u/Glittering_Twist_732

https://preview.redd.it/3yf5mcunygah1.png?width=2160&format=png&auto=webp&s=4a49ce30b25ce825bc0df12ea65eb934342291ef

Here's my discussion scenario for the week. I'll call him Dave. ATC, 50 years old, 25 years of 6(c) service, married, Virginia. He can retire today. He keeps asking himself: is two more years worth it?

So I ran it. Both paths, same starting point. The only thing that changes: does he walk out at 50 or 52?

A few things move when retirement age shifts, and they're all linked to the same decision (not separate choices):

• Two more years of pension service: goes from 25 to 27 years under the 6(c) formula
• Two more years of SRS credit: same service-year count drives the supplement
• Two more years of TSP contributions at his current rate ($8,100/year) plus the agency match
• Two more years of growth on the existing $720,000 balance

Here's what that package adds up to:

Pension:

• Retire at 50: $4,592/month (net, after survivor benefit)
• Retire at 52: $4,824/month

That's $232/month more, for life. From 2 more years of service.

TSP at retirement:

• Retire at 50: $720,000
• Retire at 52: $857,862

The extra $137,000 comes from two years of 7% growth on $720K plus two years of contributions and match.

SRS (the supplement that bridges to Social Security):

• Retire at 50: $1,425/month for 12 years (to age 62)
• Retire at 52: $1,539/month for 10 years (to age 62)

This one's a tradeoff inside the SRS: higher monthly rate from more service years, but two fewer years to collect it. Net: Dave gets $20,520 less total SRS by waiting. Worth noting.

Average monthly take-home in retirement:

• Path A (retire at 50): $10,727/month
• Path B (retire at 52): $11,836/month

That's $1,109/month more for the rest of his life.

Total lifetime income to age 88:

• Path A: $5,020,015
• Path B: $5,255,078

Waiting adds $235,000 in total income across his retirement.

Now the honest catch.

Dave doesn't break even in cumulative income until age 75. He gives up two full years of retirement at 50 and 51 -- that's income he'll never get back. On a raw dollars-collected basis, he's behind until 75, then ahead for every year after.

So the real question isn't "does B win?" -- it does, if he reaches 75. The question is how he values 50 and 51 specifically. Being 50 and out of the tower isn't the same as being 52 and out of the tower. No calculation touches that.

One thing the break-even doesn't capture: Dave in path B isn't sitting idle at 50 and 51 -- he's still working, still earning his $162K salary. After federal and Virginia taxes, that's about $136K/year in take-home. Path A over the same two years is collecting about $84K/year in net retirement income. Count working income on both sides and path B is already ahead at the start of retirement -- the break-even at 75 is a retirement-income-only number, and a conservative one.

If Dave is healthy and reasonably expects to reach his mid-70s or beyond, the math makes a pretty clear case. An extra $232/month pension, a bigger TSP, and $235,000 more over a lifetime is hard to walk away from. But if there's a reason to go now, the numbers don't favor him until 75, and two retirement years at 50 have real value that doesn't show up in any spreadsheet.

Did others in 6(c) positions run this same calculation? Did the math change your decision, or did something else win? And if I've got a flaw in the setup, call it out. What should I run next Tuesday?

https://preview.redd.it/hylmx45fygah1.png?width=2160&format=png&auto=webp&s=d3d5378b51b514292343b9bb3cdc1714c957d692

Here's my discussion scenario for the week. I'll call him Dave. ATC, 50 years old, 25 years of 6(c) service, married, Virginia. He can retire today. He keeps asking himself: is two more years worth it?

So I ran it. Both paths, same starting point. The only thing that changes: does he walk out at 50 or 52?

A few things move when retirement age shifts, and they're all linked to the same decision (not separate choices):

• Two more years of pension service: goes from 25 to 27 years under the 6(c) formula
• Two more years of SRS credit: same service-year count drives the supplement
• Two more years of TSP contributions at his current rate ($8,100/year) plus the agency match
• Two more years of growth on the existing $720,000 balance

Here's what that package adds up to:

Pension:

• Retire at 50: $4,592/month (net, after survivor benefit)
• Retire at 52: $4,824/month

That's $232/month more, for life. From 2 more years of service.

