THE Rule of 85?

Here's a letter I sent today to a former colleague who retired when I left teaching: I thought you might be "negatively amused" to hear this little tale. I have been telling everyone for the past several years that "I can start taking my pension at age 58 when I reach the "rule of 85"". In anticipation of this, I learned that I can apply three months before my anticipated "retirement date" which I assumed was July 4, 2005. I took a week's vacation the week before last to try to get the application process going. I attempted to call the WRS several times during that week but got a busy signal each time. I had previously sent them an email and was referred to a document that I needed to file to request a retirement estimate. I filled out the application and sent it in by mail. I really thought I needed to make an appointment to talk to a representative to help make the decision as to what kind of annuity to opt for. Last Wednesday, March 9, I did call. Imagine my surprise to hear that "there is no such thing as the "rule of 85""? The representative said she had worked there for 5 years and that there never had been such a rule. She said that I could have begun my pension payments at age 57 without any reduction due to age. She further told me that if I got my application in by March 31, I could get back payments to January of 2005. Since my estimated payments (from a report that I received in April of 2004) indicated that my monthly benefit would be about $3000, I figured that the good news was that I could get six more months of benefits than I had originally though. The bad news was that I had already lost 15-20 thousand dollars in benefits. The representative told me that she knew I had submitted a request for a retirement estimate, that she would change the date on that request to January first, 2005 and that it normally takes 4-6 weeks to receive such a request. She said she would see that my estimate was sent out right away. The next day, Thursday, March 10, I called again. After several repeated attempts because of busy signals, I spoke to another representative. It got worse. She told me that I should have begun my benefits at age 55 and that while there would have been an age-reduction, it would still be monitarily better in the long run to start benefits at that age. Now we are talking about the better part of a HUNDRED THOUSAND DOLLARS that I have missed out on. While I confess that I have not read every word of every document that was sent to me back in April of 2004, I found few if any references to "inactives", people like me who left employment with a WRS employer before the "end of their working life". I found NO information relative to reduced benefits because of age. The Thursday lady did say that the "rule of 85" had only ever applied to people who took the "formula benefit". That's the one based on the average of your top three years of salary. In my case, the estimate given to me last year indicated that the higher benefit would result from the "money purchase" option, the one based on how much money you actually have in the account. The "rule of 85" never applied to me. So, it appears I have fallen through the cracks. Nobody calls you up and tells you that you are losing money. Nobody tells you. There is apparently nothing I can do but get my application in asap and get over it. I'll feel a lot better when my payments start coming in. For that to happen, I have to wait by the mailbox for the "indeterminate" amount of time it will take them to send me my "retirement estimate/application for benefits". Considering my ability to opt for "accelerated payments", that could cost me another four grand before taxes if they don't get that application to me by the end of the month. Bottom line: I can whine for awhile. Eventually, I'll probably shut up about it but it's a bitter and huge pill to swallow. Well, thanks for listening. Spring is on the way. Have a wonderful day! - George