Military Retirement on the Chopping Block

[Smuckatelli]

I think that we will end up have problems keeping servicemembers in after they do the first or second enlistments. There really is no incentive to stay in.

A sweeping new plan to overhaul the Pentagon’s retirement system would give some benefits to all troops and phase out the 20-year cliff vesting system that has defined military careers for generations.

In a massive change that could affect today’s troops, the plan calls for a corporate-style benefits program that would contribute money to troops’ retirement savings account rather than the promise of a future monthly pension, according to a new proposal from an influential Pentagon advisory board.

http://www.airforcetimes.com/news/2011/07/military-dod-panel-calls-for-radical-retirement-overhaul-072511/

[Belmont31R]

We can't afford to hire people for 20 years and pay them for 40 more years after that.

[Don Robison]

As long as the government honors whatever contract they sign with those enlisting I don't really care what the retirement package consists of as long as it's a mutually agreed upon package and not changed in the middle of a person's career.
Yea, I know a lofty goal.
That said; I'd like to see massive changes to the congress and senate retirement plans before they mess with other people's retirement.

[chadbag]

I think that we will end up have problems keeping servicemembers in after they do the first or second enlistments. There really is no incentive to stay in.


I am not in the military, never have been, etc. So my viewpoint is not as a service member.

According to the article I read, 83% of service members don't stay on anyway under the current system, so as an incentive to stay, the current system is not working.

The proposed system would give all service members something, whether or not they stayed for 20 years. It would also give those who are ALREADY IN something at 20 years depending on how long they were in when the change happened. Plus it would give these people the new system as well.

Seems like a reasonable transition to me.

As Belmont said, you cannot pay people 50% for 30 or 40 more years after retirement for 20 years of actual work. It does not work in the private sector, nor at the local govt level where we have all been railing about the sweet heart pensions they have and cannot sustain, and can't work at the federal / mil level either over the long term.




A sweeping new plan to overhaul the Pentagon’s retirement system would give some benefits to all troops and phase out the 20-year cliff vesting system that has defined military careers for generations.

In a massive change that could affect today’s troops, the plan calls for a corporate-style benefits program that would contribute money to troops’ retirement savings account rather than the promise of a future monthly pension, according to a new proposal from an influential Pentagon advisory board.

http://www.airforcetimes.com/news/2011/07/military-dod-panel-calls-for-radical-retirement-overhaul-072511/

[theblackknight]

I am not in the military, never have been, etc.

for 20 years of actual work.

LOL.

THIS
http://www.jacksonvillesquadron.org/images/wintex_ruck_march.jpg

will really **** you up after a while. Lets not forget all the shit soldier types give up to serve. That roadtrip to the ____? if its out of bounds and your shiny dosent give you the go ahead, you cant go. You know those bill of rights thingys? Yeah, those go away.

Your not gonna get 83% percent to stay. The system cant work like that, someone has to go. at the top, there are only soo many spots. So to say this new plan would bolster retention is failboat.

[crusader377]

As a former soldier, as long the government lives up to their current obligations, I have no problem with it. I also see some advantages because it would give military personel more freedom in tailoring their careers towards their personal goals.

From my personal experience, I did 5 years in as a field artillery officer. I was very fortunate to get alot of troop time as a FDO, FSO, Platoon Leader, and XO. I loved time soldiering but hated the time when I was on a Brigade staff. I really would have liked being a battery commander but by the time you hit battery command 8-9 years in you almost are locked in for 20 because if you leave you basically get no tangible benefit for your 9-10 years of service. With this new proposal, you would give more individuals the opportunity to serve how they want to. More importantly, I think this would improve the quality of the military because it would make important billets like company command and squad leader and PSG more competitive. I know many talented officers and NCOs that left the service around the 4-10 year mark that may have stayed in longer if this program was available.

[chadbag]

LOL.

THIS
http://www.jacksonvillesquadron.org/images/wintex_ruck_march.jpg

will really **** you up after a while. Lets not forget all the shit soldier types give up to serve. That roadtrip to the ____? if its out of bounds and your shiny dosent give you the go ahead, you cant go. You know those bill of rights thingys? Yeah, those go away.


Nobody is diminishing the hard work and sacrifice a service member makes.

You know, that high demands are made on private sector workers as well. I know plenty of people that worked on products 12-14 hours a day for months on end. Product finally shipped. They had a small release party at work and one day off before they were reassigned to the next product that needed to get out the door.

These were "exempt" employees so they did not get paid by the hour but had a yearly salary. (This was in software)

I talked to wives of some of the guys at the company "gym" while I was doing a lunch break work out. They basically said they almost never saw their husbands for more than a short time or while they were sleeping. For months on end. Tremendous toll on the family and on marriages.

And they couldn't retire on 50% after 20 years. They had a 401(k) with some company matching is all.





Your not gonna get 83% percent to stay. The system cant work like that, someone has to go. at the top, there are only soo many spots. So to say this new plan would bolster retention is failboat.

No one said they are trying to get 83% to stay. They said that 83% don't make 20 years and basically get NOTHING in terms of retirement. The new proposed plan gives these people who don't stay something to take with them.

[Belmont31R]

As long as the government honors whatever contract they sign with those enlisting I don't really care what the retirement package consists of as long as it's a mutually agreed upon package and not changed in the middle of a person's career.
Yea, I know a lofty goal.
That said; I'd like to see massive changes to the congress and senate retirement plans before they mess with other people's retirement.



Retirement benefits you get after 20 years out are not contracted when you join as far as I know.

[GermanSynergy]

While some reform is necessary, we need to be looking at the proverbial Elephant in the room, aka Entitlements.

Far too many layabouts sucking the fat of the land, contributing nothing, all while demanding more handouts.

It's a sad day in America where we are considering taking from those who have risked their lives for our nation, while even mentioning cutting entitlements seems to be verboten. :mad:

[chadbag]

While some reform is necessary, we need to be looking at the proverbial Elephant in the room, aka Entitlements.


100% correct



Far too many layabouts sucking the fat of the land, contributing nothing, all while demanding more handouts.

It's a sad day in America where we are considering taking from those who have risked their lives for our nation, while even mentioning cutting entitlements seems to be verboten. :mad:

If you look at the details, people are not trying to take from those who have risked their lives for the nation. The proposals do not affect those who have retired already.

Those currently in the service would get a portion of the old plan plus the new plan, depending on how many years of service they had when the plan would take effect.

The idea is to change for the future to a plan that gives more people something without end loading it all to the few who stay past 20 years. Those already in would get a combined plan that is part of the old plus the new.

[theblackknight]

Nobody is diminishing the hard work and sacrifice a service member makes.

You know, that high demands are made on private sector workers as well. I know plenty of people that worked on products 12-14 hours a day for months on end. Product finally shipped. They had a small release party at work and one day off before they were reassigned to the next product that needed to get out the door.

These were "exempt" employees so they did not get paid by the hour but had a yearly salary. (This was in software)

I talked to wives of some of the guys at the company "gym" while I was doing a lunch break work out. They basically said they almost never saw their husbands for more than a short time or while they were sleeping. For months on end. Tremendous toll on the family and on marriages.

And they couldn't retire on 50% after 20 years. They had a 401(k) with some company matching is all.




No one said they are trying to get 83% to stay. They said that 83% don't make 20 years and basically get NOTHING in terms of retirement. The new proposed plan gives these people who don't stay something to take with them.


Those guys have the choice to walk away from that job at anytime.
Those guys had a house to drive home to, or a cot in their office.
Those guys prob ate real food.
Those guys wernt shoot at.

for about 4 months, I had 2 jobs that were 0230 - 0700 loading planes and 0800-1600 running CNCs, grinding casting etcs. Then I got a construction job working 10-12 hour days and more then not, the job site was 45mins, at the most 1.5 hours away, on my time and my gas dime. Now that im gov property, Im finding it hard to compare to Those Guys.

[chadbag]

Those guys have the choice to walk away from that job at anytime.
Those guys had a house to drive home to, or a cot in their office.
Those guys prob ate real food.
Those guys wernt shoot at.


And the service member signed voluntarily on the dotted line. We don't do conscription any more.

And most service members are not shot at. How many support people are there for every front line combat job?

Realistically, these folks were as tied to their jobs as the service member is. When you have a family to take care of -- kids to feed, mortgage to pay, etc you just can't get up and say "sayonara". You are more or less trapped unless you can somehow arrange some sort of transfer to another job, probably similarly as abusive.

I am NOT diminishing the sacrifices of service members.

I am saying that to realistically think that society can pay a service member 50% after 20 years service for another 30-40 years is not realistic. It was nice while it lasted.

Being the government and service does not make the economics of it suddenly work where it won't work elsewhere.




for about 4 months, I had 2 jobs that were 0230 - 0700 loading planes and 0800-1600 running CNCs, grinding casting etcs. Then I got a construction job working 10-12 hour days and more then not, the job site was 45mins, at the most 1.5 hours away, on my time and my gas dime. Now that im gov property, Im finding it hard to compare to Those Guys.

[glocktogo]

Nobody is diminishing the hard work and sacrifice a service member makes.