TSP at retirement:

• Retire at 50: $720,000
• Retire at 52: $857,862

The extra $137,000 comes from two years of 7% growth on $720K plus two years of contributions and match.

SRS (the supplement that bridges to Social Security):

• Retire at 50: $1,425/month for 12 years (to age 62)
• Retire at 52: $1,539/month for 10 years (to age 62)

This one's a tradeoff inside the SRS: higher monthly rate from more service years, but two fewer years to collect it. Net: Dave gets $20,520 less total SRS by waiting. Worth noting.

Average monthly take-home in retirement:

• Path A (retire at 50): $10,727/month
• Path B (retire at 52): $11,836/month

That's $1,109/month more for the rest of his life.

Total lifetime income to age 88:

• Path A: $5,020,015
• Path B: $5,255,078

Waiting adds $235,000 in total income across his retirement.

Now the honest catch.

Dave doesn't break even in cumulative income until age 75. He gives up two full years of retirement at 50 and 51 -- that's income he'll never get back. On a raw dollars-collected basis, he's behind until 75, then ahead for every year after.

So the real question isn't "does B win?" -- it does, if he reaches 75. The question is how he values 50 and 51 specifically. Being 50 and out of the tower isn't the same as being 52 and out of the tower. No calculation touches that.

One thing the break-even doesn't capture: Dave in path B isn't sitting idle at 50 and 51 -- he's still working, still earning his $162K salary. After federal and Virginia taxes, that's about $136K/year in take-home. Path A over the same two years is collecting about $84K/year in net retirement income. Count working income on both sides and path B is already ahead at the start of retirement -- the break-even at 75 is a retirement-income-only number, and a conservative one.

If Dave is healthy and reasonably expects to reach his mid-70s or beyond, the math makes a pretty clear case. An extra $232/month pension, a bigger TSP, and $235,000 more over a lifetime is hard to walk away from. But if there's a reason to go now, the numbers don't favor him until 75, and two retirement years at 50 have real value that doesn't show up in any spreadsheet.

Did others in 6(c) positions run this same calculation? Did the math change your decision, or did something else win? And if I've got a flaw in the setup, call it out. What should I run next Tuesday?

https://preview.redd.it/ja8lxytuu09h1.png?width=2400&format=png&auto=webp&s=ecd353093326de02b857b319b66ccec427bef1b7

Every Tuesday I take a realistic 6(c) (LEO/ATC/Fed Firefighter) FERS case and change exactly one variable, then run the real numbers to see what that single change does. This week's lever: traditional vs Roth TSP, for someone with a long runway ahead.

The setup: an ATC I'll call Priya. Age 34, married, planning to walk out the tower at 53 under 6(c). About $190K in the TSP today, putting in $6,750 a year. Nineteen years of runway. Same person, same contributions, same 7% return assumption. The only thing I changed: 100% traditional versus splitting it 50/50 traditional and Roth. The question I wanted to answer is the one a lot of mid-career feds wrestle with: is it even worth bothering with Roth this far in, or did you miss the boat?

Here's the first thing that got me. Both paths land at the exact same TSP balance at retirement: $1,191,756. Going Roth doesn't shrink your pile. The difference is what KIND of money it is. The all-traditional path has $0 sitting in Roth. The 50/50 path retires with $469,724 of that pot in Roth, completely tax-free to pull, plus $722,032 on the traditional side.

Second thing: going Roth did NOT cut her early retirement paycheck. The first stretch (53 to 59) both paths net the same $8,894 a month. You draw the traditional side first, so the Roth just sits there compounding.

Now the catch, and this is the part that's easy to get wrong. If you only look at average monthly take-home across the whole retirement, the all-traditional path actually looks BETTER: $14,163 a month versus $13,302 for the Roth split. So traditional wins, right?

No. That gap is RMDs. At 73 the all-traditional saver gets force-fed required minimum distributions that balloon into six figures a year, all taxable, all counted as "income" whether she needs it or not. The Roth saver's traditional balance is smaller, so her RMDs are smaller, and her Roth keeps growing untouched (no RMDs on Roth TSP). That "extra" monthly income for the traditional saver is really just the IRS prying money out of the shelter and taxing it on the way out.

