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.
No disrespect intended, but what would be the point of such a policy??
The free pension is intended to provide a social safety net for officers that are forced to retire. It was never intended to pad the pockets of those that have established successful careers outside the military. As I stated earlier, IMO, taxpayers have no business paying $30-40K/year pensions to men and women of working age that have found lucrative jobs outside the military.
Approximately 40 percent of veterans receiving military pensions, or more than 840,000 veterans, are still of working age. Thousands of these veterans (who received preference in gov hiring) receive $30-40K pensions on top of their GS14, GS15, and/or SES salaries. We also have military contractors receiving the same pensions on top of $200-300K salaries. This is not something our country can afford. While promises should be honored, something must be done, particularly for future pensions.
In fiscal 2012, military retirees and survivor-benefit recipients received payouts of $52 billion. In 10 years, that will grow by 16 percent, to $59 billion. By 2034, if no changes are made, such outlays are projected to hit $108 billion, and the unfunded liability — the amount needed in the future to pay all those qualified — would be $2.7 trillion. To put that number in context, the projected budget deficit for 2014 -- with Social Security, Medicare, and all other federal spending -- is ~$700 billion.
The free pension is intended to provide a social safety net for officers that are forced to retire. It was never intended to pad the pockets of those that have established successful careers outside the military. As I stated earlier, IMO, taxpayers have no business paying $30-40K/year pensions to men and women of working age that have found lucrative jobs outside the military.
No disrespect intended, but what would be the point of such a policy??
I said: "If the gripe is over military retirement pay plus government employee pay, then merely make it less lucrative for a military retiree to hold a government job."
If that ain't the gripe...no problem.
As I said before, though, I would never touch the military retirement pay (which is not a "pension," btw). If the gripe is that retired officers earn too much from the government, I'd cap their civil service pay.
I said: "If the gripe is over military retirement pay plus government employee pay, then merely make it less lucrative for a military retiree to hold a government job."
If that ain't the gripe...no problem.
As I said before, though, I would never touch the military retirement pay (which is not a "pension," btw). If the gripe is that retired officers earn too much from the government, I'd cap their civil service pay.
So a retired doctor makes 50k in retirement (1/5 their active duty pay and 1/10th their civilian counter parts pay), and you want to cap their post military civil service pay at 100k? How does that make sense? The military will pay a contractor who never was AD 250k but a retired asset only 100k???
So a retired doctor makes 50k in retirement (1/5 their active duty pay and 1/10th their civilian counter parts pay), and you want to cap their post military civil service pay at 100k? How does that make sense? The military will pay a contractor who never was AD 250k but a retired asset only 100k???
Did my comment seem to you like something I was writing my congresscritter to get enacted?
It's amazing that all these people who were unwilling to serve for 20 years and happy to let me and others do it now complain about the compensation we get for living and working this crappy lifestyle for so long.
Just wait until they get their way and the compensation is removed and there are not sufficient people willing to volunteer to stick around and live that crappy lifestyle for so long and they or their children are forced to do it for no or reduced compensation.
I disagree with the reduction of retirement COLA and I think there are better ways to save the money.
But I really doubt anyone is going to make their decision to stay for 20 years or leave based on the fact that working age pensions will be slightly lower than they would have been otherwise.
I disagree with the reduction of retirement COLA and I think there are better ways to save the money.
But I really doubt anyone is going to make their decision to stay for 20 years or leave based on the fact that working age pensions will be slightly lower than they would have been otherwise.
Two things make the difference:
One, yes it will make a difference to the person at the 8-to-10-year point who has to make that decision.
Two, they will know--for sure--that the government is not good for its word.
For example, an Army private with fewer than two years of service and no dependents earns on average about $40,400 annually, said Navy Lt. Cmdr. Nathan Christensen, a Defense Department spokesman. About two-thirds of that is base pay and the rest a housing allowance and a food allowance, with no taxes paid on the two allowances.
Quote:
Originally Posted by MPRetired
Except Army Privates with no dependents don't receive housing or food allowances; they live in barracks and have a meal card for the on-base dining facilities. So, that $40,400 can be cut by a third to start with. I love how these so-called experts inflate the numbers to serve their own purposes.
I live materially better in the civilian world with a $12,000 a year income than I did in the Marine Corps with an E-4 rank pulling in over 72 hours a week in security work. LMAO. What a bunch of horse sh*t. I'm non-service connected and live about as well as most welfare mothers in the United States. Actually, they may more or less live a bit better than me if they pay $50.00 a month for rent in a middle-class style apartment and get paid by the state to babysit their nieces and nephews.
I disagree with the reduction of retirement COLA and I think there are better ways to save the money.
But I really doubt anyone is going to make their decision to stay for 20 years or leave based on the fact that working age pensions will be slightly lower than they would have been otherwise.
Then you would be incorrect, they tried to monkey with the retirement program in the 80's (REDUX which also lowered the COLA by 1%) and had to repeal it and offer an alternative as it was having an effect on people decision to stay for 20.
The problem with lowering the retirement benefits is that the best and most talented people will leave for the civilian sector and the only ones staying until 20 will be the poor performers and the ones that would struggle to make it on the outside. The way it is now, they get some talented people willing to stick around for 20 years and deal with the crap for low wages and use programs to weed out the poor performers and those that are a drain on the system so they never make it to 20 years.
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.
