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.
Retiring as a three-star general will cost Ward about $30,000 a year in retirement pay, giving him close to $208,802 a year rather than the $236,650 he would receive as a four-star general.
Help me understand is this the guaranteed pension or is this like a 401K plan? If its 401K, I have no qualms but it sounds the former and if so, no wonder our Military budget is bloated.
I understand they have put in 20 or 30 plus years but I don't want my hard earned money and the taxes I paid to go towards bloated pensions!
How many 3star, 4star and 5star Generals do we have?
Am sure one of the moderators on this board will find this negative and flag me..be it!
This is a pension. Military do not contribute to their retirement and they are eligible to draw a retirement at a minimum of 20 years active duty. At 20 years, you are eligible for 50% of your base pay. It increases 2.5 percent every year beyond 20 up to a max of 75% of base pay. Reservists and National Guard must wait until age 60 before drawing their military pensions provided they meet the points criteria to achieve retired status. You can likely google search the numbers of 3 and 4 star ranks in all of the services. For my part, we have way too many generals and admirals---bloated with them. But that is just my opinion.
Three and four-star generals are at the top of the army/air force hierarchy, equivalent to vice-admirals and full admirals in the navy. They have enormous responsibilities, and there are not that many of them, as they represent the top of the pyramid. Their pension level is pretty much appropriate. They would serve at least 30 years, normally, before reaching that level, and of course very few people do reach it. If a career officer is able to retire as a full colonel (three ranks below three-star general), he has done damn well. A division commander, in charge of at least 12,000 men and usually more, is a two-star general, called a major-general.
I don't have a good sense of how many generals there are or how their career attainment compares with, say, company executives.
However I'm not prepared to get outraged about their retirement unless there are a heck of a lot of them. I AM concerned that we treat the lower ranks right when they retire, because those are the people dodging the bullets.
We know from the many articles that Wall Street and other corporate executives make millions a year. A general has the lives of our sons and daughters in their hands and oversee billions in tax dollar expenditures. Oh yeah we trust them with the security of our county. Misteps aside when compared to what they could make they are under paid.
We know from the many articles that Wall Street and other corporate executives make millions a year. A general has the lives of our sons and daughters in their hands and oversee billions in tax dollar expenditures. Oh yeah we trust them with the security of our county. Misteps aside when compared to what they could make they are under paid.
This is mis-guided comparing to Wall Street executives. Just because they oversee billions doesn't make them eligibile to get 6 figure guaranteed income every year for rest of their lives.
If that's the argument, then I would say the President ought to get 6 or 7 or 8-figure income since he/she oversees trillions in tax dollar expenditures.
This is mis-guided comparing to Wall Street executives. Just because they oversee billions doesn't make them eligibile to get 6 figure guaranteed income every year for rest of their lives.
If that's the argument, then I would say the President ought to get 6 or 7 or 8-figure income since he/she oversees trillions in tax dollar expenditures.
On this note we disagree and it will be up to each of us to value what the benefits of our top career military leaders is to us.
This is mis-guided comparing to Wall Street executives. Just because they oversee billions doesn't make them eligibile to get 6 figure guaranteed income every year for rest of their lives.
If that's the argument, then I would say the President ought to get 6 or 7 or 8-figure income since he/she oversees trillions in tax dollar expenditures.
While of expressing concern over their pay and retirement, please take a few moments to thank them along with all the men and women defending our great nation.
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.