Two numbers make it concrete. Lifetime federal tax: the all-traditional path pays $777,936. The 50/50 path pays $434,475. That's $343,461 less in tax over the run. And at age 90, the Roth split still has $3,658,893 left in the TSP versus $2,517,872 for all-traditional. That's $1,141,021 more left over, a big chunk of it tax-free.

So the honest takeaway: at 34, going half-Roth isn't a free lunch and it won't pad your early checks. What it buys you is a smaller lifetime tax bill, over a million more left at the end, and the freedom to pull tax-free money on YOUR schedule instead of the RMD table's. "Too late to bother" is the opposite of true.

Curious how others weighed this, especially anyone who went all-Roth early or split it. Did the RMD math factor into your call, or did you just go by your current bracket? And if there's a FERS decision you'd like me to run next Tuesday (retire age, SS claim age, survivor election, high-tax vs no-tax state, whatever), drop it in the comments and I'll add it to the list.

EDIT (corrected math): A sharp commenter caught two real mistakes in my original numbers, and they were right on both. First, I wasn't accounting for the income tax you pay up front on Roth contributions (Roth is after-tax, so a dollar going in costs more than a dollar of traditional). Second, my model was quietly relabeling part of her existing balance as Roth when I flipped the split, a second change I never meant to make. I fixed both and re-ran. The corrected writeup is below.

Important: the image on this post is from the original version and the numbers on the card are WRONG. Please ignore the figures on the image. I can't swap an image without deleting the whole post, and I'd rather leave this up with the correction out in the open than scrub it and pretend it didn't happen. The right numbers are all in the text below (bolded). Short version: Roth still comes out ahead, but by a lot less than the card claims ($87,800 less lifetime tax and about $652,926 more left at 90, not the six-figure-pot blowout on the card), and it's a genuine tradeoff, not a slam dunk.

---

Every Tuesday I take a realistic FERS case and change exactly one variable, then run the numbers. This week: traditional vs Roth TSP for someone with a long runway.

The setup: an ATC I'll call Priya. Age 34, married, retiring at 53 under 6(c). $190K in the TSP today, putting in $6,750 a year, 19 years to go. Same person, same return, same everything. The only change: 100% traditional versus a 50/50 traditional/Roth split. To keep it fair I held her take-home cost equal, because Roth is after-tax, so the 50/50 version actually puts a bit less into the account: $1,158,452 at retirement versus $1,191,756 all-traditional.

Here's what the split buys her. By retirement she has $92,849 sitting in Roth, tax-free to pull and exempt from RMDs (the all-traditional version has $0 in Roth). Over the full retirement, the 50/50 path pays $87,800 less in lifetime income tax (federal and state combined). And at 90 she still has $3,170,799 in the TSP versus $2,517,872 all-traditional, about $652,926 more, a good chunk of it tax-free.

Now the honest catch, and it's a real one. If you look at monthly take-home, the all-traditional path is actually HIGHER, by about $982 a month on average across retirement. Why? RMDs. Starting at 73, the all-traditional saver gets force-fed required withdrawals that climb into the six figures, all taxable, needed or not. That pumps up her "income" line, but it's really the IRS prying money out of the account and taxing it on the way out. The Roth saver pulls less, keeps more sheltered, and hands less to the IRS.

So this isn't a slam dunk for Roth. It's a tradeoff. Roth here means a smaller lifetime tax bill, more money left at the end, and freedom from RMDs on that chunk, in exchange for a slightly smaller monthly check. If your goal is max monthly spending, all-traditional edges it. If it's paying less tax and keeping more, with more control over when you pull it, Roth wins.

One caveat worth stating: this assumes her tax rates and today's RMD rules hold. Change those and the math shifts.

