubio was sensibly proposing opening it up to the general public as their 401k option, which I thought was a very good idea given the spotty offering/quality of private 401k plans.

I agree that it is a great plan. The irony is that it is only open to those us (I am a 15yr Fed, 410k) who are already are in a defined benefit plan (FERS/CSRS/Military).

My guess is in the next 10-15 years, the Feds will no longer have a defined benefit plan.  There have already been calls to do away with it.  I think it's inevitable that it goes away.  What takes its place is anyone's guess.  Which is sad, really, because the FERS system should be the model for the whole country.  It is the best three-legged system to date.  The pension is decent, but not overly generous, a fair amount of the burden of retirement saving is placed on the employee, and Social Security taxes are paid.

Maybe, but I listen to Federal News Radio sometimes, and the 'old timers' that are interviewed on that station always mention that the talk we have been hearing about raising pension contributions, going to high five salary to calculate it, changing vesting rules, going to chained CPI for the annual adjustment, etc etc etc has been EXACTLY the same since the early 1980s. The chatter spikes every few years (usually when there is a Dem president and a Republican Congress) and then dies down. So far the only thing that has happened since 83 is that new hires pay a higher percent into their pension (I'd be ok with the rest of us doing this too, as long as they stepped it in gradually). Anything can happen, but I kind of doubt the pension will disappear completely.

The world has changed a lot since the 1980s -- back then something like 60+% or workers had pensions.  Now, it's down to less than 20%.  Voters/taxpayers who themselves can no longer secure these benefits for themselves are not going to stand for supporting a minority of people who do.  It's just human nature for people to hate on other people and want to tear them down.  We Feds have had huge targets on our backs for the last 10 years or more, and I don't see that changing in the future.

[CheapskateWife]

TSP is one of the best retirement vehicles going. I remember a couple years ago, Marco Rubio was sensibly proposing opening it up to the general public as their 401k option, which I thought was a very good idea given the spotty offering/quality of private 401k plans.

I agree that it is a great plan. The irony is that it is only open to those us (I am a 15yr Fed, 410k) who are already are in a defined benefit plan (FERS/CSRS/Military).

My guess is in the next 10-15 years, the Feds will no longer have a defined benefit plan.  There have already been calls to do away with it.  I think it's inevitable that it goes away.  What takes its place is anyone's guess.  Which is sad, really, because the FERS system should be the model for the whole country.  It is the best three-legged system to date.  The pension is decent, but not overly generous, a fair amount of the burden of retirement saving is placed on the employee, and Social Security taxes are paid.

I really appreciate the burden being on me to save and plan ahead...If I were under CSRS, I couldn't consider deferred retirement in 2 years (at the ripe old age of 42)and would feel chained to that pension.  Under FERS, I'm in control and have so many more options.  I have to make it work, but at least under FERS, I can!