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.
Unlike other proposals to overhaul military retirement that would grandfather current troops, the board suggests that DoD could make an “immediate” transition to the new system, which would affect current troops quite differently depending on their years of service
LOL...this is transparently obvious....instead of actually having to pay people,the fedgov. gets to keep your money until you reach 59 1/2 years old....
Very, very few receive enough to completely retire at military retirement (so few that this should really be a non issue). If you retire as an E-7 at 20-24 years, and you've saved enough on top of that to have a house paid for I suppose that's enough to live off of assuming you have no dependents. But at that age usually you've got big time family obligations (spouse, children) and that pension is just not going to cut it. This means that you either have to start over with a new career, or take your skills and find a civilian fit for them (for some this is easy, for others.... not so much).
It's all a little subjective.. the needs of someone who is 42 and presumably living the life of an average 42 year old with a family, mortage, ect.. then yes... I hardly suspect the average retirement for an E-7 could be considered ENOUGH... to actually retire on...
But is that really what one expects??
I look at 20 year retirements and say this is supposed to be a thank you for your service.. now go on to a real job and live a civilian life...
military, law enforcement ect... require an above average level of commitment.. its a sacraifice that the individual and usually the individuals family all make..
I am talking about averages here... if the average 62 year old is retireing with a $1500 month ss, and maybe an $800 a month pension or 401k investment pay out... And the average military retiree is walking away with not much less.... is that right??
And not trying to make to much and issue of it but it has been my experience that it has been almost the norm that many members recieve some kind of disability pay...
I mean I know SOOOOO many that get something whether its for their back, knee or whatever... and these folks... ALL OF THEM!! continue to work a full time career??
It's all a little subjective.. the needs of someone who is 42 and presumably living the life of an average 42 year old with a family, mortage, ect.. then yes... I hardly suspect the average retirement for an E-7 could be considered ENOUGH... to actually retire on...
But is that really what one expects??
I look at 20 year retirements and say this is supposed to be a thank you for your service.. now go on to a real job and live a civilian life...
military, law enforcement ect... require an above average level of commitment.. its a sacraifice that the individual and usually the individuals family all make..
I am talking about averages here... if the average 62 year old is retireing with a $1500 month ss, and maybe an $800 a month pension or 401k investment pay out... And the average military retiree is walking away with not much less.... is that right??
And not trying to make to much and issue of it but it has been my experience that it has been almost the norm that many members recieve some kind of disability pay...
I mean I know SOOOOO many that get something whether its for their back, knee or whatever... and these folks... ALL OF THEM!! continue to work a full time career??
No retiring E-7 that I have ever met has actually expected to be able to completely retire upon military retirement. If one actually up and said that they expected that, most of us would look at them like they were insane.
Comparing military retirement to SS doesn't seem to be an apples to apples comparison to me. Yes, most military retirees are going to draw more than a SS beneficiary at a far earlier age (not accounting for individual retirement accounts), but SS is open to pretty much everybody, while military retirement requires all who receive it to choose to endure a different set of circumstances.
At the age in which you begin to draw SS chances are you have no dependents (children age 0-18) to care for (obviously not always true). At the age in which SS is drawn, you've had a fair amount of time to completely pay off your residence. I would say that most people don't have their homes paid off by 40 years old, something that's even more difficult for military since they usually have to move far more frequently than the average person.
Additionally, there's the "how much is your time worth" aspect of it. Please refer to my comparison of deployments to prison, a situation where you're sent to an uncomfortable place you would never choose to go, given significantly restricted freedoms, and made to deal with risk to life and limb. Currently it's not uncommon for many to do "one on one off." Meaning that over the course of a 20 year career one can almost expect to spend between 5-10 years "in jail."
IMO, without that nice carrot on a stick dangling in front of your average military member, the combination of constant moves and deployments are enough to drive enough people out that convincing people to stay on beyond taking advantage of the college benefits would be a significant, and potentially insurmountable problem.
That said, the scheme of throwing a percentage of income (above normal monthly pay) into a retirement account as a substitute for a pension may actually work fairly well for new recruits and it would likely cost the government less money in the end. Still, I'm not entirely sure I would like the idea that I couldn't touch it until about 60 years old, perhaps it can be made available upon military retirement.
That said, the scheme of throwing a percentage of income (above normal monthly pay) into a retirement account as a substitute for a pension may actually work fairly well for new recruits and it would likely cost the government less money in the end. Still, I'm not entirely sure I would like the idea that I couldn't touch it until about 60 years old, perhaps it can be made available upon military retirement.
