Military personnel working long and losing $20,000 a year in benefits

THE Rudd Government is forcing hundreds of long-serving military personnel to sacrifice up to $20,000 a year in superannuation benefits.

The working lives of about 320 staff were extended by five years when the Government raised the military retirement age to 60.

But their employer superannuation contributions ceased because they had reached their so-called "maximum benefit limit".

That means they are effectively paid about $20,000 a year less than a younger person doing the same job.

The Government's review of military superannuation said the injustice should be corrected immediately.

The rip-off also applied to civilian public servants but their union screamed blue murder and the Government gave them an exemption.

Military staff do not have a union and their only recourse is the top brass via the chain of command. So far their pleas have been ignored by the generals.

An anomaly in the actuarial system used by the Federal Government means that the troops, who have passed the maximum benefit limit for their super scheme, will work up to 12 extra years without a cent being paid into their employer funded accounts.

I would be very surprised at that. The Australian Defence Force is typically much better paid than its US counerparts. It's caused some real tensions at times. I'm going to check that out and see.

(I wonder if part of the reason might be because our (enlisted) rank structures are quite different - you can make decent comparisons between commissioned ranks, NCO ranks are much more complicated.)

I don't know about you, but I didn't consider the pay very good when I was in. In 1968, my first 'payroll' was $26.00 cash. A twenty, a five, and a single one dollar bill.

Wanna know what the bastards did next after we all got our 'cash'? Did we march to the Px? To the bowling alley? Nope, the bastards marched us off to the barbershop and I had to pay that bastard barber my dollar for getting my head skinned.....

From then on I got a check for about $94 each month for two years until I went 'over two' and then started getting a little more money.

When I left in 1976, I was making about $600/month ($7200/year). In June of this year, I maxed out on my SS 'contributions' at $6621.

OK - an E-3 in the USAF is an Airman 1 Class. As I say, comparisons between enlisted ranks aren’t always easy, but the closest equivalent in the RAAF is Leading Aircraftman.

An E-7 in the USAF is a Master Sergeant. Closest RAAF equivalent is either Sergeant or Flight Sergeant (Sergeant is E-6, Flight Sergeant is E-8, there is no E-7 equivalent.) I’ll use Sergeant.

Let’s look at an E-3 with 4 years total service in the USAF.

They are on $22,316 a year. (US Dollars)

An E-3 with 4 years total service in the RAAF.

They are on $39,826 (Australian Dollars) or about $35,743 (US Dollars)

An E-7 with 12 years service in the USAF.

$42,930 a year (US Dollars)

An E-6 with 12 years service in the RAAF.

$65,320 (Australian dollars) or about $58,624 (US Dollars).

That’s base salary, not taking into account allowances and similar - but both services have those.

The Australian Defence Force pays very well. It can afford to, to an extent, because it’s maintained at a smaller force level than the US Armed Forces are - the idea in Australia is to have a relative small core force that can handle small to mid level threats and which can be expanded in a time to war. The US hasn’t had that luxury - it’s had to maintain a much larger standing force.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.