You know, that high demands are made on private sector workers as well. I know plenty of people that worked on products 12-14 hours a day for months on end. Product finally shipped. They had a small release party at work and one day off before they were reassigned to the next product that needed to get out the door.

These were "exempt" employees so they did not get paid by the hour but had a yearly salary. (This was in software)

I talked to wives of some of the guys at the company "gym" while I was doing a lunch break work out. They basically said they almost never saw their husbands for more than a short time or while they were sleeping. For months on end. Tremendous toll on the family and on marriages.

And they couldn't retire on 50% after 20 years. They had a 401(k) with some company matching is all.

And yet miraculously, no one was allowed to use them for target practice during their excessively long days! You do realize that the military frequently deploys for 6-12 months at a time? You also realize that they live in substandard conditions that welfare recipients wouldn't tolerate, correct? You further realize that a military member's time is never their own, and while they do get liberty, which can be rescinded at any time, right?

None of your arguments are remotely compelling. We don't need increased retention, we need to maintain mission readiness, which includes seasoned veterans with experience. In the past, the military has had to frequently offer 5 digit reenlistment bonuses to retain troops in critical fields. Messing with the retirement system isn't going to help that. So you have a choice, pay now or pay later. :(

[theblackknight]

Welp, pointless debate, wall talks back.

4 year hitter and quitters dont join to start a IRA, they join for college money. If they really wanted a private account,they would skim some of that cash they spend on getting married too early, lift kits for a truck they bought on a credit card and a TV soo big they need the truck to get it home.

BTW, IEDs and suicide jockeys dont wait for 11B's and 03's.

[chadbag]

And yet miraculously, no one was allowed to use them for target practice during their excessively long days!


The majority of service members are not either.



You do realize that the military frequently deploys for 6-12 months at a time?


Many service members never leave home base. Probably a majority.

Lots of civilians have to travel for their work. I know people who are on the road 20 days out of every month, away from their families. Living out of suitcases in cheap hotels.


You also realize that they live in substandard conditions that welfare recipients wouldn't tolerate, correct?


Base housing today is not bad at all. People in the field have it crappy. But not all service members go out in the field. Or out on a ship. And they are not there constantly.


You further realize that a military member's time is never their own, and while they do get liberty, which can be rescinded at any time, right?


How often does that happen compared to civilians "vacation" time being rescinded, or not allowed to be taken, etc. Civilians also have restrictions on their vacation.



None of your arguments are remotely compelling.


None of your arguments are remotely compelling. None of your arguments show that the economics of it work.

Life as a service member can be pretty crappy at times. I am all for doing what we can to support them. But they signed up for it. This is a volunteer service.

I am not saying to get rid of retirement or benefits. Benefits may change because the current system is unworkable and does not work economically.

That does not diminish the sacrifices of the service members. It means that changes need to be made to make the system sustainable and workable economically.

This is not a civilian versus service member argument. Stop trying to make it one.






We don't need increased retention, we need to maintain mission readiness, which includes seasoned veterans with experience. In the past, the military has had to frequently offer 5 digit reenlistment bonuses to retain troops in critical fields. Messing with the retirement system isn't going to help that. So you have a choice, pay now or pay later. :(

The current system gives NO RETIREMENT to people who get out before 20 years, AFAIK. And that is MOST service members. How does that support and recognize the accomplishments and sacrifices of the service members?

[chadbag]

While I am not and never have been in the service, I do have immediate and extended family members who are. At the moment, none outside of the reserves/NG, but have had "RA" in the extended family in the past.

And I used to live near Ft Devens (back when 10th SFG was there) and I knew a LOT of army guys since I went to church with them. I am not totally clueless. My BIL just got back from Afghanistan after 8 months (6 months in theater).

The point is, the current system is not economically feasible. All the hard work, deprivations, etc of the service member does not change the fact. The question is how can it be changed to best take care of the service members in a way that is economically sustainable?

[C4IGrant]

We can't afford to hire people for 20 years and pay them for 40 more years after that.

Correct.


C4

[The_War_Wagon]

I'd cut CONgressional retirement packages, L-O-N-G before cutting military retirees. :mad:

[chadbag]

I'd cut CONgressional retirement packages, L-O-N-G before cutting military retirees. :mad:

Did you read the article?

This is not a proposal to cut "military retirees" pensions. This is a proposed change to the system for those currently active in the military and those yet to enlist.

It does not touch, as far as I could tell, those already retired. And depending on how long you are already in, for active military folks, it keeps a proportion of the current system in place for when you do retire at 20+ years plus the benefits of the new system from here on out.

I do agree that the congressional retirement system needs to be fixed as well.

[The_War_Wagon]

Did you read the article?

This is not a proposal to cut "military retirees" pensions. This is a proposed change to the system for those currently active in the military and those yet to enlist.

Sorry if I chose 'pithy' over 'in-depth.'

Yes, current retirees are NOT being discussed - it's future military personnel. But eventually, they'll retire too; hence, my use of retirees MEANT, "future retirees." As noted, it will be harder to retain GOOD military personnel without a decent retirement awaiting them. They certainly do more to EARN it, than do CONgressional-sorts.

[Belmont31R]

Those guys have the choice to walk away from that job at anytime.
Those guys had a house to drive home to, or a cot in their office.
Those guys prob ate real food.
Those guys wernt shoot at.

for about 4 months, I had 2 jobs that were 0230 - 0700 loading planes and 0800-1600 running CNCs, grinding casting etcs. Then I got a construction job working 10-12 hour days and more then not, the job site was 45mins, at the most 1.5 hours away, on my time and my gas dime. Now that im gov property, Im finding it hard to compare to Those Guys.



They are not proposing cutting retirement benefits to nothing. Just changing it over to a system comparable to most of society gets, and a service member would still get money going to their retirement.



As much as the military can be it doesn't make any sense whatsoever to pay someone to work for 20 years...which is a little less than half their expected working lifespan, and then pay them for the next 40 years. Towns, counties, ect...are facing a huge pension problem because they promised people pay for twice as long as they actually worked.


If someone gets injured, and the system actually works, they will get disability for the rest of their life. My brother in law gets around 600 a month because he fell out of a truck in motion when the dumbass driver thought it would be funny to jump the truck with people in the back.

[theblackknight]

Base housing today is not bad at all.

HAHA. You should see my company's barracks.

[theblackknight]

If someone gets injured, *and the system actually works*, they will get disability for the rest of their life.

fixed it for you

the VA isnt something you want to ever deal with.

[Smuckatelli]

A few personal observations....same as an opinion :D

The pay is not equal to the civilian sector.

When they say 50% that only means the base pay, not housing, food or any other pay. My annual retirement pay for the past three years before taxes has been just short of $17,000. Nowhere near the retirement plan of many federal and local government employees, firefighters, police and so on.

I retired with 50% after 21 years on active duty. 15 of those years were deployed outside of CONUS. Three of those years were spent on various amphib ships. The amphib ships were designed to transport the troops, they weren't designed to deploy with the troops for extended periods of time. The living quarters sucked, no if or ands about it. I have lived in condemed barracks at Camp Lejeune, Camp Pendleton, and Camp Schwab. I wasn't authorized to move out in town until I was a SSgt with 14 years time in service

Medically, my back, neck, and hearing is screwed. My knees are trashed. I picked up parasites that medical thought was destroyed 40 years ago. 20 years of what The Black Knight posted does shorten your life.

The VA system is painfully slow.

From what I read on the article, the government is not 'matching' contributions like civilian companies do out here. The service member gets 18% of his pay deducted before he gets it. To me...keep in mind this is IMO...this tells me that the 'retirement plan' is not like the 401s out here. The only funding into the servicemember's account is the service members. This tells me that there is no retirement plan for people in the military.

In the Marines we had service limits; if you didn't get selected for SSgt by your 13th year you had to get out. If you were substandard in performance, you were forced out. There never was a guarantee that you could do 20 and retire, if you didn't perform, you couldn't re-enlist. Usually they forced you out just before you hit the 18 year mark.

With this new 'retirement' you can get funds back if you are forced out, no real problem with this because after all the government didn't put a dime into the 'retirement.'

I have heard scuttlebutt that many people's 401 retirement plans lost a substancial amount of funds in the last recession. Is this true?

I have been an exempt employee for 9 years now, 60 hour work weeks are the norm but I can not be paid more that 1872 hours each year. The stress level on myself and the family is nowhere near what it was while I was on active duty. I can walk from this job and get another anytime that I want to.

The government will save a bundle with the new 'retirement' because they aren't putting a dime into it.

If the government really wants to save money, all federal employees should be put on the same 'retirement' path. Social Security should be put into the same 'retirement' path.

As much as we are currently asking these servicemembers to do, to take away the retirement while everyone else keeps thiers is a kick in the teeth.

It is an all volunteer force but once you sign the dotted line you are no longer a volunteer you serve for the good of the service.

[Don Robison]

Retirement benefits you get after 20 years out are not contracted when you join as far as I know.

