DoD panel calls for radical retirement overhaul

[HTRN]

Sorry, no I did not read all of the thread. But....

What ever happend to old fashioned public service????

I always thought that included "the" service.

Sent from my SCH-I500 using Tapatalk

 

[Admin]

Sorry, no I did not read all of the thread. But....

What ever happend to old fashioned public service????

I always thought that included "the" service.

Sent from my SCH-I500 using Tapatalk

No some people think that allowing .gov employees to retire after 20-30 years while having to replace them when they do is economically feasible. It's not.

 

[terraformer]

These cuts may bring about with them a positive outcome. Higher pay today for active military which can be used to fund personal retirement accounts. This is a better long term financial policy approach. They can take these accounts with them into the private sector and build upon them in private sector jobs and have an actual nest egg instead of a promise of payments while they are alive. This makes soldiers more expensive, which isn't a bad thing. We already have military policies that value the soldiers life more now than ever and the KIA numbers in the middle east compared to previous engagements bear this out. They are talking about having unmanned remotely piloted jet fighters in the not so distant future.

This appears to this outsider as very much related to the moves toward fewer but more specialized, highly trained military personal serving longer periods of attachment. Although careerism has it's draw backs, the days of the 1 year and you are out military are long past and even the 4 year hitch is becoming untenable from an investment cost (i.e.; training) perspective.

 

[terraformer]

No some people think that allowing .gov employees to retire after 20-30 years while having to replace them when they do is economically feasible. It's not.

This policy will likely result in more people staying longer in the military ironically. But they won't be able to retire at 40 any longer. It will be more like a job where one picks their time to move on. It will make short term costs higher but there is better long term cost control. Adding military personnel will cost those making the decision to do so instead of allowing them to pass on the costs of the increases to subsequent generations of politicians.

 

[Martlet]

This policy will likely result in more people staying longer in the military ironically. But they won't be able to retire at 40 any longer. It will be more like a job where one picks their time to move on. It will make short term costs higher but there is better long term cost control. Adding military personnel will cost those making the decision to do so instead of allowing them to pass on the costs of the increases to subsequent generations of politicians.

It doesn't really work that way, anymore. Now you're required to go before a board if you want to continue your service.

 

[terraformer]

It doesn't really work that way, anymore. Now you're required to go before a board if you want to continue your service.

Past when? Past 20 years? I am not suggesting people will stay past 20 or 30 years more often, I am suggesting those leaving after 4 or 5 years will stay longer.

 

[Martlet]

Past when? Past 20 years? I am not suggesting people will stay past 20 or 30 years more often, I am suggesting those leaving after 4 or 5 years will stay longer.

Ahhh. I think the pay would have to drastically increase to make a significant change in lower leadership attrition. Do you think people leave the military because of the money? I don't. Particularly that age group. I think it's the lifestyle.

 

[wolf223]

It doesn't really work that way, anymore. Now you're required to go before a board if you want to continue your service.

must be those pesky numbers. a couple of my guys are in the same trap right now...

 

[terraformer]

Ahhh. I think the pay would have to drastically increase to make a significant change in lower leadership attrition. Do you think people leave the military because of the money? I don't. Particularly that age group. I think it's the lifestyle.

Keep in mind, there is this weird curve of benefits for staying in the military right now. There is no greater benefit for staying 10 years but not 20 as the retirement benefits aren't as as good until you hit that 20 yr mark. If you spread that benefit over each year equally, you may see people stick around a little while longer as the opportunity cost of staying is lessoned. And I do think that in order to let people self fund retirement accounts, it would take a significant increase in pay to do it. The pay would look a lot better in comparison to a lot of private sector jobs.

