Welcome to City-Data.com Forum!
U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
 [Register]
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.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 07-28-2011, 01:54 PM
 
1,448 posts, read 3,106,636 times
Reputation: 706

Advertisements

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?

Today brings news of a proposal by the Defense Business Board to overhaul one of the most attractive benefits of military service, the 20-year fixed pension.

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.
Read more: http://spousebuzz.com/blog/2011/07/s...#ixzz1TQoGAUit
SpouseBUZZ.com
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 07-28-2011, 01:56 PM
 
2,226 posts, read 2,103,072 times
Reputation: 903
Default Excellent perk

Quote:
Originally Posted by High Springs Gator View Post
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?

Today brings news of a proposal by the Defense Business Board to overhaul one of the most attractive benefits of military service, the 20-year fixed pension.

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.
Read more: http://spousebuzz.com/blog/2011/07/s...#ixzz1TQoGAUit


SpouseBUZZ.com
My career AF colonel will be rolling in his grave!
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-28-2011, 02:03 PM
 
Location: South Carolina
8,145 posts, read 6,531,599 times
Reputation: 1754
Quote:
Originally Posted by High Springs Gator View Post
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?

Today brings news of a proposal by the Defense Business Board to overhaul one of the most attractive benefits of military service, the 20-year fixed pension.

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.
Read more: http://spousebuzz.com/blog/2011/07/s...#ixzz1TQoGAUit
SpouseBUZZ.com
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.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-28-2011, 02:06 PM
 
Location: Pleasant Ridge, Cincinnati, OH
1,040 posts, read 1,334,427 times
Reputation: 304
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.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-28-2011, 02:09 PM
 
31,387 posts, read 37,048,770 times
Reputation: 15038
What happened to "we just can't afford it"?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-28-2011, 02:17 PM
 
Location: Great State of Texas
86,052 posts, read 84,481,831 times
Reputation: 27720
Quote:
Originally Posted by ovcatto View Post
What happened to "we just can't afford it"?
There's plenty other items in the Federal Government that can be cut and this left alone.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-28-2011, 02:19 PM
 
Location: North Cackelacky....in the hills.
19,567 posts, read 21,870,208 times
Reputation: 2519
Quote:
Originally Posted by enemy country View Post
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....
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-28-2011, 02:21 PM
 
Location: North Cackelacky....in the hills.
19,567 posts, read 21,870,208 times
Reputation: 2519
Quote:
Originally Posted by HappyTexan View Post
There's plenty other items in the Federal Government that can be cut and this left alone.
Some of the multitude of federal law enforcement agencies...
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-28-2011, 02:22 PM
 
Location: South Carolina
8,145 posts, read 6,531,599 times
Reputation: 1754
Quote:
Originally Posted by oz in SC View Post
THUD!!!!!!!!!!!!

The sound of me fainting because we agree on something....
made me smile
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-28-2011, 02:29 PM
 
Location: Denver, Colorado U.S.A.
14,164 posts, read 27,228,265 times
Reputation: 10428
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.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
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.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:


Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
Similar Threads

All times are GMT -6. The time now is 04:44 PM.

© 2005-2024, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Contact Us - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37 - Top