When you enlist there is a retirement plan in place that you fall under; one of the problems is that changes are made to it throughout your career and various enlistments. Things like the 50% retirement changing to 40% in the 80's and Top 3 vs. final pay. Then you have the boondoggle "choice" at the 15 year mark where you can take a lump sum payment now and receive a lower retirement rate at 20 years.
Honestly, the plan doesn't really matter to me as long as they don't lessen your retirement plan from when you initially enlist.
If someone wants to enlist with a retirement plan paid in Chicklets; I don't care as long as both parties(the government and enlistee) agree to it and the government doesn't decide to change payment form to M&M's at the enlistee's 11 year mark.

[Smuckatelli]

Honestly, the plan doesn't really matter to me as long as they don't lessen your retirement plan from when you initially enlist.

They changed that plan in 1986 and grandfathered it to 7 Sept 1980. I enlisted in Apr 81 so the original 50% was taken away and I ended up retiring with the 'high three.' This ended up dropping my retirement pay by $400.00 a month because now it was the average of the last three years.

Each time that I re-enlisted it was a new contract so even though I came in before 1986, my retirement fell under that modification.

This is the way they give apparently correct information but it really is a false lead. Nobody that came in after 1980 gets the "50%".

[Belmont31R]

When you enlist there is a retirement plan in place that you fall under; one of the problems is that changes are made to it throughout your career and various enlistments. Things like the 50% retirement changing to 40% in the 80's and Top 3 vs. final pay. Then you have the boondoggle "choice" at the 15 year mark where you can take a lump sum payment now and receive a lower retirement rate at 20 years.
Honestly, the plan doesn't really matter to me as long as they don't lessen your retirement plan from when you initially enlist.
If someone wants to enlist with a retirement plan paid in Chicklets; I don't care as long as both parties(the government and enlistee) agree to it and the government doesn't decide to change payment form to M&M's at the enlistee's 11 year mark.



The first enlistment is only for so many years + 8 mandatory obligation be it active or inactive. It doesn't cover anything out to 20 years except for whats listed, and retirement isnt one of them. If the member doesn't like changes to the retirement then they can simply not reeinlist.


The main obligation the government has when people enlist is the GI bill, and which people pay the first 12 months of service for I think $100 a month. Been almost 10 years since then for me but since you actually pay for it (you can decline it, too), and sign the GI Bill documents when you sign that would be an obligation for. Simply signing up for one enlistment when the current benefits are XYZ 20 years from now doesn't mean the gov is bound to that when things change, and 3-4 enlistments from then things are different. Only when you sign the actual (re)enlistment documents at the time you are due to be of retirement TIS.

[Smuckatelli]

The main obligation the government has when people enlist is the GI bill, and which people pay the first 12 months of service for I think $100 a month.

That ended with the new 9/11 GI Bill. Now the servicemember doesn't pay into it. They rate a 4 year education and if they don't use it they can pass it to thier children.

[Belmont31R]

That ended with the new 9/11 GI Bill. Now the servicemember doesn't pay into it. They rate a 4 year education and if they don't use it they can pass it to thier children.




I don't know much about that. When I came in I paid into it, and if we wanted to increase it we had to pay again.


I haven't even done anything with mine, yet, because Ive been waiting on the wife to finish nursing school.

[ThirdWatcher]

While some reform is necessary, we need to be looking at the proverbial Elephant in the room, aka Entitlements.

Far too many layabouts sucking the fat of the land, contributing nothing, all while demanding more handouts. It's a sad day in America where we are considering taking from those who have risked their lives for our nation, while even mentioning cutting entitlements seems to be verboten. :mad:

My thoughts exactly. We can afford to subsidize crime in this country (through welfare, SSI, etc.) but not our military?... that's convoluted thinking.

[Belmont31R]

My thoughts exactly. We can afford to subsidize crime in this country (through welfare, SSI, etc.) but not our military?... that's convoluted thinking.



No matter our fiscal stance at the time it makes ZERO sense to pay someone to work 60 years when they actually only work 20 of those years.


If someone has a disability they should be paid an appropriate amount, and receive care for the injury until its either no longer an issue or they die.

I don't care what the job is...if you come out of working somewhere 20 years...you shouldn't be paid for 40 more years while not working. Military service is supposed to be self sacrifice and putting others before you...not doing 20 years and expecting pay for 40 more. Wheres the self sacrifice in only wanting to work for 20 years...then get paid for 40 more years?

If you get injured or otherwise become disabled, yes, you should be paid. In my experience both the docs and your COC will do everything they can to skip out on that including the old ****er on your discharge physical who has denied legitimate claims his entire life on behalf of the mil.

[Don Robison]

The first enlistment is only for so many years + 8 mandatory obligation be it active or inactive. It doesn't cover anything out to 20 years except for whats listed, and retirement isnt one of them. If the member doesn't like changes to the retirement then they can simply not reeinlist.


The main obligation the government has when people enlist is the GI bill, and which people pay the first 12 months of service for I think $100 a month. Been almost 10 years since then for me but since you actually pay for it (you can decline it, too), and sign the GI Bill documents when you sign that would be an obligation for. Simply signing up for one enlistment when the current benefits are XYZ 20 years from now doesn't mean the gov is bound to that when things change, and 3-4 enlistments from then things are different. Only when you sign the actual (re)enlistment documents at the time you are due to be of retirement TIS.



Almost correct; except not quite. From your very first enlistment you are covered under the current retirement plan for planning purposes and like has been mentioned with high year tenure plans in place if you're not performing and getting promoted you're not staying forever.
I never said they are currently bound; I said they should be. Saying if you don't like the new policies don't re-enlist sounds good until you hit the 16-18 year mark and are on your last enlistment and they start making changes to something they agreed to in several contracts and you've been designing your exit strategy around.
I don't want them giving more than was in place when you started playing the game; I also don't want them giving less than they agreed. The retirement plan is a selling point just like the GI Bill.

FWIW; I haven't told someone they should stay until retirement for quite a while. My retirement was final 1 Jun after 24 years; I made more money this month than I made in any month in the military and only worked 5 days this month. Retiring was the best thing I've done financially. Don't get me wrong, I loved my time, but I wouldn't do it over again.

[Belmont31R]

My thoughts exactly. We can afford to subsidize crime in this country (through welfare, SSI, etc.) but not our military?... that's convoluted thinking.




I leeches should be cut first...but again...it makes zero sense for anyone to be paid for 60 years for 20 years worth of work. I would rather see improvements in treating injured people...both mentally and physically...and not have COC's accusing their soldiers of malingering when the whole back side of their neck is numb and they are getting headaches 5 days a week from neurological problems...such as in my case.

[Belmont31R]

Almost correct; except not quite. From your very first enlistment you are covered under the current retirement plan for planning purposes and like has been mentioned with high year tenure plans in place if you're not performing and getting promoted you're not staying forever.
I never said they are currently bound; I said they should be. Saying if you don't like the new policies don't re-enlist sounds good until you hit the 16-18 year mark and are on your last enlistment and they start making changes to something they agreed to in several contracts and you've been designing your exit strategy around.
I don't want them giving more than was in place when you started playing the game; I also don't want them giving less than they agreed. The retirement plan is a selling point just like the GI Bill.

FWIW; I haven't told someone they should stay until retirement for quite a while. My retirement was final 1 Jun after 24 years; I made more money this month than I made in any month in the military and only worked 5 days this month. Retiring was the best thing I've done financially. Don't get me wrong, I loved my time, but I wouldn't do it over again.



Maybe it worked differently where you were at but people signed reenlistments early on basically "at the needs of the army" to stay signed up until retirement. I never saw anyone reenlist at the 18 year mark.


I think, if this plan is enacted, those within X number of years should get the retirement benefits as they are today...which is sounds like is part of the deal. Those who have reenlisted to retirement currently should still get what the benefits are today. Those out of reenlistment range, and those just joining would not get the current benefits if enacted.


There are a lot of things that change during enlistment...COLA, per diem, housing rates, ect.

[Don Robison]

I hate the source, but the info is actually pretty good concerning the differences between Defined Benefit Plan and Defined Contribution Plans.

http://seiu1000.org/research/defined_benefit_retirement_plans.pdf

[Don Robison]

Maybe it worked differently where you were at but people signed reenlistments early on basically "at the needs of the army" to stay signed up until retirement. I never saw anyone reenlist at the 18 year mark.


I think, if this plan is enacted, those within X number of years should get the retirement benefits as they are today...which is sounds like is part of the deal. Those who have reenlisted to retirement currently should still get what the benefits are today. Those out of reenlistment range, and those just joining would not get the current benefits if enacted.


There are a lot of things that change during enlistment...COLA, per diem, housing rates, ect.


A lot of people reenlist at the 18 and beyond year mark depending on they cycle of your enlistments. Heck I had to extend for 1 month because you can't retire in the middle of the month and I needed 12 days to hit the 1st of the month. I enlisted for 4 years at the 19 year mark because various extensions through the years for training put my re-enlistment time at the 19 year point.
COLA, per diem, housing allowances have nothing to do with retirement.

Your statement about putting a program in place I 100% agree with, but it doesn't always work that way for example health and dental care.

