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.
I have 11 years in. The only, and I mean, ONLY thing that keeps me in at this point is the existing retirement system. (I'm still proud to serve, but the constant deployments for the past 10 years has taken its toll.) After all of the sacrifices we GWOT vets have made, I find this panel's proposals insulting.
Old-timers, any words of widsom? Please tell me this is just someone's idea of a very unfunny joke that doesn't have a snowball's chance in h*** of becoming reality.
(By the way, I would support something like this if it only affected new recruits. If people join the service with the understanding that this is the deal they will be getting, that's one thing. This is certainly a far cry from the deal I have been expecting at the end of my desert trail, however.)
I have 11 years in. The only, and I mean, ONLY thing that keeps me in at this point is the existing retirement system. (I'm still proud to serve, but the constant deployments for the past 10 years has taken its toll.) After all of the sacrifices we GWOT vets have made, I find this panel's proposals insulting.
Old-timers, any words of widsom? Please tell me this is just someone's idea of a very unfunny joke that doesn't have a snowball's chance in h*** of becoming reality.
(By the way, I would support something like this if it only affected new recruits. If people join the service with the understanding that this is the deal they will be getting, that's one thing. This is certainly a far cry from the deal I have been expecting at the end of my desert trail, however.)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Article
DoD panel calls for radical retirement overhaul
By Andrew Tilghman - Staff writer
Posted : Monday Jul 25, 2011 13:24:26 EDT
A sweeping new plan to overhaul the Pentagon’s retirement system
Yeh yeh yeh.... been hearing about new retirement for 40+ years. (I retired in 1990)...
It is difficult to assess these proposals... And you don't know what will change at the last moment.
TSP was a great change, I never had that oportunity, my wife has used her's to the max. I am 62 and she is waiting now to see if they offer an early retirement with cash in Decemeber (She is Federal Service). I am 62, she is 58 we can retire right now...
So all these choices may sound good for some and bad for others... I'm not sure what this program is about, too many variables.
Quote:
A critical new feature would adjust those contributions to give more money to troops who deploy frequently, accept hardship assignments or serve in high-demand jobs.
You know during WWII it was almost possible to retire with 13 years (if the war had lasted that long and if you were in a combat zone). I had some bad assignments where I was separated from my family, for six months and no phone contact (phone calls were expensive). What did I get for that one year unaccomanied tour? Nothing really, $30 a month family separation pay (after you were separated 30 days). And I got two of those tours. Some of these guys (and gals) need to be compensated for some of these hardships. But that might complicate issues or it might be difficult to really implement...
Short answer? I really do not know. I do care, but it will not affect me...
I have 11 years in. The only, and I mean, ONLY thing that keeps me in at this point is the existing retirement system. (I'm still proud to serve, but the constant deployments for the past 10 years has taken its toll.) After all of the sacrifices we GWOT vets have made, I find this panel's proposals insulting.
Old-timers, any words of widsom? Please tell me this is just someone's idea of a very unfunny joke that doesn't have a snowball's chance in h*** of becoming reality.
(By the way, I would support something like this if it only affected new recruits. If people join the service with the understanding that this is the deal they will be getting, that's one thing. This is certainly a far cry from the deal I have been expecting at the end of my desert trail, however.)
This sounds like the same old "money saving" BS which has caused civilian, fully-funded pensions to go the way of the Dodo and be replaced by some market investment scheme (see: IRA or 401K). It sounds good on paper, but the the fly in the ointment is what happens to your retirement if those "market forces" cause stock values to tumble about the time you get ready to retire. Oh...and remember who those "market forces" are? It's the same people who brought us the housing bubble and the dot.com bubble. They're still in business manipulating the market for their own advantage. Something like this would let them play with YOUR future too.
Is it likely to become a reality? Why not? Public employees from Wisconsin to Ohio to Washington, DC have seen their promised benefits taken back.
I know it's easy for me to say as I've already locked in my over-20, but...
First) Look at the history. A comparatively minor change, REDUX, essentially got eliminated. There were supposedly a lot of reasons, but ultimately, I think it was perceived as affecting retention. This would CLEARLY knock out far more mid-grade folks just like you who would (correctly) feel cheated out of an explicit promise, and would actually clear out older folks too, but a lot more than they planned on: somebody at 25 years wouldn't be sticking around for what amounts to a small cash bonus each year without enough time to invest it.
Second) even if by some miracle it both passes and sticks, the proposal as written has those currently in service 'phased in' with a combination of old plan and new plan. By the writeup as I read it, someone in your situation will be able to get, at a minimum, 25 percent by staying to 20. That's not as enticing as 50%, but add a lump of cash on top and suddenly you may be recalculating.
That might actually be kind of enticing and have the desired effect as a recruiting and retention tool as a complete plan for those just enlisting: a percentage amount for each year, but you have to make 'gates' to get the percentage, at reducing years, plus a cash accumulation. Thus, someone who did 20 might get 25% plus the amount he or she accumulated over 20 years. Something like:
5 years - cash accumulated (pretty minor at this point)
10 years - 5% (payable at 60) plus cash accumulated (minor but noticeable)
15 years - 15% (payable at 55) plus cash accumulated (not too shabby)
20 years - 20% (payable at 50) plus cash accumulated (pretty good)
25 years - 30% (payable at 45) plus cash accumulated (very good)
30 years - 40% (immediately) plus cash accumulated (you could probably buy a reasonable house for cash)
Third and finally) notice the 'miracle it passes and sticks'? I do not, for one second, believe this wouldn't be grandfathered in or allow those currently in to pick a plan. Remember the s***storm that was raised over 'free health care for life'. That was glossed over in recruiting literature and is still being fought over. The retirement plan was explicitly and repeatedly promised in many, many ways...no way they would go back and change the rules mid-stream for guys like you unless you agreed to it.
