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.
pensions are designed as a retirement pension... ie you work for 20-30 years your pension starts when you retire...SS is a different animal
do you think people should collect SS at 40 after working 20 years????
so let's expand the question...would you be ok with ALL PENSIONS to include unions like teachers, plumbers, police, etc to be set at 60?
question is why are you moving goal posts.... pensions are not equal to SS
SS is NOT a pension, not designed to be like a pension...SS is a supplemental social insurance, to supplement your retirements
No, you don't work with a company for 20-30 years and automatically get a pension starting immediately as military retirement does. Generally, the private pensions start their payments usually at age 65. Some will let you start earlier down to say age 55 with a drastic reduction in your pension. OTOH, private company pensions are becoming very rare these days.
I don't know that much about fed civil service pensions but I think even they have an age/service requirement. I know that agencies like the FBI have (a minimum) 20 years service/age 50 option to draw full retirement. And their accumulation is 1,7% for 1st 20 years, 1% after that. Sure not the 2.5% like the Army, is it? But a lot (if not most) fed civil service do not have that option.
So, to make a proper alignment with everyone else, why not start all military retirements at age 60? Its logical, it would save money.
The result would be 29,838,000 Americans remaining in the work-force, which would result in very high perennial unemployment, and have a negative impact on those age 25 and under attempting to enter the work-force.
Just a rough eye-ball guesstimate, about 18% unemployment year after year after year after...
We need people to retire to make room for younger people to enter the work force. It's just crazy to think that people in their '70s should be forced to work that late in life.
No, you don't work with a company for 20-30 years and automatically get a pension starting immediately as military retirement does. Generally, the private pensions start their payments usually at age 65. Some will let you start earlier down to say age 55 with a drastic reduction in your pension. OTOH, private company pensions are becoming very rare these days.
I don't know that much about fed civil service pensions but I think even they have an age/service requirement. I know that agencies like the FBI have (a minimum) 20 years service/age 50 option to draw full retirement. And their accumulation is 1,7% for 1st 20 years, 1% after that. Sure not the 2.5% like the Army, is it? But a lot (if not most) fed civil service do not have that option.
So, to make a proper alignment with everyone else, why not start all military retirements at age 60?
1. the military is a very different job than anywhere else in the job markets
2. the ACTIVE military allows retirement at 20, but you can stay as long as 30...btw its mandatory retirement
3. on the reserve side.. you can not collect until 60...and have to have at least 20 good years... so even if you retire after 20 years service (at age 40 something) you wont collect till you are 60...... (a 2008 law revised that for combat deployments (after08) counting and reducing that age by time served in combat)
4. on the federal civilian side(minus law enforcement like the FBI) its 56.4/30 in other words you have to have completed 30 years..and be of at least the age of 56.4........... imagine that someone working for one company for 30 years...don't see that much on the private side
again...pensions..(especially military and law enforcement) are not the same as SS........ss is a supplemental insurance to supplement YOUR retirement (what ever you set it up to be..ie a pension, profit-sharing, 401k, investments etc)
We need people to retire to make room for younger people to enter the work force. It's just crazy to think that people in their '70s should be forced to work that late in life.
no-body is forcing anyone to work till they are 62/65/67/70/75
many retire a lot earlier than that.....depends on how you manage things.....
so let me ask you an imposing question...... so at 18/21/25/30 you find (after your training) a career, do you say "goodie-goodie the government will give me SS at 67, I don't need to do anything for future planning "... or do you set up a 401k, ira's, some type of investments for YOUR future????
1. the military is a very different job than anywhere else in the job markets
2. the ACTIVE military allows retirement at 20, but you can stay as long as 30...btw its mandatory retirement
3. on the reserve side.. you can not collect until 60...and have to have at least 20 good years... so even if you retire after 20 years service (at age 40 something) you wont collect till you are 60...... (a 2008 law revised that for combat deployments (after08) counting and reducing that age by time served in combat)
4. on the federal civilian side(minus law enforcement like the FBI) its 56.4/30 in other words you have to have completed 30 years..and be of at least the age of 56.4........... imagine that someone working for one company for 30 years...don't see that much on the private side
again...pensions..(especially military and law enforcement) are not the same as SS........ss is a supplemental insurance to supplement YOUR retirement (what ever you set it up to be..ie a pension, profit-sharing, 401k, investments etc)
Hey, you don't have to tell me how Army retirement works. I know. And also know about reserve retirement as well, thats why I wrote ALL.
Of course the military is a very different job, where else do you have the pleasure of serving in arm-pit locations (like ugh Ft Polk LA) and also spending years outside the US (although aside from Korea, I got lucky).
Like ss raised to 75, raise military retirement to 60. its perfectly logical.
Just saying, a pension is a pension. And I'm just repeating what others have written on the subject.
Years of life, median expectancy, and SS age increases should be in sync.
Increasing Life Expectancy ≠ Increasing Quality of Life
I wasn't too far off....the unemployment rate would be 19.5%
You can kiss new home development good-bye, and that will result in even more unemployment, and with existing home sales stagnant --since nobody would be buying -- you can watch the value of your home decrease.
The cost of increased SNAP/WIC and HUD Section 8 benefits would increase dramatically.
Hey, you don't have to tell me how Army retirement works. I know. And also know about reserve retirement as well, thats why I wrote ALL.
Of course the military is a very different job, where else do you have the pleasure of serving in arm-pit locations (like ugh Ft Polk LA) and also spending years outside the US (although aside from Korea, I got lucky).
Like ss raised to 75, raise military retirement to 60. its perfectly logical.
Just saying, a pension is a pension. And I'm just repeating what others have written on the subject.
they are already making changes with the 'new' retirement system that kicked in this past year... one of the suggestions form the quadrennial was making active retirement 60
mean while SMA Dailey has made it his priority to remove those who no-longer meet readiness requirements.... there is something like 100k of personnel that are non-deployable
and I know you know how it works, we both are retired military... but within this discussion, many others don't, sometimes it just is easier to dumb it down to those that don't know, than to act arrogant around them...... so I wasn't debating you my brother, but trying to educate those around us
Increasing Life Expectancy ≠ Increasing Quality of Life
I wasn't too far off....the unemployment rate would be 19.5%
You can kiss new home development good-bye, and that will result in even more unemployment, and with existing home sales stagnant --since nobody would be buying -- you can watch the value of your home decrease.
The cost of increased SNAP/WIC and HUD Section 8 benefits would increase dramatically.
Not a very smart move.
Unemployment should not be a consideration.
SS is not meant to accommodate extending retirement years, nor should it be.
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.