[120mm]

You know what would make me happy?

TSP matching and the abolition of the VA system, combined with a voucher system for medical disability.

[Army Chief]

No matter our fiscal stance at the time it makes ZERO sense to pay someone to work 60 years when they actually only work 20 of those years.

Belmont,

You know that I respect your views, but I think it's probably time that we dial down the "work 20, get paid for 60" rhetoric.

I'm not sure where we ever decided to go down the path of comparing 20 years of military service to 20 years in any other industry in terms of physical wear-and-tear, deprivation, danger-to-life, family separation and overall risk exposure, but neither am I interested in debating the point here.

I do think, however, that we need to look a bit closer at how long our military retirees are actually living, because even with access to improved healthcare, it isn't typically anywhere close to 40 years. For every octagenarian you can point to who is collecting his 38th year of retirement, I can probably show you three or four guys who didn't even make it 15 years into theirs. I'll admit this an anecdotal example, but let's not pretend that any of the current debate is about the fundamental rightness or wrongness of the military pension system when we all know that it is really about the DoD desperately looking for ways to survive some extremely aggressive budget cuts.

AC

[Belmont31R]

A lot of people reenlist at the 18 and beyond year mark depending on they cycle of your enlistments. Heck I had to extend for 1 month because you can't retire in the middle of the month and I needed 12 days to hit the 1st of the month. I enlisted for 4 years at the 19 year mark because various extensions through the years for training put my re-enlistment time at the 19 year point.
COLA, per diem, housing allowances have nothing to do with retirement.

Your statement about putting a program in place I 100% agree with, but it doesn't always work that way for example health and dental care.



Just saying I never saw it.


But I think this plan already has those types in mind, and it wouldn't be such a quick change. It said those already in would still receive current benefits or at least a mix of the two. Id hope those within a few years of retiring would still be elegible for the current benefits, and say those 8+ years out would get a mix of the two. Those currently enlisting would get the new program from the start.


Trust I don't think cutting off current benefits for those with 18 years in is the right move...just saying down the line we can't keep paying for 20 years worth of work for 60 years total. I think a 16-20 matching contribution into the TSP is fair enough, and would give members a more realistic outlook towards retirement. Overall I think the days of this work for 20 years but get paid for 60 are limited, and not even the mil is off that block. I fully support treating wounded/disabled people, and had my own fight with that. I just don't think working 20 years, even in a tough field, should mean lifetime payments that work, out, on average, twice fold what you actually worked (disability payments not included). You're supposed to join as a service to our country not a lifetime paycheck no matter what, and theres tons of mother ****ers in there who never deployed or did shit. My last 1SG was a cock sucker who hid in training commands, and by the time he got to us we had PFC's with more deployment or even just OCONUS time than him which in his case would be ZERO for both. I had two deployments already coming into this command as an E4, ready for promotion, and that MF'er used to walk around calling SFC's 'private' he was so used to calling everyone that because he spent 3-4 years in some training unit dealing with recruits all day. Id gladly have retirement pay be based, at least partially, on OCONUS duty and also eminent danger pay locations. Let those ****ers who rot in training units and logistics stateside get jack shit at retirement.

[Belmont31R]

Belmont,

You know that I respect your views, but I think it's probably time that we dial down the "work 20, get paid for 60" rhetoric.

I'm not sure where we ever decided to go down the path of comparing 20 years of military service to 20 years in any other industry in terms of physical wear-and-tear, deprivation, danger-to-life, family separation and overall risk exposure, but neither am I interested in debating the point here.

I do think, however, that we need to look a bit closer at how long our military retirees are actually living, because even with access to improved healthcare, it isn't typically anywhere close to 40 years. For every octagenarian you can point to who is collecting his 38th year of retirement, I can probably show you three or four guys who didn't even make it 15 years into theirs. I'll admit this an anecdotal example, but let's not pretend that any of the current debate is about the fundamental rightness or wrongness of the military pension system when we all know that it is really about the DoD desperately looking for ways to survive some extremely aggressive budget cuts.

AC



People are paid during deployment for family separation, hazardous duty, ect. That is the "reward" for being put in that position.


I think the real problem with military pay is if you are married or have kids or both. Id like to see pay equal regardless of marital status or having kids. A married dude on deployment could make twice as much as me if not more especially when it came to tax time. Id have to pay taxes while married guys would get 4-5k "back" in rebates. If theres one thing that needs to be correlated to the civilian side its that.

[chadbag]

From what I read on the article, the government is not 'matching' contributions like civilian companies do out here. The service member gets 18% of his pay deducted before he gets it. To me...keep in mind this is IMO...this tells me that the 'retirement plan' is not like the 401s out here. The only funding into the servicemember's account is the service members. This tells me that there is no retirement plan for people in the military.


if you read the article it is pretty clear that the govt is contributing to the plan under this new proposal. Currently, they do not -- just what you put in -- but under the new plan the govt would contribute to it as well.

[Don Robison]

People are paid during deployment for family separation, hazardous duty, ect. That is the "reward" for being put in that position.


Other than family sep; everyone gets the other stuff.

I think the real problem with military pay is if you are married or have kids or both. Id like to see pay equal regardless of marital status or having kids. A married dude on deployment could make twice as much as me if not more especially when it came to tax time. Id have to pay taxes while married guys would get 4-5k "back" in rebates. If theres one thing that needs to be correlated to the civilian side its that.

I've never gotten a 4-5K tax return and been married with 2 kids since I was 24; I must have been doing something wrong. Single guys were driving new Mustangs and BMWs while I drove my 76 Bronco and put my wife through school. Heck, I didn't begrudge them of a nice car they earned it and we both made our financial choices.




After 24 years I have 3 blown discs in my back that I get the nerves electrocuted every 6 months to turn off the pain, bicep tendonitis in both shoulders, arthritis in all of my major joints, spine and neck and they gave me two hearing aids on my way out the door.
If I live for another 60 years to be 104 I thank you for my $2100 a month retirement check. Still waiting for the VA to make a determination after 6 months, but not holding my breath. At least I still have everything attached I started with and I just don't see a reason to dwell on the negatives. There are a lot of guys in worse shape than me and I'd go nuts if I lived to see a negative in everything around me. More power to you if you can keep it up.

[Belmont31R]

After 24 years I have 3 blown discs in my back that I get the nerves electrocuted every 6 months to turn off the pain, bicep tendonitis in both shoulders, arthritis in all of my major joints, spine and neck and they gave me two hearing aids on my way out the door.
If I live for another 60 years to be 104 I thank you for my $2100 a month retirement check. Still waiting for the VA to make a determination after 6 months, but not holding my breath. At least I still have everything attached I started with and I just don't see a reason to dwell on the negatives. There are a lot of guys in worse shape than me and I'd go nuts if I lived to see a negative in everything around me. More power to you if you can keep it up.



Then you should get disability pay. For every guy like you how many made it to 20 years working a 9-5 stateside job? I already said those with servive related disabilities should be compensated. That doesn't mean every member who makes it to 20 deserves another 40 years worth of pay outside of disability payments. By all means if you get out, and can't work a paying job you should be compensated. My BIL gets money every month, and I have no problem with that.


Try to disconnect the 20 year mark with lifetime pay and we will get somewhere. Tons of people are medically discharged short of 20 years but because of their discharge they get lifetime payments, too. If 20 years is too much get the medical retirement. There are already programs in place to deal with the service related injuries. No it doesn't always work out. Neither does the systematic policy of gov employees working for 20 years, and getting retirement for 40 additional years. You are working for the people in this country not a part of a welfare program. Self sacrifice was part of the creed we learned in basic. Not work for less than 1/2 of my working time and "retire" less than half into it than everyone else. Retiring at 39 (I joined at 19 meaning 20 years would put me at 39), and expecting monthly payments from 39 to my end.

[Don Robison]

Then you should get disability pay. For every guy like you how many made it to 20 years working a 9-5 stateside job? I already said those with servive related disabilities should be compensated. That doesn't mean every member who makes it to 20 deserves another 40 years worth of pay outside of disability payments. By all means if you get out, and can't work a paying job you should be compensated. My BIL gets money every month, and I have no problem with that.


Try to disconnect the 20 year mark with lifetime pay and we will get somewhere. Tons of people are medically discharged short of 20 years but because of their discharge they get lifetime payments, too. If 20 years is too much get the medical retirement. There are already programs in place to deal with the service related injuries. No it doesn't always work out. Neither does the systematic policy of gov employees working for 20 years, and getting retirement for 40 additional years. You are working for the people in this country not a part of a welfare program. Self sacrifice was part of the creed we learned in basic. Not work for less than 1/2 of my working time and "retire" less than half into it than everyone else. Retiring at 39 (I joined at 19 meaning 20 years would put me at 39), and expecting monthly payments from 39 to my end.



No worries man; I work because I can, I enjoy it and I know I can't do it forever. Plus keeping active makes me feel better; physically and mentally.
The VA system is wonky at best.