Curious how others think about this one, especially the RMD angle. Did dodging the RMD tax bomb factor into your Roth/traditional call, or did you just go by your current bracket? And if there's a FERS decision you want me to run next Tuesday (retire age, SS claim age, survivor election, high-tax vs no-tax state), drop it below.

https://preview.redd.it/crfar2z4u89h1.png?width=2400&format=png&auto=webp&s=5358234d191626bbc0598246f69107755b48df6b

EDIT (corrected math): A sharp commenter caught two real mistakes in my original numbers, and they were right on both. First, I wasn't accounting for the income tax you pay up front on Roth contributions (Roth is after-tax, so a dollar going in costs more than a dollar of traditional). Second, my model was quietly relabeling part of her existing balance as Roth when I flipped the split, a second change I never meant to make. I fixed both and re-ran. The corrected writeup is below.

---

Every Tuesday I take a realistic FERS case and change exactly one variable, then run the numbers. This week: traditional vs Roth TSP for someone with a long runway.

The setup: an ATC I'll call Priya. Age 34, married, retiring at 53 under 6(c). $190K in the TSP today, putting in $6,750 a year, 19 years to go. Same person, same return, same everything. The only change: 100% traditional versus a 50/50 traditional/Roth split. To keep it fair I held her take-home cost equal, because Roth is after-tax, so the 50/50 version actually puts a bit less into the account: $1,158,452 at retirement versus $1,191,756 all-traditional.

Here's what the split buys her. By retirement she has $92,849 sitting in Roth, tax-free to pull and exempt from RMDs (the all-traditional version has $0 in Roth). Over the full retirement, the 50/50 path pays $87,800 less in lifetime income tax (federal and state combined). And at 90 she still has $3,170,799 in the TSP versus $2,517,872 all-traditional, about $652,926 more, a good chunk of it tax-free.

Now the honest catch, and it's a real one. If you look at monthly take-home, the all-traditional path is actually HIGHER, by about $982 a month on average across retirement. Why? RMDs. Starting at 73, the all-traditional saver gets force-fed required withdrawals that climb into the six figures, all taxable, needed or not. That pumps up her "income" line, but it's really the IRS prying money out of the account and taxing it on the way out. The Roth saver pulls less, keeps more sheltered, and hands less to the IRS.

So this isn't a slam dunk for Roth. It's a tradeoff. Roth here means a smaller lifetime tax bill, more money left at the end, and freedom from RMDs on that chunk, in exchange for a slightly smaller monthly check. If your goal is max monthly spending, all-traditional edges it. If it's paying less tax and keeping more, with more control over when you pull it, Roth wins.

One caveat worth stating: this assumes her tax rates and today's RMD rules hold. Change those and the math shifts.

Curious how others think about this one, especially the RMD angle. Did dodging the RMD tax bomb factor into your Roth/traditional call, or did you just go by your current bracket? And if there's a FERS decision you want me to run next Tuesday (retire age, SS claim age, survivor election, high-tax vs no-tax state), drop it below.

*EDIT* - A reader found an error where I was accidentally using single tax rate. I have updated the numbers

https://preview.redd.it/2qi6pduqbr7h1.png?width=2400&format=png&auto=webp&s=4a5d01aacab93d78f504c72edbeca409e3d427d5

Each week I take one real 6(c) [ATCs/LEOs/Firefighters] retirement decision and run the actual numbers, so we can talk through the tradeoff instead of trading rules of thumb. This week's is one a lot of us quietly chew on: retire where I am, or move somewhere with no state income tax?

I ran it for an 1811 (LEO) I'll call Maria. Out the door at 48, 25 years in, married, family FEHB, about $810K in the TSP. Her pension lands around $5,025/mo after the survivor reduction, the supplement adds about $1,488/mo until 62, and Social Security kicks in at $2,380/mo at 62. The one question: stay in California, or move to Texas? Same pension, same TSP, same SS claim, same survivor election. Only the state line moves.

Here's what people underestimate. Your FERS pension doesn't shrink when you cross into Texas, but California taxes that pension, your TSP withdrawals, and eventually your Social Security all as ordinary income. Texas taxes none of it. Year one that's about *$3,124 to California, $0 in Texas, so her take-home runs about *$7,630/mo in CA vs $7,891/mo in TX. Roughly *$260 a month right out of the gate, for no change in her actual income.

