U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Military Life and Issues
 [Register]
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.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 06-30-2016, 08:30 AM
 
2 posts, read 1,316 times
Reputation: 12

Advertisements

Total Marine Air
Year1 Total Officers Army Navy Corps Force

2014 1,970,816 532,471 214,643 119,141 32,209 166,478


Total Marine Air
Enlisted Army Navy Corps Force

1,438,345 512,538 358,359 75,772 491,676



2013 Actual number of people recruited by the military 167,756
Air Force Army Marine Corps Navy
26,275 69,154 32,215 40,112



from 1994 to 2014 number of retired military increased by 388,841 over the last 20 years

from 1994 to 2014 number of people recruited over the last 20 years 3,500,000



This column explains why the current military retirement system is an incredibly good deal for the U.S. taxpayer and why the Obama Administration's proposal to change it would defeat the currently successful re-enlistment and retention rates for our volunteer armed forces. (Fair disclosure: The author served 20 years on active duty and is retired at half pay.)

Shortly after entering active duty, yours truly asked a seasoned personnel officer: "Why is my base pay only $222.22 per month when so many of my college classmates who went into civilian life are making twice or three times that?" What follows is a reconstruction of that conversation:

"Lieutenant, your low pay is because the military system is 'deferred compensation,' meaning you do not have to pay anything upfront toward retirement which will be 'vested' if you complete 20 years of active-duty service. So, we are 'deferring' your pay for you to draw later as retirement. If you make it through 20 years, you get half-pay for life and almost-free medical care. But if you do not complete 20 years of service, you don't get any retirement. Nada, zip, zero."

"Well, what could I expect to happen during the next 20 years?"

"Lieutenant, as an infantry officer, you can expect to live abroad for about 10 years, much of it in disease-ridden, Third World countries you would never ever want to visit on vacation. You will be moved 15 to 20 times. You can expect your household goods to be lost at least once. Off and on, you can expect to be separated from wife and family for about six years. You can expect to be wounded at least once. Or, killed. But that only happens once.

"After you reach about 10 years of service and you are at a point when you are most valuable to the military, you can expect the civilian bean-counters in the Pentagon to try to find ways of getting rid of you short of the 20 years you need to draw retirement. Do not give them any reasons to do that. If you get hurt, shake it off. Don't report it. The bean counters don't want retirees with medical problems. Also, the military has an "up or out" policy. Go to graduate school at night and on weekends to stay competitive with your peers. Do not give them an excuse to throw you throw out short of 20 years."

"OK, of all the second lieutenants who came on active duty this year, what percent of us will make to 20 years?"

"Out of your year-group, about 6 percent of you will make it, meaning the USA will never have to pay a dime in retirement to 94 percent of you. It is a cruel deal for those who don't make 20 years; however, it is a sweetheart deal for the U.S. taxpayer. For the troops who do make 20 years, they will have played 'you-bet-the-best-years-of-your-life,' and won."

Returning to 2011: Today, due mainly to better battle-field care, 17-percent of the force is making it to the 20-year retirement mark. Even so, 83-percent who have served will never see a dime of their pay that was "deferred" for their retirement.

To make the system more "fair," the Obama administration proposes to "vest" a reduced amount of retired pay at 10 years of service. Guess what many of those with 10 years of service and facing almost certain assignment or reassignment to Afghanistan or Iraq will do? Answer: Take a reduced retirement and leave military service.

In 1986, Congress reduced military retirement by 20-percent, undermining retention and readiness so badly that by 1990 Congress had to reverse itself. Predictably, the proposed Obama scheme will devastate retention rates while, at the same time, destroying a system that is more than "fair" to the taxpayers.

