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.
But those numbers would be an average of $34.06 per month in contributions for 20 years... Seems a bit low.
It is low. The numbers are spot on for a normal track E3-E8 promotion timeline, but one percent is not much money.
At the low end 1% of base for an E3 under 2 is just $18.23/month, and at the high end 1% of base for an E8 over 18 is just $48.15/month.
And it's one percent of base pay, which makes up about half of a married JNCO's pay, and 66% of a SNCO's pay (roughly). Thats something that gets over looked when talking about military pensions and this match, in the end retiring at 20 w/50% leaves a servicemember with just 33% of their previous salary.
You are right that it does not pay nearly as much as the 50% current pension. But, there is a major push to overhaul retirement. Personnel costs need to be adjusted to keep a balanced fighting force. I would hate for the DOD to do nothing and let retirement costs eat into other programs. Everyone always talks about taking care of our military, but ignores everything beyond pay. I would much rather have them use a hybrid TSP plan and have enough money left over to maintain equipment dominance. Money is a finite source in the DOD.
It was only a matter of time before the pension plan changed. Civil Service retirement was gutted 30 plus years ago because it was too expensive. The new proposed pension plan is still the best retirement available anywhere. I don't forsee the government having trouble retaining people.
You are right that it does not pay nearly as much as the 50% current pension. But, there is a major push to overhaul retirement. Personnel costs need to be adjusted to keep a balanced fighting force. I would hate for the DOD to do nothing and let retirement costs eat into other programs. Everyone always talks about taking care of our military, but ignores everything beyond pay. I would much rather have them use a hybrid TSP plan and have enough money left over to maintain equipment dominance. Money is a finite source in the DOD.
It was only a matter of time before the pension plan changed. Civil Service retirement was gutted 30 plus years ago because it was too expensive. The new proposed pension plan is still the best retirement available anywhere. I don't forsee the government having trouble retaining people.
Really? Best pension anywhere?
Have you seen police pensions?
A Sargent in the Nypd collects $66k/yr after working 22. That's a dangerous and physical job, but that cop can stay in one house that whole time, and is paid for overtime. That Sargent working 20 gets more in retirement than an E9 working 30.
And it's not just the NYPD, its many police and fire depts around the US:
LAPD 90k after 30, Phoenix police and fire average $44k at 20 (but do have a blended plan, paying 7.5% into their pension, to be fair that's an average and doesn't account for scale in either direction as vesting occurs before 20).
The LAPD pension apologized for being too little and that smaller cities could afford to pay more...
Lets go back to the NYPD Sargent.
That pension is greater than the DoD pension for a Navy Seal Master Chief w/30 years of service.
That pension is greater than the DoD pension for an Army Neurosurgeon w/22 years of service.
That pension is greater than the DoD pension for an Air Force F-22 Pilot w/22 years of service.
A mid level police gets more in retirement than some of the militaries highest ranked, and highest paid professions? Professions that actually took paycuts to serve for 22 and 30 years, and recieved not a dime in overtime pay, and relocated 10-15 times, never giving their spouse the ability to work a steady job and build their own retirement. They couldnt stack up their sick days or work a bunch of OT to boost their pensions, because they didn't get sick days or OT. They could sell back up to 90 days of leave if they timed everything right, but that's nothing compared to how many days just slipped away due to op tempo.
We can't say that 33% of compensation at the high end is overpaying for what we get out of our professional military, that's cheap. And cheaper still for professions like that seal, doc, and flier.
As far as equipment the Air Force can't build a tanker, is paying out the nose for F35 and 22 and the osprey. The navy's LCS and Virginia class sub costs are nearly the same as the more expensive platforms they were set to replace, and the army can't even get its troops a functional camouflage, pistol or modern rifle due to cost overruns.
But somehow the burden is being shifted to the guys who can't say no to an assignment, who can't call it quits mid-contract.