I think we are pretty much on the same page with the first part of wehat you said... however I disagree with a 401k type of system..
Yes the government would save money but it would hurt the ones who serve...
Coming out of the military at 38-42 year old and starting a new career... one which is supposed to provide someone who presumably married with children and righ in the middle of their life is a tough... I could imagine how many service members would be cashing in the 457 plan (there are similiar plans to a 401k offered to municiple and federal employees where the only difference is the money can be withdrawn penalty free with no age requirement once seperated from the employer.. my guess is any kind of investment option used to replace a defined benifit..ie 20 yr retirement.. would include this option) and either using it to put a down payment on a house or what ever..
Either way the governement would get off scott free at this point and you would have a person who is 42 having to start completely over..
I say keep the 20 yr DEFINED pension and rework the numbers.. maybe lower the adjustment to 2% a yr vs 2.5%.. 40% at 20 and 50% at 25
I still don't understand why this thread is still going. The number of people we are talking about is so small.....
I mean really, the entire military population is around 1% of the United States, and we are complaining about those the retire...
If people in this thread would complain about people just not working (as much as they are complaing about military retirement)....and collecting UE, hell we might get something done.....
I still don't understand why this thread is still going. The number of people we are talking about is so small.....
I mean really, the entire military population is around 1% of the United States, and we are complaining about those the retire...
If people in this thread would complain about people just not working (as much as they are complaing about military retirement)....and collecting UE, hell we might get something done.....
It's not the people who are looking at this... it's our good friends and leaders at the Pentagon and their contractor buddies. They're going to have to make some cuts in defense... let's see, do they cut the really expensive weapons programs that proved useless in the wars? No, that won't do... that might hurt the business they're going to get a job at when they collect their retirement (good thing they already have 20 years locked in.) Let's see... where do they cut? Oh I know, they should cut the benefits of the folks we have asked to go to war for 12 months on, 12 months off for the past 10 years. Sounds perfect.
desertdetroiter, let me start by saying that I did misunderstand a portion of what you were trying to say. For the record, no part of my commentary argues that a military retirement is golden--and I too joined the military looking forward to the travel involved more than anything else--initially. As for the "sour grapes" argument, I didn't suggest any specific reason for your egress from the Army. I retired and went back to work and I'm not sour about that at all. I represent 85% of all retirees--military or not. I never looked to retire and sit down somewhere. I'm young, intelligent and able-I have no reason not to work. Honestly speaking, I don't care why you joined the Army and I don't care when and why you left--you did your time and moved on--thats okay with me. I just caution painting a thin line with a broad brush-which seems like what you were doing in your original post.
Now my country is making us the enemy...I blame the illegal President in the White House, a corrupt Congress who cater to special interests and socialists, some of whom infest this forum.
This has been a perfectly reasonable discussion, with many posters on the left and the right of these boards making reasoned points about the value of military retirement, the demands of military service, and what the United States can afford.
Your coming here with your racist comment about President Obama detracts from the discussion.
Last edited by jackmccullough; 08-15-2011 at 07:26 AM..
What I find most fascinating is the many conservatives who are shocked at the idea that the government would change the rules on government employees and take away pension rights that they were promised, and that may have been part of the reason they were willing to become government employees in the first place.
I agree with you that the government shouldn't be taking away these pension rights. Pension benefits are part of the payment for services rendered.
Now that you see how it works for one category of government employees, I hope you are willing to support your fellow government employees: the teachers, police officers and firefighters, game wardens, corrections officers, and other state employees that Republicans across the country are trying to screw out of their pensions.
What I find most fascinating is the many conservatives who are shocked at the idea that the government would change the rules on government employees and take away pension rights that they were promised, and that may have been part of the reason they were willing to become government employees in the first place.
I agree with you that the government shouldn't be taking away these pension rights. Pension benefits are part of the payment for services rendered.
Now that you see how it works for one category of government employees, I hope you are willing to support your fellow government employees: the teachers, police officers and firefighters, game wardens, corrections officers, and other state employees that Republicans across the country are trying to screw out of their pensions.
Well said, I don't know what is happening to America when it can just walk out on it's committments. The idea that governments can just decide to walk out on the contracts they signedc is as foriegn to me as walking out on a mortgages because the house isn't worth as much as I owe. Betraying our Army while it is in the field just sucks, I hope that they remember it come election time
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.
"Shaken-not Stirred"
