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.
As has been said, this aticle is not about eliminating military retirement pay. And the suggestions being considered have been considered before, some having been implemented. For instance, it speaks of military retirement pay being calculated on an average of the last three years. Once upon a time, it was calculated on the pay on the day of retirement, which meant a person who was promoted a year before was paid based on that amount, rather than an average of three years that included his previous pay rate.
As I've said in another thread, however, this is a typical ploy by the military brass when they come under severe budget pressure. They put a gun to the head of a sacred cow they know nobody wants to touch and threaten to shoot it if they don't get budget relief.
If the 20 year attraction goes out the recruiters at NG or RR will their hairs very hard! The pension is surely what attracts most people, eliminating it, thus shouldn't be feasible even temporary
If the 20 year attraction goes out the recruiters at NG or RR will their hairs very hard! The pension is surely what attracts most people, eliminating it, thus shouldn't be feasible even temporary
I'm not sure many people initially enlist for the 20 year retirement, but for sure, retention at the 8-10 year point will fall through the basement.
Back in the late 90s--when a lot of USAF folks in IT were departing for lucrative civilian jobs--some weinie in the Pentagon had this cockamaimy idea that they should be retained longer by requiring 24 years for retirement for the IT AFSCs.
Clearly, that was someone who had no understanding at all of the decision considerations for an airman with hot job prospects at the 8/10-year point. Opting to stay 10 years rather than taking the civilian option is a lot easier than looking at 15 years before retirement. That idea would have made more people leave the service early, not fewer. Fortunately, it didn't get far.
As I've said in another thread, however, this is a typical ploy by the military brass when they come under severe budget pressure. They put a gun to the head of a sacred cow they know nobody wants to touch and threaten to shoot it if they don't get budget relief.
Disagree.
Cutting the commissary? Yes. That's a ploy to make it hurt.
Pensions and lifetime benefits are actually a problem. They cost a huge amount of money.
Cutting the commissary? Yes. That's a ploy to make it hurt.
Pensions and lifetime benefits are actually a problem. They cost a huge amount of money.
This article talks about small tinkering with future retirements. That's happened several times before--three times even in my career. Generally, such changes only affect members that come in after the new rules come into affect, not those already receiving pay.
It's not going to change for current service members or current retirees.
What they might consider, though, is offering cash-outs as an annual option after retirement, with the cash-out amount decreasing annually. My family is typically long-lived, and I'm in good health. I might be willing to cash-out now for $500,000 and the government would likely save a quarter million or more.
Another good way to reduce the retirement obligation in the future: Plan for fewer wars.
This article talks about small tinkering with future retirements. That's happened several times before--three times even in my career. Generally, such changes only affect members that come in after the new rules come into affect, not those already receiving pay.
It's not going to change for current service members or current retirees.
What they might consider, though, is offering cash-outs as an annual option after retirement, with the cash-out amount decreasing annually. My family is typically long-lived, and I'm in good health. I might be willing to cash-out now for $500,000 and the government would likely save a quarter million or more.
Well, yes, the government is usually nice enough to grandfather in benefits.
Although, some FERS employees might get moved to paying more into their pension.
I don't think the current military retirement system will be around forever.
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.
