Posted on 01/28/2015 6:35:47 PM PST by Timber Rattler
The Military Compensation and Retirement Modernization Commission will release its long-awaited report Thursday, which will propose fundamental changes to military benefits including ending the 20-year retirement, according to the Military Times, citing sources familiar with the report.
The plan calls for Congress to create a hybrid system of smaller defined-benefit pension along with more cash-based benefits and lump-sum payments. A significant portion of retirement benefits would come in the form of government contributions to 401(k)-style investment accounts, those familiar with the report told Military Times.
In addition to the 401(k) for troops serving less than 20 years, the commission will suggest promising a pension to troops who serve a long-term career, but one that would be more modest than what military retirees receive today, a defense official briefed on the plan told the Times.
And, unlike the current system, this pension would not start upon separation from service; instead, those payment checks would begin at a traditional retirement age, such as 60 or older, according to the official.
(Excerpt) Read more at stripes.com ...
Honestly, if my son came to me today and expressed an interest in joining the military, I would tell him hell no! Uncle Sam does NOT have his back, promising the moon but delivering nothing but trouble and heartache.
Sure! We all want to take on active duty roles for 20+ years in return for National Guard retirement bennies starting at age 60.
Whatever plan congress puts itself under May be acceptable, let’s try it out
This is similar to what DOD does to people who leave active duty and go in the reserves - these people can’t collect any retirement pay until they reach 55 years of age.
I thought it was 60? Things have improved since I was in the National Guard.
Are the lousy government officials in all three branches going to have their lavish retirements cut? What is Mary Landrieu making since she was fired by the voters? Congressional retirement pay should be cut by 50%.
this promising long time pensions has got to stop....for everybody......start paying pensions for work of 20/30/40 yrs at age 60 or 62....
Can't blame you, and there will be many who would have signed up who now will not - and the country will be the worse for it.
Just as an aside, if Obama wants to give away ‘free tuition’, then how about trading that for military service.
Hey people in their 70s and 80s etc today lived in the best of times in America...
All generations which followed got screeeeewed...
That about sums all this up quite well...
FYI, there was a point in time (up until sometime in thirties) that ONLY the Navy had a 20 year retirement plan, Army was 30...
“Hey people in their 70s and 80s etc today lived in the best of times in America...’
I agree-—and I’m one of “The Lucky Few”
“http://www.prb.org/Publications/Articles/2008/luckyfew.aspx";
Most troops are non-career and some get riffed. Either way, under the current system it's either a medical or 20 years to collect retirement. I kinda like the idea of non-career types buying into the TSP. I wound up buying my time back and had to do it by raiding another plan.
When we had CHAMPUS, I had to have my wife shop doctors to see who would take it. That didn't always get her the best care. Buying into the federal health benefits plan (I assume for dependents only) gets participants pipelined into major accepted providers like Blue Cross and Aetna.
Nope, can’t agree. Young people miss out on too many other opportunities when they go in the military. That early modest retirement pay is needed and deserved.
I could agree to raising it to as much as 25 years but it must start at separation.
I’m one of the sreeeewed...
lol...
As a retired military vet myself, I say that it is a good deal, in fact, a great deal, for anyone willing to perform a very different kind of job for 20 years. All of my peers had the same choices I had. In most cases I was wished well, and had heartfelt send offs. Many of those send offs, by people who would have done well in the military, but didn’t feel the same calling. They didn’t want to take that risk, but they never thought of me as “less” for making my decsion. For those who mocked my choice (all libs), they win everytime a story like this comes out. 20 year military veterans are a tiny, miniscule, percentage of the population. What I have, I earned.
A soldier with a thirty year retirement in the current retirement system doesn’t make as much as a welfare recipient does in many states.
The Cato Institute released an updated 2013 study (original study in 1955) showing that welfare benefits pay more than a minimum wage job in 33 states and the District of Columbia. Even worse, welfare pays more than $15 per hour in 13 states. According to the study, welfare benefits have increased faster than minimum wage. It’s now more profitable to sit at home than it is to earn an honest day’s pay.
Here is the list of the states where the pre-tax equivalent “salary” that welfare recipients receive is higher than having a job:
1. Hawaii: $60,590
2. District of Columbia: $50,820
3. Massachusetts: $50,540
4. Connecticut: $44,370
5. New York: $43,700
6. New Jersey: $43,450
7. Rhode Island: $43,330
8. Vermont: $42,350
9. New Hampshire: $39,750
10. Maryland: $38,160
11. California: $37,160
12. Oregon: $34,300
13. Wyoming: $32,620
14. Nevada: $29,820
15. Minnesota: $29,350
16. Delaware: $29,220
17. Washington: $28,840
18. North Dakota: $28,830
19. Pennsylvania: $28,670
20. New Mexico: $27,900
21. Montana: $26,930
22. South Dakota: $26,610
23. Kansas: $26,490
24. Michigan: $26,430
25. Alaska: $26,400
26. Ohio: $26,200
27. North Carolina: $25,760
28. West Virginia: $24,900
29. Alabama: $23,310
30. Indiana: $22,900
31. Missouri: $22,800
32. Oklahoma: $22,480
33. