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.
Ten military years are equivalent to 20 civilian years.” That’s what one military spouse told me not too long ago. When I tell people that my husband would be eligible for retirement in his 40s, they can hardly believe it. It’s one of those things that sounds too good to be true, but actually IS true. People join the military for all sorts of reasons, but I’d venture to say that the 20-year “fixed” retirement is a huge, juicy carrot which many prospective service members find hard to resist. And who can blame them?
A sweeping new plan to overhaul the Pentagon’s retirement system would give some benefits to all troops and phase out the 20-year cliff vesting system that has defined military careers for generations, the Military Times newspapers reported.
The plan calls for a corporate-style benefits program that would contribute money to troops’ retirement savings account rather than the promise of a future monthly pension, according to a new proposal from an influential Pentagon advisory board.
The move would save the Pentagon money — at a time when it’s being asked to cut at least $400 billion — and benefit troops who leave with less than 20 years of service.
Ten military years are equivalent to 20 civilian years.” That’s what one military spouse told me not too long ago. When I tell people that my husband would be eligible for retirement in his 40s, they can hardly believe it. It’s one of those things that sounds too good to be true, but actually IS true. People join the military for all sorts of reasons, but I’d venture to say that the 20-year “fixed” retirement is a huge, juicy carrot which many prospective service members find hard to resist. And who can blame them?
A sweeping new plan to overhaul the Pentagon’s retirement system would give some benefits to all troops and phase out the 20-year cliff vesting system that has defined military careers for generations, the Military Times newspapers reported.
The plan calls for a corporate-style benefits program that would contribute money to troops’ retirement savings account rather than the promise of a future monthly pension, according to a new proposal from an influential Pentagon advisory board.
The move would save the Pentagon money — at a time when it’s being asked to cut at least $400 billion — and benefit troops who leave with less than 20 years of service.
Ten military years are equivalent to 20 civilian years.” That’s what one military spouse told me not too long ago. When I tell people that my husband would be eligible for retirement in his 40s, they can hardly believe it. It’s one of those things that sounds too good to be true, but actually IS true. People join the military for all sorts of reasons, but I’d venture to say that the 20-year “fixed” retirement is a huge, juicy carrot which many prospective service members find hard to resist. And who can blame them?
A sweeping new plan to overhaul the Pentagon’s retirement system would give some benefits to all troops and phase out the 20-year cliff vesting system that has defined military careers for generations, the Military Times newspapers reported.
The plan calls for a corporate-style benefits program that would contribute money to troops’ retirement savings account rather than the promise of a future monthly pension, according to a new proposal from an influential Pentagon advisory board.
The move would save the Pentagon money — at a time when it’s being asked to cut at least $400 billion — and benefit troops who leave with less than 20 years of service.
This is wrong. You give up plenty during your service. Youth,family time and lots of missed irreplaceable times. Then you re-enlist. You need 20 year retirement. It is well deserved. If the military was paid by the hour they make very little.
Military retirement is like winning the lottery... assuming you don't get sent off to your death. In general, it's the young ones who are killed though... so if you make it through the first 10 years or so there's almost no reason to leave. The best thing to do is to go in as an officer; after 20 years you'll be at least a Major, or maybe even a Lt Colonel or higher (AF, Army, or Marine Corps rank). The retirement pay is considerably higher.
It's a risky proposition that few 18 or 22 year olds realize, as the risk of being killed or maimed at the whims of politicians are considerable. The government pays the military fairly well, but they could care less if they send soldiers, sailors, or marines to their deaths.
This is wrong. You give up plenty during your service. Youth,family time and lots of missed irreplaceable times. Then you re-enlist. You need 20 year retirement. It is well deserved. If the military was paid by the hour they make very little.
THUD!!!!!!!!!!!!
The sound of me fainting because we agree on something....
I don't know... I was in the Air Force for 5 years and got out. I was not in a war, and it wasn't unusually stressful. I have a friend who stayed in and retired last year in his lower 40s. He worked in Admin, never in a combat zone, and seemed to do a whole lot of nothing in his final years. Now he sits around on his @ss all day doing nothing. He wasn't in trenches fighting people and was about the equivalent of an office manager in the corporate world. Now he enjoys a full pension and almost free healthcare for life. I'd call that leeching off the taxpayers. If someone actually fought in wars, I'd say they deserve an earlier retirement. But if you're not, put in at least 30 years.
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.