I think the point you're missing is the government made or at a minimum agreed to the deal of lifetime retirement payments at 20 years of service. It's now their obligation to uphold it for everyone they made the deal with which means if properly implemented it would be 20 years from today before a change took effect if implemented tomorrow. We both know that won't happen; they will either change the plan mid stream for some people or scrap the idea after they get whatever else it is they are leveraging the heart strings the public has towards GIs.
They really shouldn't make agreements they can't keep, but that probably a whole different thread.

[Army Chief]

One other thing to keep in mind here is that, even under the current system, military retirement checks aren't quite as robust as folks might otherwise believe them to be. I have a dog in the fight, of course, but my purpose here isn't to advance any particular viewpoint. Just trying to provide a bit of perspective.

To use a personal example, I do feel that I have been more than fairly compensated over the past 27 years for time spent in combat, jumping out of airplanes, flying helicopters, slogging it out in austere conditions, spending years at a time away from my family and living overseas; however, none of these conditional entitlements have any real applicability to a retirement check.

In retirement, the pensioner receives a percentage of his base pay, without any of the special pays and allowances that made up his monthly paycheck while in an active status. Now, I'm not suggesting that this a flawed way of doing things, but it may be worth pointing out that, even if you were clearing $6,500 every month prior to retirement, you might be very fortunate to clear $2,000 thereafter. "Retirement" in this context most often means having a house payment covered (and perhaps a car or boat payment as well), but it will still be necessary to get out and start a second career.

Every situation is different, of course, but for those who may be unfamiliar with the system, I just thought it was worth pointing out that very few military retireees are able to really "retire" on what they receive after spending 20 years in uniform.

AC

[120mm]

I think most people would be shocked at how much better off they would be, if they gave up the defined benefit retirement completely.

Contribution plans are the shit. Especially if you put money into them starting at age 18. And especially if there is a match involved.

The example of the $17k a year retirement check leaps out. It really doesn't take that much effort to build a savings that will throw that off annually over 20 years of steady contributions.

[Smuckatelli]

if you read the article it is pretty clear that the govt is contributing to the plan under this new proposal. Currently, they do not -- just what you put in -- but under the new plan the govt would contribute to it as well.

Chad, I supplied the link, I quoted from the link, I have read the article numerous times. Where did you read that the government will contribute as well?

Keep in mind, my current job is writing and managing contracts for the government. This new 'retirement' plan isn't even in the systems requirements review stage yet. By not clearly pointing out that the government would contribute says a lot.

As I posted earlier, I have lived through a 'retirement' change in 1986. I was put into the new system without a choice. The options were pretty much written up the same way that this new deal is. I didn't get the retirement package that the servicemembers that entered in 1986 but in the long term it still took $400 a month from my original retirement would have been had they not changed the law.

Read what Army Chief and I have been posting here, the retirement package isn't the golden goose egg that everyone appears to think it is. It is nice, and it does manage to keep people focused through the substandard conditions, separation from family, and the giving up of rights that civilians take for granted.

We are going to hollow out the forces with this new retirement scheme. For the past 10 years we have been unintentionally screwing over the small unit leaders. They haven't been training thier troops. They have been getting PTP lock key training. They show up with the troops at an appointed place and time and get trained. These small unit leaders will eventually get to middle management without the knowledge or ability to conduct in house training.

Add in this new retirement and there is no incentive to suck it up for 20-30 years. Why bother, if the heat gets too hot in the kitchen, leave the kitchen.

The problem with the military is that there is no one that looks out for them; no union, no social group, only present and past members.

There are too many over paid government retirement plans out there. From the President to Congress, to local governments. There are many people that during the last year of government service volunteer for extra hours because the retirement pay is based on the last year of service. Note; I know this holds true for many local governments, it may not apply to federal.

[Smuckatelli]

I think most people would be shocked at how much better off they would be, if they gave up the defined benefit retirement completely.

Contribution plans are the shit. Especially if you put money into them starting at age 18. And especially if there is a match involved.

The example of the $17k a year retirement check leaps out. It really doesn't take that much effort to build a savings that will throw that off annually over 20 years of steady contributions.

As long as you have the contributions tied into the stock market, there are no guarantees. Here's a pretty good article on it:

As of early 2011, the financial markets had regained about 80% of their value from the October 2007 peak reached before the onset of the Great Recession. Citing this recovery, some observers have optimistically concluded that the long-term impact of the financial market collapse on workers’ 401k and retirement plans will be relatively minor. Also, many observers note that 401k employee contributions held steady throughout the recession – another positive factor.

But a top-level overviews of the financial market recovery can hide the permanent damage done to 401k and retirement savings for millions of workers. Here are five ways that the Great Recession permanently scarred 401k retirement savings for millions of American workers

http://www.401kplanning.org/401k-and-retirement/

[chadbag]

Hi


Chad, I supplied the link, I quoted from the link, I have read the article numerous times. Where did you read that the government will contribute as well?


Right at the top of the article:



In a massive change that could affect today’s troops, the plan calls for a corporate-style benefits program that would contribute money to troops’ retirement savings account rather than the promise of a future monthly pension, according to a new proposal from an influential Pentagon advisory board.

All troops would receive the yearly retirement contributions, regardless of whether they stay for 20 years. Those contributions might amount to about 16.5 percent of a member’s annual pay and would be deposited into a mandatory version of the Thrift Savings Plan, the military’s existing 401(k)-style account that now does not include government matching contributions.


I put the bold in. Also, it says that currently, the TSP does not include government matching contributions, as a contrast to what this plan would provide.




Keep in mind, my current job is writing and managing contracts for the government. This new 'retirement' plan isn't even in the systems requirements review stage yet. By not clearly pointing out that the government would contribute says a lot.


Except that it does.




As I posted earlier, I have lived through a 'retirement' change in 1986. I was put into the new system without a choice. The options were pretty much written up the same way that this new deal is. I didn't get the retirement package that the servicemembers that entered in 1986 but in the long term it still took $400 a month from my original retirement would have been had they not changed the law.

Read what Army Chief and I have been posting here, the retirement package isn't the golden goose egg that everyone appears to think it is. It is nice, and it does manage to keep people focused through the substandard conditions, separation from family, and the giving up of rights that civilians take for granted.

We are going to hollow out the forces with this new retirement scheme. For the past 10 years we have been unintentionally screwing over the small unit leaders. They haven't been training thier troops. They have been getting PTP lock key training. They show up with the troops at an appointed place and time and get trained. These small unit leaders will eventually get to middle management without the knowledge or ability to conduct in house training.

Add in this new retirement and there is no incentive to suck it up for 20-30 years. Why bother, if the heat gets too hot in the kitchen, leave the kitchen.

The problem with the military is that there is no one that looks out for them; no union, no social group, only present and past members.

There are too many over paid government retirement plans out there. From the President to Congress, to local governments. There are many people that during the last year of government service volunteer for extra hours because the retirement pay is based on the last year of service. Note; I know this holds true for many local governments, it may not apply to federal.

[120mm]

As long as you have the contributions tied into the stock market, there are no guarantees. Here's a pretty good article on it:

As of early 2011, the financial markets had regained about 80% of their value from the October 2007 peak reached before the onset of the Great Recession. Citing this recovery, some observers have optimistically concluded that the long-term impact of the financial market collapse on workers’ 401k and retirement plans will be relatively minor. Also, many observers note that 401k employee contributions held steady throughout the recession – another positive factor.

But a top-level overviews of the financial market recovery can hide the permanent damage done to 401k and retirement savings for millions of workers. Here are five ways that the Great Recession permanently scarred 401k retirement savings for millions of American workers

http://www.401kplanning.org/401k-and-retirement/

I disagree. The socialistic, politically charged defined payout plan is much, much more risky than a contribution based plan. It can and is being taken away from a bunch of workers.

This is a horrible article, which acknowledges it is full of shit before it starts speculating and fear-mongering.

The only people whose retirement savings is "permanently scarred" are the stupid ones. Someone who is smart enough to contribute regularly, and realizes that they don't need every single penny of their money the moment they retire will be okay, regardless of the temporary political wind that is blowing. Barring the completely communization of American economy that is.

I also disagree that there is noone to speak for vets. There are a metric shitload of organizations that lobby for vet programs.

[120mm]

BTW, because I am smart enough to keep contributing in a down market, my per annum return has jumped to 29.9%.

Funny how not being a moron and refusing to pulling everything out worked for me.

And if you are already a retiree, all you needed to do is to economize for a year, and you are back on track.

Now, for those ****ing idiots who retire to a 30 year home mortgage and car payment, sorry; you're a moron and deserve to suffer. Hope you enjoy your overpriced car and house you can't really afford while smart people economize. It sucks to be you, dumbass.

[Smuckatelli]

Hi



Right at the top of the article:



I put the bold in. Also, it says that currently, the TSP does not include government matching contributions, as a contrast to what this plan would provide.



Except that it does.

Chad, nowhere in that article does it say the government shall contribute. This is basic 101 contract management. Please read the article it is clear as to what the end state is.

Fool me once shame on you, fool me twice shame on me....been there done that Chad. I'm not a SME, Obviously you are. I just have had to live with the crap that the unknowing force on the military.

