Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Just another note on that. Let's use my time in Iraq for example. I am a mechanic. I fix broke stuff. Instead of sending a unit like ours out there to fix the broke stuff they contract out to Kellogg Browning and Root (KBR) and for each mechanic KBR sends that person gets paid 6 figures. Where us lowly soldiers get paid hazard duty pay and still have to go retrieve the broke stuff on the highway. KBR won't. Just a complete waste of money since those contractors won't go outside the wire to get the broke stuff. They have to fly from FOB to FOB instead of taking the vehicles they have to service on the roads. Just too damned dangerous. I have a friend who while in Afghanistan is a pretty good radio mechanic. Well he couldn't work on the equipment. Only contractors and they took their sweet ole time fixing stuff. Needless to say that some vehicles that were supposed to have commo left the wire without. How's that for service? Grrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr
I understand your position, but also for the contractors they are only covered by the Defense Base Act which has very limited benefits. If they go out there and get disfigured or killed(which quite a few have), essentially they are screwed. There is no VA for them, no military medical system to try to repair the damage, no chance at getting military disability checks for the rest of their life. A lot of these guys have come home and their families are screwed and they are screwed. So certainly bigger paycheck, but no security or protection if anything goes wrong.
Also a lot of these guys don't know what to look for or how to operate outside the wire, nor have the means to defend themselves, so it might be more trouble than it's worth having them running around.
I understand...........Also a lot of these guys don't know what to look for or how to operate outside the wire, nor have the means to defend themselves, so it might be more trouble than it's worth having them running around.
(Disclaimer: I get military retired pay) I don't believe the military retirement system should be changed for anyone currently on active duty or retired, but changes should be in effect (after plenty of notice, like they always do) after such-and-such effective date for those entering active duty from that date on. Granted, for many military specialties, age 38-40 is about right for retirement; many of the elite forces are pretty well worn out by that age. Most of the Combat Arms MOS's are a young man's (or woman's) game. But let's face it, jobs like Admin or other "office" type jobs are not that physically demanding. Even jobs like aircraft maintanance can be done by personnel into their 50s. I worked alongside NCOs from other nations that had FAR more experience on the aircraft than I had and they were in their 40s and 50s. Our up-or-out promotion system would have to be altered, though. I realize that recruiting and retention could possibly be hurt by changes in our military retirement system. And there's also a danger of not being able to retain the level of experience we need if mid-level NCOs and officers were able to leave with a decent nest egg through some sort of vestment before 20 years. But there's GOTTA be a way to make the military retirement system more fair and less expensive. Especially since very few civilians get such a good deal ( and, no, they don't have to deal with what we in the military have to put up with...) Wish I had the answers...
(Disclaimer: I get military retired pay) I don't believe the military retirement system should be changed for anyone currently on active duty or retired, but changes should be in effect (after plenty of notice, like they always do) after such-and-such effective date for those entering active duty from that date on. Granted, for many military specialties, age 38-40 is about right for retirement; many of the elite forces are pretty well worn out by that age. Most of the Combat Arms MOS's are a young man's (or woman's) game. But let's face it, jobs like Admin or other "office" type jobs are not that physically demanding. Even jobs like aircraft maintanance can be done by personnel into their 50s. I worked alongside NCOs from other nations that had FAR more experience on the aircraft than I had and they were in their 40s and 50s. Our up-or-out promotion system would have to be altered, though. I realize that recruiting and retention could possibly be hurt by changes in our military retirement system. And there's also a danger of not being able to retain the level of experience we need if mid-level NCOs and officers were able to leave with a decent nest egg through some sort of vestment before 20 years. But there's GOTTA be a way to make the military retirement system more fair and less expensive. Especially since very few civilians get such a good deal ( and, no, they don't have to deal with what we in the military have to put up with...) Wish I had the answers...
Not as hard as you would think.
On the one hand, there's 'A': current military retirement, 2.5% a year, but you HAVE to make 20 years. GREAT for those who make it, not so good for someone who separates at say, 8 years.
Then there's 'B': the ideas being bandied around about putting money in a 'retirement account' so people can leave at 8 or 12 with something in hand.