 

[wolf223]

Keep in mind, there is this weird curve of benefits for staying in the military right now. There is no greater benefit for staying 10 years but not 20 as the retirement benefits aren't as as good until you hit that 20 yr mark. If you spread that benefit over each year equally, you may see people stick around a little while longer as the opportunity cost of staying is lessoned. And I do think that in order to let people self fund retirement accounts, it would take a significant increase in pay to do it. The pay would look a lot better in comparison to a lot of private sector jobs.

its not that simple. you have people that sign up for the college money. some for bonuses and loan repayments.

once you re up for a second term, all bets are off. the retirement @ 20 years is what keeps people around. some good, some bad.

there ARE measures in place to weed out non-productive members. the point of reaching 20 years is to keep the best of the best in theory.

i.e. i need to reach a certain rank and have certain education to stay competetive with my peers... but that mainly pertains to the federal (title 10) active duty side...

i think thats what this article lacks... insight vs. career progression and keeping a smaller more elite force.

hence, its bs.. not going anywhere imo. i came into the service after the downsize of the mid 90's... folks were getting peer'd out or given "early outs" if they had 15 years in, but no more than 20.

 

[terraformer]

its not that simple. you have people that sign up for the college money. some for bonuses and loan repayments.

once you re up for a second term, all bets are off. the retirement @ 20 years is what keeps people around. some good, some bad.

Actually, you are proving my point wonderfully. The initial term is far more lucrative than any subsequent enlistment term under 20 years (assuming you can meet all criteria and progress at an expected pace through rank, etc). So all things being equal, you either stay in for 20 or you pull the ejection handle at the end of the initial term. My point is an increase in pay up front with less on the backend would cause less to pull the ejection handle after 1 term though they won't stay for 20 years either. You will have a more normalized trickle out of people instead of (and I am making these numbers up) 45% bailing after one term, 45% sticking through past 20 years and the other 10% dropping out in the middle. You will have a more even distribution of people leaving the service after x years of service.

ETA: After thinking about this, there is another benefit. Older soldiers who bring work and other life experiences, especially into non-combat technical fields would be more incentivized to join under this proposed system.

 

[beaker]

True, my younger brother is an Senior Master Sergeant in the Air Force and he is up for Chief in a couple of months. He already had to file his retirement papers in the event he doesn't make Chief. He thinks he has a good shot, but he is ready to retire if that is how it goes down.

It doesn't really work that way, anymore. Now you're required to go before a board if you want to continue your service.

 

[dustoff22]

The fact that you feel like your service entitles you to something besides gratitude is an insult to all who have honorable served.

The fact that my service entitles me to something other than gratitude? I certainly do numbnuts, a retirement which you call "life-long welfare".

 

[coastie]

I have a hard time listening to someone plead poverty when your retirement is probably about 50K a yr with medical benefits. Did you earn it? Of course. Are you entitled to it? Yes because it is what you signed up for and agreed to. Thank you for your service.

There is an attitude that I see in the service that the public somehow owes us something and it bothers me to the core. I hear my guys say they wont shop at stores because they arent offering a military discount or they get pissed when they dont get out of tickets, pay tolls etc. To me it is disgusting. You volunteered for the job for a myriad of reasons. It could be pay, job skills, college, a retirement, love of country. That is why you are there the public doesnt owe us anything. We volunteered. We knew there would be lousy hours, away from family etc. If there is a better deal somewhere else, get out once your enlistment is up.

Military pay has come light years in the last 10-15 years. As an active duty O4 over 14, with BAH and BAS I would be grossing better than $110K a yr. Of that almost 30K is tax exempt as BAH and BAS. Now take an E-4 over 4, he would be grossing almost 46K of which over 19K is tax exempt. Both of these numbers assume BAH with dependents and I used Portsmouth NH as the duty station. That is good pay. WHen you factor in the medical benefits, it is hard to cry poverty. THe only reason many qualify for food stamps is because the states only look at taxable income and dont include BAH and BAS.

THe bottom line is that the country is broke. Everyone is going to have make some sort of sacrifice including the military. Should they be the first on the chopping block? No. But they will be there eventually. The system will have to change. It is unsustainable.