A Sargent in the Nypd collects $66k/yr after working 22. That's a dangerous and physical job, but that cop can stay in one house that whole time, and is paid for overtime. That Sargent working 20 gets more in retirement than an E9 working 30.
And it's not just the NYPD, its many police and fire depts around the US:
LAPD 90k after 30, Phoenix police and fire average $44k at 20 (but do have a blended plan, paying 7.5% into their pension, to be fair that's an average and doesn't account for scale in either direction as vesting occurs before 20).
The LAPD pension apologized for being too little and that smaller cities could afford to pay more...
Lets go back to the NYPD Sargent.
That pension is greater than the DoD pension for a Navy Seal Master Chief w/30 years of service.
That pension is greater than the DoD pension for an Army Neurosurgeon w/22 years of service.
That pension is greater than the DoD pension for an Air Force F-22 Pilot w/22 years of service.
A mid level police gets more in retirement than some of the militaries highest ranked, and highest paid professions? Professions that actually took paycuts to serve for 22 and 30 years, and recieved not a dime in overtime pay, and relocated 10-15 times, never giving their spouse the ability to work a steady job and build their own retirement. They couldnt stack up their sick days or work a bunch of OT to boost their pensions, because they didn't get sick days or OT. They could sell back up to 90 days of leave if they timed everything right, but that's nothing compared to how many days just slipped away due to op tempo.
We can't say that 33% of compensation at the high end is overpaying for what we get out of our professional military, that's cheap. And cheaper still for professions like that seal, doc, and flier.
As far as equipment the Air Force can't build a tanker, is paying out the nose for F35 and 22 and the osprey. The navy's LCS and Virginia class sub costs are nearly the same as the more expensive platforms they were set to replace, and the army can't even get its troops a functional camouflage, pistol or modern rifle due to cost overruns.
But somehow the burden is being shifted to the guys who can't say no to an assignment, who can't call it quits mid-contract.
Are you really trying to compare a police force pension to the entire military? You do realize that they have been trying to cut police pensions for years now, right?
Second, comparing police to the entire military is disingenuous. The military consists of hundreds of jobs, most of which face significantly less danger than police officers on patrol in major cities.
So what is your suggestion? We just keep on going with our old ways despite the fact that it's from the last century and not really sustainable? Let readiness and acquisitions slip to pay for people when we could retain them for less?
Are you really trying to compare a police force pension to the entire military? You do realize that they have been trying to cut police pensions for years now, right?
Second, comparing police to the entire military is disingenuous. The military consists of hundreds of jobs, most of which face significantly less danger than police officers on patrol in major cities.
So what is your suggestion? We just keep on going with our old ways despite the fact that it's from the last century and not really sustainable? Let readiness and acquisitions slip to pay for people when we could retain them for less?
You're the one who said the military pension was the best thing out there.
I simply wanted to refute that.
As far as less danger, there's a lot more to pension than danger.
Every last sailor is a firefighter, ever coastguardsmen a boarding party member and every marine a rifleman.
But again, life insurance is for danger, pensions are a whole other animal.
To make up for two decades of moving too often to build equity in homes, too often for spouses to work up the corporate ladder. To make up for 50/50 deployment/dwell times, to make up for buildings, ships and aircraft that weren't really made with in ergonomics. Noise pollution, rotating shifts, 80 hour weeks with no OT, no sick days, leave that can't be taken, orders that cannot be refused and a contract that cannot be broken.
It's police week, and I know what cops go through and I'm glad my tax dollars are there for them, but don't go and say they deserve a pension greater than any MOS/Rate/etc because there are too many variables.o
It's a raw deal, and there's just not enough push for our servicemembers to utilize the TSP. The damn CFC drives have posters and educated lecturers and incentives, TSP gets nothing.
That is quite true. I was told about TSP by an E-5 in my first year in, I don't think I heard anything about it from an official brief until about 10 years in. Our Chaplain tried to help by getting Dave Ramsey's videos under some special military pricing (or they may have been free, I don't know). He got discouraged after only about 10 people showed up for the informal class he was running last deployment, I ended up showing the rest of the series for him.