Partisans on the side of A, partisans on the side of B. I want A! No, B!
Why not C: split the difference. You know, compromise.
1% a year-if you make 20 years.
ALSO put a sum of cash into a retirement account that is yours to keep, transfer to an IRA, cash out for a house, etc. when you complete your service.
It's very similar to what Federal civilians get now, but the cutoff for the immediate pension would be much earlier because, let's face it, SOME combat arms do have a much rougher life and it does wear you out.
This would both solve the perceived 'fairness' problem with people who do not make 20, and also give retirees a chunk of cash. It would also keep at least some experienced senior NCOs and field-grade officers in the mix to provide grown-up leadership, the ones going for the extra retirement incentive, and might clear out a number of junior NCOs and company-grade officers, making promotion opportunity for those who stay a bit better.
It seems the Thrift Saving's Plan is seldom discussed when retirement is talked about. A short thread: http://www.city-data.com/forum/milit...ings-plan.html It had not become available when I was in. My wife did take advantage of it as a Federal employee...
The TSP is an incredible benefit of federal service. With an expense ratio of .027%, it is probably the best 401k plan available. Every service person should max out if possible to the IRS annual limit. This will be more difficult for enlisted, but officers have no excuse not to.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Poncho_NM
It seems the Thrift Saving's Plan is seldom discussed when retirement is talked about. A short thread: http://www.city-data.com/forum/milit...ings-plan.html It had not become available when I was in. My wife did take advantage of it as a Federal employee...
Thanks, Georgia Transplant & Poncho_NM! Georgia Transplant, I believe we should ultimately go to some variation of "Plan C" certainly, it would have to be done fairly and those already on active duty should not have the rules of the game changed on them. But I think we MUST look at some sort of system where those that do jobs that aren't nearly as demending have to serve much longer or get a smaller percentage of retirement pay if they elect to depart early. (Yes, I know "the devil will be in those details"...) As I said previously, I do think technical military jobs such as aircraft maintenance would benefit if the more experienced maintainers could be kept longer. And I don't see why I couldn't have done my job well into my 50s.
Poncho_NM, the TSP is a great idea. And that might make an excellent basis for some sort of vesting for those who leave the military before 20years. The obstacle to that might be getting 20-somethings to understand how important saving and investing are when you're still young, bullet-proof and immortal...
Thanks, Georgia Transplant & Poncho_NM! Georgia Transplant, I believe we should ultimately go to some variation of "Plan C" certainly, it would have to be done fairly and those already on active duty should not have the rules of the game changed on them. But I think we MUST look at some sort of system where those that do jobs that aren't nearly as demending have to serve much longer or get a smaller percentage of retirement pay if they elect to depart early. (Yes, I know "the devil will be in those details"...) As I said previously, I do think technical military jobs such as aircraft maintenance would benefit if the more experienced maintainers could be kept longer. And I don't see why I couldn't have done my job well into my 50s. ...
I can see where technical job fields might benefit from servicemembers being allowed to stay on the job longer.
However I don't know how much longer I could have stayed, if they had not booted me for 'High-Year-Tenure'.
7 months deployed every year, no mail, no phone, no contact with the outside world. Two 2-week windows available each year for leave, and often mandatory training gets scheduled then so you are not allowed to take leave. The remainder of the year is spent in rotating-shiftwork in schools and trainers.
I got out at 6-years and again at 20-years. Both times I sold-back 30-days of leave, which brought me down to only 90-days of leave on the books, which I was able to take as 'terminal-leave'. I was very fortunate in both cases, as I was able to schedule it ahead of time. Otherwise, as I saw with other sailors all that leave time would have been lost due to mission requirements.
I did it, but the toll paid was a heavy toll.
High tech boys are offered some good money to walk out half way through our careers. That is very tempting. If I did not have the promise of a 20-year pension, I would not have stayed.
Most of the senior NCO men I served with, would not have stayed either.
High tech boys are offered some good money to walk out half way through our careers. That is very tempting. If I did not have the promise of a 20-year pension, I would not have stayed.
Most of the senior NCO men I served with, would not have stayed either.
Exactly how much money are we talking about here?
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