 

[mark056]

I have a hard time listening to someone plead poverty when your retirement is probably about 50K a yr with medical benefits. Did you earn it? Of course. Are you entitled to it? Yes because it is what you signed up for and agreed to. Thank you for your service.

There is an attitude that I see in the service that the public somehow owes us something and it bothers me to the core. I hear my guys say they wont shop at stores because they arent offering a military discount or they get pissed when they dont get out of tickets, pay tolls etc. To me it is disgusting. You volunteered for the job for a myriad of reasons. It could be pay, job skills, college, a retirement, love of country. That is why you are there the public doesnt owe us anything. We volunteered. We knew there would be lousy hours, away from family etc. If there is a better deal somewhere else, get out once your enlistment is up.

Military pay has come light years in the last 10-15 years. As an active duty O4 over 14, with BAH and BAS I would be grossing better than $110K a yr. Of that almost 30K is tax exempt as BAH and BAS. Now take an E-4 over 4, he would be grossing almost 46K of which over 19K is tax exempt. Both of these numbers assume BAH with dependents and I used Portsmouth NH as the duty station. That is good pay. WHen you factor in the medical benefits, it is hard to cry poverty. THe only reason many qualify for food stamps is because the states only look at taxable income and dont include BAH and BAS.

THe bottom line is that the country is broke. Everyone is going to have make some sort of sacrifice including the military. Should they be the first on the chopping block? No. But they will be there eventually. The system will have to change. It is unsustainable.

I don't think anyone is crying poverty per se, but remember this that all of the non-taxable allowances you cite are not figured into retirement, only base pay. Today, there are at least three different military retirement systems in place depending on when you joined. I refer you to this link:
http://usmilitary.about.com/cs/generalpay/a/retirementpay_2.htm Essentially to get a $50K retirement, one would have to make $100K in base pay, and how many people are senior O-5's and above who command this salary? Most who retire are enlisted.

As far as medical benefits go, retired service members can sign up for Tricare, but there is no longer "free medical care for life" (unless you were in before 1956) It has been this way since the middle 90's. Tricare is an HMO. You have to pay.

As far as getting some kind of a discount, I certainly don't complain if offered one, only a fool would not take a discount, but I have no expectations of a discount either, it is not a "right" or entitlement.

Nobody owes me anything than what was contractually promised to me, and government has already reneged on the "free medical care for life."

I wish a made a $50K pension, because if I did I sure wouldn't be working.

I agree the system has to change, but when the government says its going to set up some kind of a 401K and invest my money, I get very nervous. (Actually anyone currently in the system would be "grandfathered" under any pension plans proposed, but that is not cast in concrete either).

I think that today's service members are well compensated, we are discussing pensions here not active duty pay and allowances.

 

[Martlet]

No some people think that allowing .gov employees to retire after 20-30 years while having to replace them when they do is economically feasible. It's not.

Completely irrelevant, IMHO. While I may be unpopular for saying so, I have a hard time justifying a pension at the public's expense. More so when it isn't tied to a retirement age.

 

[AfghanIraqVet]

I guess I'll add my 2 cents on this. First of all, moving an active duty retirement plan to the reserve type plan wouldn't work. Im active duty attached to a reserve unit so I've figured it out pretty well. An active duty spends 5+ days at work a week and a reservist comes in for 2 days a month. I just think in a way its comparing apples to oranges.

As for collecting retirement after twenty, you only receive 50% of the last grade you reached. So this 50k BS is absurd unless, like it was said, you were an O5. Keep in mind, for the Marine Corps, most people I know retire in the enlisted ranks as a Gunny or Master Sergeant.

 

[AfghanIraqVet]

As well someone said something about joining for the college money and bonuses and all the other bells and whistles. I cant speak for all branches but I know that the Marines, there's no lavish bonuses for joining. Granted we get the GI bill afterwards but I haven't seen a dime for my time in the Marines. That had no effect on me leaving college for this gun club.