The TSP is a good program, and they finally started a Roth option in late 2012. Their fee is crazy low, I think the next cheapest fee anywhere is something like 0.05 from some Vanguard funds, but those may be like Fidelity's funds that require a $10,000 minimum to get the 0.07 rate.
A Sargent in the Nypd collects $66k/yr after working 22. That's a dangerous and physical job, but that cop can stay in one house that whole time, and is paid for overtime. That Sargent working 20 gets more in retirement than an E9 working 30.
And it's not just the NYPD, its many police and fire depts around the US:
LAPD 90k after 30, Phoenix police and fire average $44k at 20 (but do have a blended plan, paying 7.5% into their pension, to be fair that's an average and doesn't account for scale in either direction as vesting occurs before 20).
The LAPD pension apologized for being too little and that smaller cities could afford to pay more...
Lets go back to the NYPD Sargent.
That pension is greater than the DoD pension for a Navy Seal Master Chief w/30 years of service.
That pension is greater than the DoD pension for an Army Neurosurgeon w/22 years of service.
That pension is greater than the DoD pension for an Air Force F-22 Pilot w/22 years of service.
A mid level police gets more in retirement than some of the militaries highest ranked, and highest paid professions? Professions that actually took paycuts to serve for 22 and 30 years, and recieved not a dime in overtime pay, and relocated 10-15 times, never giving their spouse the ability to work a steady job and build their own retirement. They couldnt stack up their sick days or work a bunch of OT to boost their pensions, because they didn't get sick days or OT. They could sell back up to 90 days of leave if they timed everything right, but that's nothing compared to how many days just slipped away due to op tempo.
We can't say that 33% of compensation at the high end is overpaying for what we get out of our professional military, that's cheap. And cheaper still for professions like that seal, doc, and flier.
As far as equipment the Air Force can't build a tanker, is paying out the nose for F35 and 22 and the osprey. The navy's LCS and Virginia class sub costs are nearly the same as the more expensive platforms they were set to replace, and the army can't even get its troops a functional camouflage, pistol or modern rifle due to cost overruns.
But somehow the burden is being shifted to the guys who can't say no to an assignment, who can't call it quits mid-contract.
This information (LAPD) is out of date. New York reformed their pension system three years ago.
NY reformed their pension, but the link you provided doesn't apply directly to NYPD.
Regardless the police pensions were brought up in response to a poster saying the military had the best pension. I could fill a book with PD and Fire that have higher pension amounts compared to working salary after 20, and that have vesting much earlier than 20 years.
The military pension is peanuts compared to what we have to pay for the active duty time of those pensioners.
NY reformed their pension, but the link you provided doesn't apply directly to NYPD.
Regardless the police pensions were brought up in response to a poster saying the military had the best pension. I could fill a book with PD and Fire that have higher pension amounts compared to working salary after 20, and that have vesting much earlier than 20 years.
The military pension is peanuts compared to what we have to pay for the active duty time of those pensioners.
"When you bring a problem, bring a solution."
I see a lot of pointing at police pensions. Okay.
What's your solution? In your perfect world, what should the military pension system be?
What's your solution? In your perfect world, what should the military pension system be?
a) Stick with current?
b) Change? In what way?
Me?
The current plan works. It has its flaws but it works. If we were to change it, and are modeling civilian retirement to do so then let's change the military to be more civilian.
You can't demand 8 year contracts, with the death penalty on the table for unilaterally voiding those contracts in the civilian world. You can't do 20 year vesting in the civilian world, nor can you demand people move, or stop getting paid. So if you want to keep all that with the military you're going to have to throw some carrots out there too.
Is 20-25% of your last working years conpensation generous? Maybe. But only when compared to a 9-5, stable, at will career. It's hardly compensation for what we put troops through now, and to lessen it? Ha, that's absurd.
We are talking a 20% cut to retirement (50% of base to 40% of base is a 20% cut).
Keep it as is.
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.