And it grows. By 62 the gap is about $709/mo, and across the whole plan to 90 the average is *$11,141/mo in CA vs $11,507/mo in TX, about *$366 a month for life. The annual California bite starts around $6,300 and climbs to roughly $8,500 by her early 60s as her pension COLAs up and her TSP draws get bigger. Add it up over a 40-plus-year retirement and the difference in lifetime take-home is about $451,000. That's the state tax, and nothing else.

Now the honest part, because this is where "just move to a no-tax state" gets too simple. That *$189K is concrete. Everything weighing against it is fuzzier and just as real: cost of living, property taxes and home insurance in Texas, leaving family, leaving the place you actually want to grow old in. The number doesn't say "move." It just puts a price tag on staying, so you see it before you decide. Nearly half a million over a retirement is a lot to leave on the table by accident, and a lot to knowingly pay to be home. Both can be true.

Curious how others have weighed this, especially anyone who actually pulled the trigger and moved, or looked hard and stayed. Was the tax gap the deciding factor, or did it lose to everything money can't measure?

Each week I take one real 6(c) (Federal ATC/LEO/FF) retirement decision and run the actual numbers on it, so we can talk through the tradeoffs instead of trading rules of thumb. Here's this week's..

https://preview.redd.it/yvelaipbnb6h1.png?width=2400&format=png&auto=webp&s=217eeba810378956444d7f5f47572413cc338c36

Everybody says "just wait to 67, the bigger Social Security check is free money." So I ran it for a buddy. Single firefighter, no spouse, out the door at 52 with 27 years in, about $610K in the TSP, retiring to Florida. Same everything, one question: claim SS at 62 or wait to 67?

Claim at 62: about $2,170/mo. Wait to 67: about $3,100/mo. Bigger check, obvious call, right?

Here's the catch nobody mentions, the 62 cliff. The 6(c) supplement bridges him from 52 to 62, then ends. Wait on SS and ages 62 to 66 he's on pension plus TSP alone, so his take-home drops to about $7,341/mo. Claim at 62 instead and that same year is about $9,089/mo. The early claimer is way ahead through his early 60s.

The bigger check does win eventually, but the waiter doesn't catch up on total dollars until age 82. Run it to his planning age of 86 and waiting nets only about $43K more over the whole retirement. "Free money," sure, but only if he reaches his 80s. And he's single, no survivor benefit, so there's no spouse to inherit the bigger check. It's a straight bet on his own longevity.

Curious how others weighed this, especially the single folks. Break-even age, or bird in the hand at 62?

Let me know if you have a specific scenario/decision you would like to discuss here in the future!

Each week I take one real ATC/6(c) retirement decision and run the actual numbers on it, so we can talk through the tradeoffs instead of trading rules of thumb. Here's this week's..

https://preview.redd.it/y1w4bvmumb6h1.png?width=2400&format=png&auto=webp&s=1a929951c384e3b9ff9911b78f0aceb2e840a2ae

Everybody says "just wait to 67, the bigger Social Security check is free money." So I ran it for a buddy. Single firefighter, no spouse, out the door at 52 with 27 years in, about $610K in the TSP, retiring to Florida. Same everything, one question: claim SS at 62 or wait to 67?

Claim at 62: about $2,170/mo. Wait to 67: about $3,100/mo. Bigger check, obvious call, right?

Here's the catch nobody mentions, the 62 cliff. The 6(c) supplement bridges him from 52 to 62, then ends. Wait on SS and ages 62 to 66 he's on pension plus TSP alone, so his take-home drops to about $7,341/mo. Claim at 62 instead and that same year is about $9,089/mo. The early claimer is way ahead through his early 60s.

The bigger check does win eventually, but the waiter doesn't catch up on total dollars until age 82. Run it to his planning age of 86 and waiting nets only about $43K more over the whole retirement. "Free money," sure, but only if he reaches his 80s. And he's single, no survivor benefit, so there's no spouse to inherit the bigger check. It's a straight bet on his own longevity.

Curious how others weighed this, especially the single folks. Break-even age, or bird in the hand at 62?

