Military Retirement on the Chopping Block

General General Discussion
1

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]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.[/i]

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

2

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

3

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.

4

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.

[i]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.[/i]

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

5

LOL.

THIS

will really fuck 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.

6

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.

7

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.

8

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

9

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:

10

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.

11

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.

12

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.

13

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. :frowning:

14

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.

15

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. :frowning:

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?

16

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?

17

Correct.

C4

18

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

19

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.

20

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.