Don't worry.
I know it's easy for me to say as I've already locked in my over-20, but...
First) Look at the history. A comparatively minor change, REDUX, essentially got eliminated. There were supposedly a lot of reasons, but ultimately, I think it was perceived as affecting retention. This would CLEARLY knock out far more mid-grade folks just like you who would (correctly) feel cheated out of an explicit promise, and would actually clear out older folks too, but a lot more than they planned on: somebody at 25 years wouldn't be sticking around for what amounts to a small cash bonus each year without enough time to invest it.
Second) even if by some miracle it both passes and sticks, the proposal as written has those currently in service 'phased in' with a combination of old plan and new plan. By the writeup as I read it, someone in your situation will be able to get, at a minimum, 25 percent by staying to 20. That's not as enticing as 50%, but add a lump of cash on top and suddenly you may be recalculating.
That might actually be kind of enticing and have the desired effect as a recruiting and retention tool as a complete plan for those just enlisting: a percentage amount for each year, but you have to make 'gates' to get the percentage, at reducing years, plus a cash accumulation. Thus, someone who did 20 might get 25% plus the amount he or she accumulated over 20 years. Something like:
5 years - cash accumulated (pretty minor at this point)
10 years - 5% (payable at 60) plus cash accumulated (minor but noticeable)
15 years - 15% (payable at 55) plus cash accumulated (not too shabby)
20 years - 20% (payable at 50) plus cash accumulated (pretty good)
25 years - 30% (payable at 45) plus cash accumulated (very good)
30 years - 40% (immediately) plus cash accumulated (you could probably buy a reasonable house for cash)
Third and finally) notice the 'miracle it passes and sticks'? I do not, for one second, believe this wouldn't be grandfathered in or allow those currently in to pick a plan. Remember the s***storm that was raised over 'free health care for life'. That was glossed over in recruiting literature and is still being fought over. The retirement plan was explicitly and repeatedly promised in many, many ways...no way they would go back and change the rules mid-stream for guys like you unless you agreed to it.
I am Medically Retired, as of Aug 1 I go from TDRL to Permanently retired.
Doesn't help my concerns:
Specifically:
The dificulity of retaining senior staff.
Nearly EVERYONE I went to war with is out...
Why wait around for 'the next war' or 'keep going to this one'
If there is:
1. No REAL retirement pension. (Just YOUR money put in)
Incentive is gone
2. Less money for the GI
Little enough already
3. 'Vested' means they SSGT at 15, may get out... thus degrading the preparation of the service.
JMHO, 1 and 2 is not worth 3. (Only good thing for the GI... and it's not really, since it's 16%+ of his pay)
I think there's no doubt this is a terrible plan. This is just a way to save money. Just about every single person I went to war with is now out of the Army too. The Army has been asking A LOT from its soldiers for the past ten years. A few of us, not many, have stuck it out. This has been my entire career. So what do I get at the end of the rainbow? The same kick in the balls other working stiffs have been getting since the 1980s? Lord have mercy. What is this nation coming to? I already have resigned myself to paying into Social Security my entire life and seeing no return on my investment. And now a greatly diminished return on my investment of service in the nation during wartime?
I pray this never comes to pass... or, if it does, for new recruits only. No bait and switch. Let people make their decision on how long to serve with all of the facts beforehand.
We have been hearing about changes for a long time.
When I was on Active Duty it was common to serve in situations where we had no phone, no mail, no email, no contact with the outside world for months at a time.
It is nice to have a pension, however I get just a hair over minimum-wage. The next time that minimum-wage goes up it will likely equal my pension.
I never had any idea that the greatest benefit from a 20-year pension would turn out to be the medical coverage. Medical insurance today is expensive. You can not beat Tricare Standard. You just can't.
Will our pension change? I have no idea. It might.
My honest recommendation to folks serving today, is to live frugal. Invest at least 1/3 of your gross income. I do not care if you drink the cool-aid and invest into mutual funds, or CDs, or your hometown municipal utility [the stock market scares me]. I bought and collected apartment buildings during my Active Duty career. A house is not an investment, I am talking investments that pay you a return. Invest in something.
The second thing is when you retire, go to your next highschool reunion. At 40 years old, you will be in a room filled with folks who are 40 years old. This is your peer group. I went to mine. It was amazing. I had clearly the lowest paying career from among any of them. I was also the only person in the room who had a pension. While talking to a group of guys who were investment gurus, I learned that my portfolio was about the best that any of those 'experts' had put together.
Who are you comparing yourself with? If not those who are the same exact age as yourself. Stay-in, invest, retire, then go back and compare to your peer group. When I did, I saw that most of them have no pension fund outside of SS. At that point in life they all had to work for some idiot for another 25 years before any of them got any kind of pension.
From this vantage point I do believe that a military career is about the best thing going.
My honest recommendation to folks serving today, is to live frugal. Invest at least 1/3 of your gross income. I do not care if you drink the cool-aid and invest into mutual funds, or CDs, or your hometown municipal utility [the stock market scares me]. I bought and collected apartment buildings during my Active Duty career. A house is not an investment, I am talking investments that pay you a return. Invest in something..
In less than a year and a half I'll have my masters.
Soon as I get my first paycheck my Military Retirement check is going to be 'seed money'
30 years of investing $1,228 per month should be a decent chunk of change.
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.
