They don't pay servicemen enough to contribute to 401K's. As a general rule enlisted men live paycheck to paycheck and now they want to rob them of that to pay for their own retirement.
The military is the lowest paid form of government employment and now they want to give them the lowest paid form of retirement benefits.
That’s what I was thinking! Who can afford to pay in, in their early and middle years?! Pay Congress according to this and see how fast it changes.
The Hillary globalist types intend to bury individual wealth and infiltrate every tract of income.
If it *looks* good,....... it’s probably not a duck.
Service members already have a thrift savings plan matched dollar for dollar by the government on the first 3% of basic pay and 50 cents on the dollar for the next 2% of basic pay. The new plan matches dollar for dollar on the full 5% of basic pay. It cuts the retirement at 20 by 10% and at 30 by 15%.
Huge issues are ownership, the definition of portability, the rejection of lump sum payment, and the fraud of “tax deferred” (far better to pay taxes when income is low). The volatility of the market under the past 2 or 3 presidents is also an issue. That supposed next egg was worth about half when the market crashed a few years back and then again a few years before that. And that is why their pipe dream of saying the investment grows by 7.5 percent annually is realized for the lie that it is.
Ownership of the government contribution is a huge issue. Often they separate into different accounts the personal contributions and the contributor contributions. They allow ownership of the personal contributions but allow use of the contributor contributions only for annuity purposes. That annuity rate is always set low and any principle remaining belongs to the contributor and not to the heir.
In sum, it’s crazy to accept a lesser plan when there is already a savings plan.
And as Marlowe says, asking from cash contributions from our lower ranks is asking for cash at a cash-strapped time of their lives.
Retirement is one of the few benefits left for enlisted members. Forcing them to pay into another government-sponsored plan would be no different than making them pay for medical benefits.
Enlisted members pay for their retirement by default—their pay is significantly less over a twenty-year career. While I will not say the pay is unreasonable; I do say it is part of a complete package that does not include a buffer for more “contributions.”
Just like when they dumped the original GI Bill at the end of 1976. New recruits had the new Bill (I forgot its name) where they had to put in $100 per month of their pay for the first year. At that time an E-1 made about $330 or so per month before taxes. Most back then were not married but many did not want to afford a one third pay reduction for a quarter of their enlistment. My wife was one of these but I was lucky enough to have entered service with the old Bill.