 

[Dench]

I'll reply to a few points that were made in this thread:

firstly, when I originally joined the Army up until about a year before I got out I was planning on staying in 20 years. I didn't do this for several reasons. The main one being my personality is on the weird side for being in the military, plus the ranks in the MA guard were 100% stagnant (as in theres a 50 year old E5 that cant pass PT thats been sitting in that slot for the past 20 years).

Anyway, Like Wolf223 said the 20 year retirement thing keeps a lot of 'good' people in. The problem a lot (i would say most) vets who are retiring run into is where the hell do they go for work when they are out of some obscure military job at age 38 and thrown into the civilian market with niche/obscure training? The current pension is a cushion to keep people afloat until they find a new career. If this pension is made smaller, than a lot of people will be in some financial trouble right out of the military. Enlisted (my estimates at retirement) leave the Army at E6+ and Officers at 03+. (see pay scale here http://www.militaryfactory.com/2010-military-pay-scale-chart.asp ). The pay is lousy, period.

The other main point is that a lot of high caliber people will leave the full time military because its not realistic to make a career out of when the retirement is a joke.

Its like the problem Alaska is having now with brain drain. All of the states smart students are leaving the state because there's no reason to keep them there. There's no money, and there's no future for them.

Now I understand that the .gov is broke. They should be cutting other bullshit out 1st, like the $47,000,000,000 in foreign aid given out in 2009 for example, the people raping the shit out of social security and people on food stamps. The "free money" programs need to stop before we cut pay to people who bust their ass keeping this country and its interests safe.

 

[AfghanIraqVet]

Now I understand that the .gov is broke. They should be cutting other bullshit out 1st, like the $47,000,000,000 in foreign aid given out in 2009 for example, the people raping the shit out of social security and people on food stamps. The "free money" programs need to stop before we cut pay to people who bust their ass keeping this country and its interests safe.

+1...This would make sense. I wonder what the percentage of the people on SSI (which the wonderful state of MA supplements on top of the fed payout) and welfare served their country (if they even are citizens of this country). Id bet the measly base pay I receive that its not anything to write home about.

And they want to talk about reform, how bout starting with the superintendents making 125k + a year on their pension instead of coming after the GySgt with 4 or 5 combat pumps making about 28k BEFORE taxes.

 

[Dench]

I think if a person is on food stamps they should be required to perform maybe 1-3 hours of community service per week. I wonder how many people will drop off of it immediately as soon as the free ride ends.

1-4 hours is nothing, but its a lot to a person who doesn't need the benefits, is scamming the system and now has to spend personal time actually earning the benefits.

The system is simply to easy to abuse, with politicians oddly making it more easy to abuse as the years go on. Tuition assistance to non citizens? Seriously? Lets put that type of thinking straight into the trash, never mind think about cutting military pensions.

 

[xtry51]

Government provided $ you don't currently work for = welfare. You can call it SS, medicare, food stamps, pensions, etc etc. It's still just money someone is getting paid for not doing anything.

There should be no public retirement, period. Save your own money and plan for your own retirement.

 

[Martlet]

Government provided $ you don't currently work for = welfare. You can call it SS, medicare, food stamps, pensions, etc etc. It's still just money someone is getting paid for not doing anything.

There should be no public retirement, period. Save your own money and plan for your own retirement.

That's idiocy. Pensions don't equal welfare. Sure, some are ridiculously high, undeserved, and manipulated. Those need to be addressed. However, they don't equal welfare. Pensions are an employee benefit, just like health care contributions, 401k matching, etc.

I agree that in most, if not all, cases the public sector shouldn't be bank rolling pensions, particularly 20 year pensions with no minimum age. That doesn't mean they are even in the same ballpark as welfare, though. People worked for that benefit package.

 

[ochmude]

Government provided $ you don't currently work for = welfare. You can call it SS, medicare, food stamps, pensions, etc etc. It's still just money someone is getting paid for not doing anything.