[Smuckatelli]

I disagree. The socialistic, politically charged defined payout plan is much, much more risky than a contribution based plan. It can and is being taken away from a bunch of workers.

I'll grant you this much, this is the first time that I have ever heard military service being equated to socialism.

I signed up for God, Country, & Corps...no mention of freeloaders.

Son of a gun, this is the first time in my life that anyone has thought of me as a socialist. Luckily you are one in a few hundred million that think servicemembers are socialist.

Keep on adjusting your 401k from the comfort of your un-interrupted internet connection. Thank the socialist servicemembers giving you that freedom, you want to take the few pennys away from them because they can't manage thier accounts. Good for you, thank God you don't have to put up with the crap that they do, you probably wouldn't last.

Those of you that are willing to screw over Rudy with the rusty rifle in the third rank that never gets the word desreve to lose you 2nd amendmant rights, you don't have a fricking clue.

Yeah, Rudy gets too many benifits while Joe Smuck Congressman gets an outstanding retirement after serving one term. I see where the loyalty is.

BTW, my retirement isn't getting touched by this new twist, it is the young private that is getting the shaft and it appears that there are some on this board that are good to go with it. Thanks for looking out for the troops, remind me not to turn my back on you guys.

[chadbag]

Chad, nowhere in that article does it say the government shall contribute. This is basic 101 contract management. Please read the article it is clear as to what the end state is.

Fool me once shame on you, fool me twice shame on me....been there done that Chad. I'm not a SME, Obviously you are. I just have had to live with the crap that the unknowing force on the military.

Unfortunately for you, this is a news article, not a contract, so it requires English 101.

Read it again. It says right in the article in plain English that the change is from a defined benefit (after 20 years a 50% retirement) to a contributory program like what corporations use. I already gave you bolded sentences that [in]in plain English[/b] says that the contributions are by the program.

The whole style of the article and its form make no sense if it is about canceling the military retirement program and making the service members totally rely on their own contributions to the TSP. The contrast of the plan with the current TSP participation of no government contribution makes no sense in the article if that is what the plan is about. Instead, it is very clear, that they are proposing getting rid of the 20 year vesting defined pension program (in corporate speak) and going to a contributory program where the government would contribute up to 16% or so of the service members pay (in value -- not taken from the pay -- that makes no sense) to the program. It also explicitly says that the values could be adjusted for those in hardship deployments, combat zones, and however else they need to manipulate it for retention or whatever purpose they would have to manipulate it. That whole thought makes no sense in your claims about the article of no government contribution. The government is going to force people in a combat zone to save more for retirement out of their own pay? WTF?

Read it again. It is very clear, in plain English, what it is about.

[chadbag]

I'll grant you this much, this is the first time that I have ever heard military service being equated to socialism.

I signed up for God, Country, & Corps...no mention of freeloaders.

Son of a gun, this is the first time in my life that anyone has thought of me as a socialist. Luckily you are one in a few hundred million that think servicemembers are socialist.


You are totally mischaracterizing what 120mm said. He was talking about "defined payout plan" (and in general, in response to the people claiming 401(k) plans are dangerous and not very good deals compared to defined benefit plans) being socialistic, not military service.

Calm down.




Keep on adjusting your 401k from the comfort of your un-interrupted internet connection. Thank the socialist servicemembers giving you that freedom, you want to take the few pennys away from them because they can't manage thier accounts. Good for you, thank God you don't have to put up with the crap that they do, you probably wouldn't last.

Those of you that are willing to screw over Rudy with the rusty rifle in the third rank that never gets the word desreve to lose you 2nd amendmant rights, you don't have a fricking clue.

Yeah, Rudy gets too many benifits while Joe Smuck Congressman gets an outstanding retirement after serving one term. I see where the loyalty is.


Calm down here Hoss. No one here has stuck up for lavish Congressional retirement or spoken out against military retirement. We are discussing how military retirement might change, not claiming that military people deserve no benefit.




BTW, my retirement isn't getting touched by this new twist, it is the young private that is getting the shaft and it appears that there are some on this board that are good to go with it. Thanks for looking out for the troops, remind me not to turn my back on you guys.

The young private is not getting the shaft. The CURRENT retirement system in the military is what gives the young private the shaft. According to the article in question, about 83% of service members never reach 20 years and so get NOTHING. The new proposal would give all of these people something to take with them. Last I looked, something is greater than nothing.

You are wrong with your claim that the proposal does not include government contributions. It most certainly does, explained in plain English, and that is why for most service members, this new proposal is probably a much better deal. They get to keep their plan assets even if they don't stay for 20 years, which more than 3/4s of the service members do not.

And if you play your cards right, with this new plan, after 20 years of participation, you will probably have a greater payout with the new plan than you would under the old plan.

And service members currently already serving would, under the new proposal, get to participate in a reduced way in the old plan as well as in the new plan.

[variablebinary]

Truth be told, even if they cut pensions, I'd still sign up and re-up.

I take pride in wearing the uniform and serving even though the pay isn't great, my knees are being ate up, and my wife doesn't like it.

I still have a very romantic view of volunteering for service, knowing full you'll probably give up more than you'll ever get back.

[Smuckatelli]

Unfortunately for you, this is a news article, not a contract, so it requires English 101..

Government contracts are written in English 101, I realize from your 'SME' perspective you understand this, but the article does not articulate it.


Read it again. It says right in the article in plain English that the change is from a defined benefit (after 20 years a 50% retirement) to a contributory program like what corporations use. I already gave you bolded sentences that [in]in plain English[/b] says that the contributions are by the program.

PLEASE FOR THE LOVE OF GOD, read the article and then read this thread. Your posts vairy from high and to the right to low and to the left. The only thing that I can offer is that I have been there done that in 1986. It doesn't make me a SME like you but I have learned a couple of things since that time.


The whole style of the article and its form make no sense if it is about canceling the military retirement program and making the service members totally rely on their own contributions to the TSP. The contrast of the plan with the current TSP participation of no government contribution makes no sense in the article if that is what the plan is about. Instead, it is very clear, that they are proposing getting rid of the 20 year vesting defined pension program (in corporate speak) and going to a contributory program where the government would contribute up to 16% or so of the service members pay (in value -- not taken from the pay -- that makes no sense) to the program. It also explicitly says that the values could be adjusted for those in hardship deployments, combat zones, and however else they need to manipulate it for retention or whatever purpose they would have to manipulate it. That whole thought makes no sense in your claims about the article of no government contribution. The government is going to force people in a combat zone to save more for retirement out of their own pay? WTF?

While many civilians laugh at 'Catch 22,' it is a reality in the military as you know. One simple word would have made it binding by the government.

[Smuckatelli]

I still have a very romantic view of volunteering for service, knowing full you'll probably give up more than you'll ever get back.

This is exactly what the current retirement offers. I never looked at the 20 mark, the only reason that I retired is because after Gunny, there is no rank that still works with the junior troops.

I am retired, I know for a fact that I have given up more than I will ever get back.

The only difference is that today's Private will not benifit from the service.

[Smuckatelli]

The CURRENT retirement system in the military is what gives the young private the shaft. According to the article in question, about 83% of service members never reach 20 years and so get NOTHING.

Okay, military 101.

There are more Privates than there are Generals. Signing up for the military does not mean that you will retire after 20 years. If you can't maintain the standards, you will not be allowed to stay in.

Going with your train of thought, if we have 20,000 Privates in 2011, does that mean we need to have 20,000 Generals in 2031?

Seriously, think about it. There are no gaurantees in military.

Let's say that eventually it is agreed by Congress that there will be 'matching funds.' The article doesn't say this as you know...that is if you have read it.

So, with matching funds, all of a sudden the E-3 over 8 gets tax payer funded retirement pay. The E-6 that just got office hours because he fell asleep on duty gets a tax payer funded retirement. The O-4 that just shacked up with an E-3 gets tax payer funded retirement pay.

Do you really think this is good?

[120mm]

I'll grant you this much, this is the first time that I have ever heard military service being equated to socialism.

Really? It has rapidly become quite the socialist, wipe troopies asses and take care of the 6 kids that E-3 popped out place in the US. I am astounded that a dude who should be making minimum wage as a fry cook gets paid as much as he/she does, just based on how big of a litter she/his wife has.

Compared to when I started my military service 30 years ago, it has become quite plush.


I signed up for God, Country, & Corps...no mention of freeloaders.

Son of a gun, this is the first time in my life that anyone has thought of me as a socialist. Luckily you are one in a few hundred million that think servicemembers are socialist.

Keep on adjusting your 401k from the comfort of your un-interrupted internet connection. Thank the socialist servicemembers giving you that freedom, you want to take the few pennys away from them because they can't manage thier accounts. Good for you, thank God you don't have to put up with the crap that they do, you probably wouldn't last.

Those of you that are willing to screw over Rudy with the rusty rifle in the third rank that never gets the word desreve to lose you 2nd amendmant rights, you don't have a fricking clue.

Yeah, Rudy gets too many benifits while Joe Smuck Congressman gets an outstanding retirement after serving one term. I see where the loyalty is.