If you have a scenario you want me to run in the future let me know!

https://preview.redd.it/bwvi2d1m3x4h1.png?width=2400&format=png&auto=webp&s=ec854b49880aba4e87beeb407221e58dc8826ea9

Quick one for the 6(c) crowd. I've got a coworker — ATC, I'll call her Rachel — who's 47 and planning to walk at 52 with 26 years in. She's been putting 5% into the TSP and asked the question a lot of us ask near the end: "Is it worth squeezing down to 15% for these last five years, or is that horse already out of the barn?"

So I ran both, same person, same everything, only the contribution rate changed. 5% is about $8,100/yr, 15% is about $24,300/yr — call it an extra $16,200 a year out of her check for five years.

The assumptions are the account grows at 7% and is drawn down at 4%

Here's what came back:

• TSP balance the day she retires: ~$696K at 5% vs ~$789K at 15%. About $93K more for the extra saving.
• First decade of retirement (52–59), average take-home: ~$7,196/mo vs ~$7,494/mo. So $298 more a month — and notice that already includes the special retirement supplement (~$1,300/mo) bridging her from 52 to 62. The supplement's the whole point of 6(c): she's not waiting on SS to eat.
• Over the whole retirement, average monthly net: $10,111 vs $10,605 — $495/mo.
• Lifetime, total: ~$225K more net income over the long haul. Neither version ever drains the TSP.

The honest read: it's real money, but it's not the night-and-day difference people expect, and the reason is just math — five years isn't much runway to compound. She put in ~$81K extra and ended up with ~$93K more in the account. The big lever is starting young, not sprinting at the end.

Two things that surprised me: (1) the extra cushion matters most later (70s/80s), not in the tight first decade, and (2) because it's all traditional, a good slice of that extra income gets taxed back out — her lifetime tax bill goes up about $59K. Made me think the Roth question matters more than the rate question at this stage.

Not telling anyone what to do — depends on whether you'd rather have the money now or later. But if you're close to the door and beating yourself up over not maxing it, the gap's smaller than the guilt suggests. Curious how others weighed this near the end.

https://preview.redd.it/mwugonjwzw4h1.png?width=2400&format=png&auto=webp&s=18be29dd6cbdcdc7bbf8820ce249599ead81e6e2

Quick one for the crowd. I've got a coworker, I'll call her Rachel — who's 47 and planning to walk at 52 with 26 years in. She's been putting 5% into the TSP and asked the question a lot of us ask near the end: "Is it worth squeezing down to 15% for these last five years, or is that horse already out of the barn?"

So I ran both, same person, same everything, only the contribution rate changed. 5% is about $8,100/yr, 15% is about $24,300/yr — call it an extra $16,200 a year out of her check for five years.

The assumptions are the account grows at 7% and is drawn down at 4%

Here's what came back:

• TSP balance the day she retires: ~$696K at 5% vs ~$789K at 15%. About $93K more for the extra saving.
• First decade of retirement (52–59), average take-home: ~$7,196/mo vs ~$7,494/mo. So $298 more a month — and notice that already includes the special retirement supplement (~$1,300/mo) bridging her from 52 to 62. The supplement's the whole point of 6(c): she's not waiting on SS to eat.
• Over the whole retirement, average monthly net: $10,111 vs $10,605 — $495/mo.
• Lifetime, total: ~$225K more net income over the long haul. Neither version ever drains the TSP.

The honest read: it's real money, but it's not the night-and-day difference people expect, and the reason is just math — five years isn't much runway to compound. She put in ~$81K extra and ended up with ~$93K more in the account. The big lever is starting young, not sprinting at the end.

Two things that surprised me: (1) the extra cushion matters most later (70s/80s), not in the tight first decade, and (2) because it's all traditional, a good slice of that extra income gets taxed back out — her lifetime tax bill goes up about $59K. Made me think the Roth question matters more than the rate question at this stage.

Not telling anyone what to do — depends on whether you'd rather have the money now or later. But if you're close to the door and beating yourself up over not maxing it, the gap's smaller than the guilt suggests. Curious how others weighed this near the end.