There should be no public retirement, period. Save your own money and plan for your own retirement.

Guess I'm on welfare then since I collect the G.I. Bill.

 

[Admin]

The .gov should NOT be paying pensions for ANYONE!


GO SOCIALISTS GO!!!!!!!!!!!! This board never ceases to amaze me, .mil guys and all. As long as you get yours right? F-ing pathetic....

 

[In God We Trust]

I just re-read my posts in this thread and I want to apologize to Dustoff22 and Skysoldier for coming off as an @hole. We can certainly agree to disagree, but I'm sorry for the way I talked to you guys. You have my respect and gratitude for your service.

 

[wolf223]

The .gov should NOT be paying pensions for ANYONE!


GO SOCIALISTS GO!!!!!!!!!!!! This board never ceases to amaze me, .mil guys and all. As long as you get yours right? F-ing pathetic....

i think that's a bit steep. you know "we" have always gotten the shit end of the stick especially those of us outside of the "specialty" folks i discussed.

hey, if they want to reform it, by all means, however, give me a ****ing salary that is comparable to someone on the outisde with my experience, responsibilities and education level...

i'd gladly put MORE money into something other than the TSP and enjoy it just the same.

comparing a volunteer force to .gov workers is apples to oranges btw. for the simple reason of unions and DoD command policies that clearly say we can NOT lobby for pay raises or any benefits. so in turn we join "xyz" associations to do it for us. but they are just like the NRA and GOAL BOD.... only looking to line their own pockets.

i have too much time in now, but i'd be willing to bet "most" troops would stick around longer if the PAY was actually "good"... most of us lifers and specialty folks stay around for quality of life, enjoying what we do and that cushy, taxable retirement with a shitty HMO... and ID to shop tax free on base and a hat that says "veteran"..

i love my job. you ever opened up a machine gun on a peyote?

 

[Martlet]

The .gov should NOT be paying pensions for ANYONE!


GO SOCIALISTS GO!!!!!!!!!!!! This board never ceases to amaze me, .mil guys and all. As long as you get yours right? F-ing pathetic....

Ok knee jerk. Read my post again. I said pensions aren't welfare, and they aren't. They're part of a benefit package. Then I stated that the benefit package was often obscene and needed to be fixed. Then I moved to paragraph two, where I said even though .gov pensions aren't welfare, that doesn't mean they are right. I plainly stated that in most cases, the public SHOULDN'T be bankrolling .gov pensions. Including mine.

Either I need to explain myself better or you need a reading class. I feel I'm pretty consistent in my views. If that makes me a socialist, you need a dictionary.

 

[ochmude]

Considering military members pay state and federal taxes, as well as all other regulatory fees just like any other citizen does, and their retirement payments are taxed as well, it's a serious stretch to consider it welfare when they're essentially just getting their stolen money back. Hell, I owed more in taxes this past April than I received in G.I. Bill payments for the whole year, and that was after getting money jacked from every paycheck all year, so that benefit was still a net loss for me. Perhaps if military members, and everyone else, could actually keep the money we work for then such incentives wouldn't be necessary.

 

[xtry51]

Considering military members pay state and federal taxes, as well as all other regulatory fees just like any other citizen does, and their retirement payments are taxed as well, it's a serious stretch to consider it welfare when they're essentially just getting their stolen money back. Hell, I owed more in taxes this past April than I received in G.I. Bill payments for the whole year, and that was after getting money jacked from every paycheck all year, so that benefit was still a net loss for me. Perhaps if military members, and everyone else, could actually keep the money we work for then such incentives wouldn't be necessary.

So the basic premise of your argument is you deserve the money because gov't it so f'ed up that everyone is getting screwed??

That's a cop out, not a solution to the problem that if you're getting money you're not working for, people who are working are paying for it with their taxes.

If you VOLUNTEER for military service, then that was your choice. Don't bitch about the crap pay. You could have stayed in the private sector.