BTW, my retirement isn't getting touched by this new twist, it is the young private that is getting the shaft and it appears that there are some on this board that are good to go with it. Thanks for looking out for the troops, remind me not to turn my back on you guys.

Here's one. You don't know me, or have a clue as to what I do for a living. I currently do a damned dangerous job to support our troops. That's AFTER 30 years of military service. What are you doing?

Anyone else want to measure dicks, PM me and I'll contact you on SIPR. Standing offer to come out with me on an op. Of course, you need to be in Afghanistan to take up the offer.

BTW, I cannot think of a better gift to give an 18 year old E1 than a mandatory TSP account with .gov matching. Along with some good poop on how to be financially responsible.

[Smuckatelli]

Really? It has rapidly become quite the socialist, wipe troopies asses and take care of the 6 kids that E-3 popped out place in the US. I am astounded that a dude who should be making minimum wage as a fry cook gets paid as much as he/she does, just based on how big of a litter she/his wife has.

That ended almost 30 years ago. The amount of dependants has no effect on BAH. It is a fixed rate, the family with one child gets the same as a family with 5 children.


Compared to when I started my military service 30 years ago, it has become quite plush.

If you really compare 30 years ago to today, it has gone downhill. In 81 you were paid extra for each child, your retirement was 50% at 20 and 75% at 30.


BTW, I cannot think of a better gift to give an 18 year old E1 than a mandatory TSP account with .gov matching. Along with some good poop on how to be financially responsible.

Current TSP does not have government matching, this new plan doesn't openly say it has government matching. If when the ink is dry after Congress signs it into law and it has government matching it may or may not be a good thing for the troops.

In the long run if the gov matches it will probably end up costing the government more than the current system because everyone will get a '401k' type retirement plan. Currently the only ones that get gov funds are the ones that actually retire which is a small percentage of servicemembers.

[Army Chief]

I'm going to put this cordially; however, I would ask that you do not mistake my forbearance for a lack of resolve.

You may discuss the current military retirement system.

You may discuss proposed changes to same.

You may express personal opinons on either (or both), based upon your own knowledge, and/or experience.

You may not, under any circumstances, interject comments which alter the trajectory of the discussion from consideration of the issues to open criticism of your fellow members. Either learn to convey your point(s) without squaring off against your fellow man, or remove yourself from the conversation.

I am a believer in Big Boy Rules and mutual respect; as such, please take notice that this constitutes the only "fair warning" that will be given in this thread.

Thanks,
AC

[120mm]

That ended almost 30 years ago. The amount of dependants has no effect on BAH. It is a fixed rate, the family with one child gets the same as a family with 5 children.

30 years ago, we would routinely deny E5s and below with families command sponsorship. That means NO money for troopies that got married and popped out kids.


If you really compare 30 years ago to today, it has gone downhill. In 81 you were paid extra for each child, your retirement was 50% at 20 and 75% at 30.

I have a friend who is an E-6 with 6 kids. Dude keeps leaving the Army and then coming back in for the social support for his large family. Riddle me why that is, then.


Current TSP does not have government matching, this new plan doesn't openly say it has government matching. If when the ink is dry after Congress signs it into law and it has government matching it may or may not be a good thing for the troops.

We are 100% agreed, here. To give the government tit sucking employees matching, but not the troops is a travesty, imo.


In the long run if the gov matches it will probably end up costing the government more than the current system because everyone will get a '401k' type retirement plan. Currently the only ones that get gov funds are the ones that actually retire which is a small percentage of servicemembers.

And that is bad, how? To me, this would be a win, regardless of any additional expense. It properly rewards military service, imo. And the best thing about TSP is that troopies can't just raid it after their 4-8 years of initial service.

Today's servicemember is actually paid pretty damned well, compared to his/her non-military peers. TSP with match would just be icing on the cake for everyone, whether they choose one term, or 20-30 year to retirement. You DO remember how little money we made back in the day, right?

[120mm]

I've never gotten a 4-5K tax return and been married with 2 kids since I was 24; I must have been doing something wrong. Single guys were driving new Mustangs and BMWs while I drove my 76 Bronco and put my wife through school. Heck, I didn't begrudge them of a nice car they earned it and we both made our financial choices.

If you've been deployed since 2004, you need to fire your tax guy.

You can "force" full Earned Income Tax Credit through manipulating your Tax Exempt Income.

Provided you are married, and have kids, that is.

(BTW, I am all over the "no additional benefits for families" crowd, despite having raised one myself. Just based on fairness alone.)

[Don Robison]

If you've been deployed since 2004, you need to fire your tax guy.

You can "force" full Earned Income Tax Credit through manipulating your Tax Exempt Income.

Provided you are married, and have kids, that is.

(BTW, I am all over the "no additional benefits for families" crowd, despite having raised one myself. Just based on fairness alone.)

Nope, between the two of us even with me getting 9-11 months tax free from 01-07 we still earned above the caps. My kids were already out of the house by 04.

[Belmont31R]

Nope, between the two of us even with me getting 9-11 months tax free from 01-07 we still earned above the caps. My kids were already out of the house by 04.




I was talking about lower enlisted who would qualify. Its easily possible for a more senior person to be above the cap.


There is also the 1k per kid credit, and things like that. Someone can make 25k a year, and get 8-9k in a "refund", including the EITC.


Of course most people in the mil blow all their money on stupid shit the second the get it because when "everything is paid" you don't really have any worries and the forethought of saving for later doesn't come to mind. I know I bought my share of shit just like most everyone else.


I think I said it before but I think it would be a great thing to introduce retirement from the start, and also equalize the pay between married and non married. Ive never understood why families were so much more at the front than single soldiers in just about everything. Then if people want to get married, and have kids it comes out their pocket. Offer on base housing for a cost and make it very competitive with off post housing- throw in something like free utilities or some such. It seems insane to me that suddenly because someone gets married, and/or has kids suddenly you have to provide them a house, medical care for the family, ect. I had one guy on my team who's wife got a breast reduction surgery in Germany at a German hospital. He got several weeks of free leave, and he told me the surgery was over 50k dollars paid for by tricare. So one spouse, who doesn't even have anything to do with the military besides being married to someone who is in, gets a surgery because she's too fat that cost more than I made in 2 years. Half my first enlistment. Its just a ton of things people have taken for granted that added up end up costing us tons of money. Im not really aware of any other country that sends dependents all over the world like this, and I think if marriage cost people money instead of being rewarded by moving out of the barracks things would be a lot better for the force in general.

[Smuckatelli]

30 years ago, we would routinely deny E5s and below with families command sponsorship. That means NO money for troopies that got married and popped out kids.

I think we might be talking about two different things. Command sponsorship basically puts the servicemember's family on accompanied orders. Those that don't get command sponsorship have to pay for travel.

Once a person gets married and is entered in DEERS, the BAH & medical begin. The local command doesn't have the authority to stop this without proof of adultery or some other major issue. This is how it is today and 30 years ago.



I have a friend who is an E-6 with 6 kids. Dude keeps leaving the Army and then coming back in for the social support for his large family. Riddle me why that is, then.

Only your friend can answer that. My guess would be for medical, the BAH is no different whether he has 1, 6, or 16 kids.


And that is bad, how? To me, this would be a win, regardless of any additional expense. It properly rewards military service, imo. And the best thing about TSP is that troopies can't just raid it after their 4-8 years of initial service.

The current system does not reward substandard performance. IF the gov matches, substandard performance gets rewarded.

The other thing to keep in mind is that once they start to realize how much this is going to cost IF the gov is matching, they will either stop matching (this is probably the reason that the current TSP doesn't have gov match) or completely revamp the system again to make it cost less.

The past couple years have been pretty interesting and insightful. They wanted to replace contractor jobs with GS. From a first look, it appears to be a good idea. A contractor contract usually runs about 150-200k a year. Depending on the GS level the initial costs for the job could be 60-70k a year. Bean counters got all warm and fuzzy but what they didn't think about was a few years down the road. The contractor 150-200k a year covered everything, medical, dental, retirement, sick days........and the government could end the contract when service was no longer needed. The GS 60-70k a year didn't take into account all of the incidentials. In a couple of years the GS guy gets tenure and at that point it almost takes an act of Congress to fire the guy.

They finally realized this and mandated a GS hiring freeze until they figure out how to fix the problem.

In all honesty, it doesn't matter if you and I had to live in the barracks 30 years ago because we weren't paid squat. If we as a nation want to maintain a professional non conscript armed forces, it costs more.

[120mm]

I think we might be talking about two different things. Command sponsorship basically puts the servicemember's family on accompanied orders. Those that don't get command sponsorship have to pay for travel.

Once a person gets married and is entered in DEERS, the BAH & medical begin. The local command doesn't have the authority to stop this without proof of adultery or some other major issue. This is how it is today and 30 years ago.

Since my totality of active service was overseas, this is probably where I get this misperception. Thanks for enlightening me.


The current system does not reward substandard performance. IF the gov matches, substandard performance gets rewarded.

Why is there the need to link retirement to performance as a form of punishment? Seriously. This kind of reeks of "martinet syndrome".