Nationally syndicated columnist, William Hamilton, was educated at the University of Oklahoma, the George Washington University, the U.S Naval War College, the University of Nebraska, and Harvard University.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 07-03-2016, 06:08 PM
 
Location: St. Louis
3,287 posts, read 1,122,112 times
Reputation: 2122
100% of me did 20.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-14-2016, 10:04 AM
 
2 posts, read 1,316 times
Reputation: 12
I did 26 years total but just one contract at a time because I was not committed to the enlisted
Military lifestyle. I was still "subject to recall to active duty" after retiring.
6,2,2,4,2,4,6
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-20-2017, 11:06 AM
 
1 posts, read 184 times
Reputation: 15
Quote:
Originally Posted by DraggingCanoe View Post
Was told it is 2%.
2% of Americans serve in the military. 17% of members who serve actually do at least 20 years or qualify for retirement.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-20-2017, 01:28 PM
 
Location: New Mexico U.S.A.
22,935 posts, read 34,916,860 times
Reputation: 26634
Quote:
Originally Posted by marmac View Post
I guess what I am asking is-----what percent of new enlisted persons complete 20 years in the military?
An interesting article...

Hamilton: Military retirement, 83-percent never make it
William Hamilton / Central View
Grand County, CO Colorado
August 23, 2011
Hamilton: Military retirement, 83-percent never make it | SkyHiNews.com

Quote:
For the troops who do make 20 years, they will have played ‘you-bet-the-best-years-of-your-life,’ and won.”
Returning to 2011: Today, due mainly to better battle-field care, 17-percent of the force is making it to the 20-year retirement mark. Even so, 83-percent who have served will never see a dime of their pay that was “deferred” for their retirement.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-21-2017, 10:30 AM
 
Location: Forests of Maine
27,829 posts, read 43,795,373 times
Reputation: 14729
I hated all of the deployments. Tax-exempt status is nice, and the bonus pay was nice at each re-enlistment.

I suspect that way more people become disabled than how many make it to a pension. Even after-hours division parties that may include a game of flag-football will result in torn ligaments. Those 'minor' injuries will accumulate, and as you age they only get worse.

Our son is in the Army. An 'extreme' frisbee game resulted in him breaking a leg. They wanted to medically retire him over it. Fortunately he was able to convince his doc to let him stay in uniform. His recovery required multiple surgeries and 6 months of limited duty.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old Yesterday, 04:41 PM
 
3,173 posts, read 1,845,627 times
Reputation: 1333
24 years, sub service. One contract and one extension. Retirement check is very nice. It pays half my bills.. Most importantly, the mortgage. But, If I had stayed in one spot for my entire life, I would have 3-5 years left on a mortgage, not 25..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old Today, 09:28 AM
 
Location: Central Massachusetts
3,982 posts, read 3,611,855 times
Reputation: 4575
Taking the new "Blended Retirement System" is going to devastate any hopes of keeping reserve and national guard forces to full strength.

The Blended Retirement System Explained | Military.com

Quote:

The New Blended Retirement System Summed Up

The new system is made up of 3 specific components:

Defined Benefit:
Retired pay will be 2% times number of years of service. If you retire at 20 years service you get 40% of your final base pay. If you retire at 30 years service you get 60% of your final base pay.
You can either get your full retirement when eligible or opt to get a lump-sum benefit at retirement. If you take the lump-sum you will get a reduced monthly retirement check until age 67.

Defined Contribution:
The military will contribute 1% of your base pay to your Thrift Savings Plan (TSP) account.
You will be automatically enrolled with a 3% base pay contribution to your TSP. (You can raise or lower contribution or terminate individual contribution.)

The military will match up to 5% of your contribution, after 2 years of service.
You can always stop contributing to the TSP, get a loan of your TSP balance, or withdraw your money from the TSP account.

Continuation Pay:
When you reach 12 years of service you and commit to 4 more years of service you will be eligible for a cash incentive of 2.5 to 13 times your regular monthly basic pay if you are Active Duty and 0.5 to 6 times your monthly basic pay if you are in the reserves.
The point on here that I would like to show here are bolded.

The first entire bolded paragraph is only for active duty and no change to how reserve retired pay is calculated.

The second they will match 5% of your contribution. Well when you are an E-4 when you really need to start putting money away and the drill check you receive is what you and your family need to make ends meet. So if you can afford to put money in to TSP it will not be much as it comes from your drill check only. 5% of nothing is less than nothing so making contributions there will not help.

The bottom line is unclear to me but I think that once you get to 12 years of service your pay will increase from some factor of 0.5 to 6 times your monthly base pay. As before at the point of 12 years of service in the reserves or guard a soldier may still only be an E4 or E5. Some soldiers with the right stuff make grades faster and that is fine but it can take sometimes 20 years of service to make E6. I am one who took that length of time.