Last time I checked, they rewarded substandard performance by promoting to CSM and O-6, because they all appear to be duds to me.

Anyone who thinks the military retains the best and gets rid of the worst, needs their head examined.

[BVickery]

I have nothing against those who serve, and respect a person tremendously if they do.

The sad fact is pensions in of itself are a ponzi scheme. If a person enlists at 18 and does his 20 he can 'retire' at 38. Do soldiers pay a part of their pension at all? (I honestly don't know and would like to know).

Some change is needed to get this country back on course, and everything should be allowed to be looked at to see if it can be made better. The argument many make when dealing with Military Benefits is 'they risked their lives for their country." I am eternally grateful for them for that, but what good is it if the country goes to hell in a hand basket?


As far as people on welfare, sadly I am currently one. I can tell you this, there are MANY out there looking to scam the system. Their are others out there who want to get off of it but the way the system is set up, trying to get yourself off of it is kind of discouraged. I know because I am working my ass off to try and do so (and God willing, 1 more year as I finish taking care of some medical problems).

[Smuckatelli]

Since my totality of active service was overseas, this is probably where I get this misperception. Thanks for enlightening me.

Overseas service is usually where the Command Sponsorship comes into play. We would have people getting one & two year unaccompanied orders. They couldn't bring thier families over with them and if they did bring the families, they didn't have access to the PX/BX/Commissary.

I'm impressed that you spent the totality of your 30 years in the military overseas. I really tried to but in the end I only spent 15 of the 21 years overseas; Schools, downtime between deployments, and my final 18 months was spent at the Navy Yard.



Why is there the need to link retirement to performance as a form of punishment? Seriously. This kind of reeks of "martinet syndrome".

It is like this in the civilain world also, if you don't perform you end up getting fired. I wouldn't say that it is punishment, no company would stay in business very long if the workers didn't perform.


Last time I checked, they rewarded substandard performance by promoting to CSM and O-6, because they all appear to be duds to me.

No doubt there will always be the 10%, I've known and worked for more outstanding Sgt Majs & Cols than bad ones.

The substandard performance that I was talking about was the normal run of the mill type NJP/Court Martial/failing to maintain standards; DUIs, drunk on duty, failing to be on time, becoming a food blister, screwing over your subordinates.....this is the substandard performance that I was talking about.


Anyone who thinks the military retains the best and gets rid of the worst, needs their head examined.

Like I said, there is always going to be the 10% but generally the system works in most cases.

If you want a 1st Tier military, it is going to cost, 2nd tier will cost less as will 3rd tier. The lower the tier goes, the high the probability that you will be forced to win your battles by attrition.

[120mm]

Overseas service is usually where the Command Sponsorship comes into play. We would have people getting one & two year unaccompanied orders. They couldn't bring thier families over with them and if they did bring the families, they didn't have access to the PX/BX/Commissary.

I'm impressed that you spent the totality of your 30 years in the military overseas. I really tried to but in the end I only spent 15 of the 21 years overseas; Schools, downtime between deployments, and my final 18 months was spent at the Navy Yard.

I have a blend of active and reserve service. I've spent all my active time deployed, and my reserve time stateside.


It is like this in the civilain world also, if you don't perform you end up getting fired. I wouldn't say that it is punishment, no company would stay in business very long if the workers didn't perform.

I've never had a company seize my 401k from me when I've left a company. Are you saying that companies with 401k plans can seize them when they've fired a guy in order to "punish" him? Where do you get off feeling the need to "punish" people, anyway, by going after their retirement savings? Maybe you could break into their house and steal shit from them as well. That'll show them for wearing their hair too long....


No doubt there will always be the 10%, I've known and worked for more outstanding Sgt Majs & Cols than bad ones.

Dude. Quit drinking the Kool-Aid. The ratio of good to bad is about the reverse of what you state. 10% of them are worth a shit. The rest of them are incompetent ass-kissers and cock suckers. And the rate of competence goes down, the higher you go up.


The substandard performance that I was talking about was the normal run of the mill type NJP/Court Martial/failing to maintain standards; DUIs, drunk on duty, failing to be on time, becoming a food blister, screwing over your subordinates.....this is the substandard performance that I was talking about.


The great majority of servicemembers who leave, do so because their term is up. Period. Painting a picture that somehow the ones who leave are inferior and ****ups just reveal that "martinet syndrome" I'm talking about.



Like I said, there is always going to be the 10% but generally the system works in most cases.

If you want a 1st Tier military, it is going to cost, 2nd tier will cost less as will 3rd tier. The lower the tier goes, the high the probability that you will be forced to win your battles by attrition.

Don't know where you are going with this. Suggest you examine your logic chain and reengage.

In my experience, there are two reasons a guy stays in the military. 1. Deep commitment and love of the mission. 2. Such a complete ****up they can never succeed anywhere else in the world.

I would state that #2 exceeds #1 by a large margin. And #2 gets promoted to higher ranks more than #1. Why do you think the military has such a hard on for what kind of socks and PT footwear soldiers wear? Why do you think soldiers have to kit up like the ****ing Michelin Man to drive down the streets of Kabul? It's because worthless ****ers are running it, that's why.

And STILL, TSP with matching is better than a defined % retirement plan.

[Smuckatelli]

I have a blend of active and reserve service. I've spent all my active time deployed, and my reserve time stateside.

Thanks for your service.

[armakraut]

The military really isn't the problem, it's the rest of the government that needs to be put on 401k's and or social security like everybody else. Regular government workers/officials need to foot 50%+ of their health care too. I don't like being robbed at gunpoint to subsidize lavish health care benefits when most of the unproductive-sector workers earn so much more than my coworkers and I. Sort of like foreign aid, stealing from poor people in a rich country to give to rich people in a poor country.

Military health care and other benefits need to be a little different than the private sector, or the government sector, because it's not like they can walk off the job, move, or go on strike. EPA doesn't go to combat zones.

[BrianS]

I wouldn't have any faith a pension is going to be there personally. If I were in a career military position I would rather have a plan that I was contributing towards with matching contributions that I OWNED.

Think Greece.

[chadbag]

Government contracts are written in English 101, I realize from your 'SME' perspective you understand this, but the article does not articulate it.



PLEASE FOR THE LOVE OF GOD, read the article and then read this thread. Your posts vairy from high and to the right to low and to the left. The only thing that I can offer is that I have been there done that in 1986. It doesn't make me a SME like you but I have learned a couple of things since that time.



I did read the article. 2x. It states in plain English that the government is contributing under the proposed plan. I quoted parts of the article for you and put them in bold.

The whole article makes no sense at all if the proposed plan does not include government contributions and only means that the government will force service members to contribute a portion of their pay to the plan. It makes no sense.





While many civilians laugh at 'Catch 22,' it is a reality in the military as you know. One simple word would have made it binding by the government.

[chadbag]

Okay, military 101.

There are more Privates than there are Generals. Signing up for the military does not mean that you will retire after 20 years. If you can't maintain the standards, you will not be allowed to stay in.

Going with your train of thought, if we have 20,000 Privates in 2011, does that mean we need to have 20,000 Generals in 2031?


Where in the heck is this coming from? Of course there are more privates than generals. Of course not every one can stay in 20 years.

What does that have to do with article and the proposal to switch from a 20 year "cliff" vesting, so to speak, to government contributions to a retirement plan similar to the current TSP?



Seriously, think about it. There are no gaurantees in military.

Let's say that eventually it is agreed by Congress that there will be 'matching funds.' The article doesn't say this as you know...that is if you have read it.


The article very specifically DOES say that the government would be contributing under the proposed plan. I did read it. 2x. I also pointed out exactly where it says their are government contributions.



So, with matching funds,


The article does not say there are matching funds. Just plan contributions by the government that might be up to 16.5% of the servbice member's "annual pay".


all of a sudden the E-3 over 8 gets tax payer funded retirement pay. The E-6 that just got office hours because he fell asleep on duty gets a tax payer funded retirement. The O-4 that just shacked up with an E-3 gets tax payer funded retirement pay.

Do you really think this is good?

I don't know if it is good or not. But it probably is. In the civilian world, if my employer has a 401(k) and matches say up to 5%, that money is mine when I leave, even if I am fired.

If the service member gets paid, then up until they are discharged, they are paid for the services provided and any contributions to the plan that they already received they would get to keep.

However, their retirement is not tax-payer funded, in the sense of how it is now. The only funds they would keep from this tax-payer funded retirement would be those funds already disbursed into their account prior to separation. Once separated, no more tax payer funds would be going to them.

[chadbag]

Current TSP does not have government matching, this new plan doesn't openly say it has government matching.

You are right. The proposal as listed in the airforcetimes.com article does not talk about matching. It talks very specifically about government contributions to the service member's account in the mandatory retirement program (that was compared to the current TSP). But it does not talk about matching specifically.


If when the ink is dry after Congress signs it into law and it has government matching it may or may not be a good thing for the troops.

In the long run if the gov matches it will probably end up costing the government more than the current system because everyone will get a '401k' type retirement plan. Currently the only ones that get gov funds are the ones that actually retire which is a small percentage of servicemembers.