I eventually made E8 but that took 30 years and I was finally retired at 38 years. So as a national guardsman I feel this is terrible for retention. For one soldiers in the reserves are the lowest paid of all services and are called on for more than just augmenting active duty. While those deployments do add to the overall retirement point system it is at the cost of some families and some soldiers. Multiple deployments hurt and help retention. It is a double edged sword that can keep soldiers in if they are looking for the additional points to add to the retirement and send soldiers away if deployments affect home and civilian work life.

Just my honest opinion. It might be good for the tax payers but honestly the tax payers as described above were getting a great deal before. This could affect the defense of the country.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old Today, 09:55 AM
 
Location: Richmond, VA
2,437 posts, read 3,896,763 times
Reputation: 3835
Quote:
Originally Posted by oldsoldier1976 View Post
Taking the new "Blended Retirement System" is going to devastate any hopes of keeping reserve and national guard forces to full strength.

The Blended Retirement System Explained | Military.com



The point on here that I would like to show here are bolded.

The first entire bolded paragraph is only for active duty and no change to how reserve retired pay is calculated.

The second they will match 5% of your contribution. Well when you are an E-4 when you really need to start putting money away and the drill check you receive is what you and your family need to make ends meet. So if you can afford to put money in to TSP it will not be much as it comes from your drill check only. 5% of nothing is less than nothing so making contributions there will not help.

The bottom line is unclear to me but I think that once you get to 12 years of service your pay will increase from some factor of 0.5 to 6 times your monthly base pay. As before at the point of 12 years of service in the reserves or guard a soldier may still only be an E4 or E5. Some soldiers with the right stuff make grades faster and that is fine but it can take sometimes 20 years of service to make E6. I am one who took that length of time.

I eventually made E8 but that took 30 years and I was finally retired at 38 years. So as a national guardsman I feel this is terrible for retention. For one soldiers in the reserves are the lowest paid of all services and are called on for more than just augmenting active duty. While those deployments do add to the overall retirement point system it is at the cost of some families and some soldiers. Multiple deployments hurt and help retention. It is a double edged sword that can keep soldiers in if they are looking for the additional points to add to the retirement and send soldiers away if deployments affect home and civilian work life.

Just my honest opinion. It might be good for the tax payers but honestly the tax payers as described above were getting a great deal before. This could affect the defense of the country.
For reserves, it reads to me like it is a bonus-one time-of .5 to 6 times your basic monthly pay. I don’t think it is a monthly recurring increase. Am I misreading? I find to hard to believe they will double or more your monthly pay as a continuation bonus.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old Today, 11:03 AM
 
Location: Central Massachusetts
3,982 posts, read 3,611,855 times
Reputation: 4575
Quote:
Originally Posted by GeorgiaTransplant View Post
For reserves, it reads to me like it is a bonus-one time-of .5 to 6 times your basic monthly pay. I don’t think it is a monthly recurring increase. Am I misreading? I find to hard to believe they will double or more your monthly pay as a continuation bonus.
If that is the case it is even worse of a deal. But let's for the sake of that say it is. You get your generous E5 month's pay multiplied to a one time bonus. Considering that the typical E5 pay will be about $200.00 and your signing bonus being generous at the top end you will gross an additional $1200.00 to sign. Not much of an incentive considering the signing bonus my nephew got to sign for 6 years of active duty was $40,000.00.

Again looking at it from the perspective of a lower enlisted soldier augmenting his household income with drill checks and annual training checks. I don't know. Call me a skeptic. But I don't see much of an incentive. Maybe because I was a full time dual status soldier and I was not eligible for any signing bonuses, I didn't see how that would have kept me in. Not having one didn't keep me staying in. What did keep me in was the fact that my family income depended upon my continued participation in the guard. It was quite an incentive and made me do things that the rank and file M-day soldier would not have considered.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
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.


Reply

Quick Reply
Message:

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Military Life and Issues
Similar Threads

All times are GMT -6.

© 2005-2017, Advameg, Inc.

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32 - Top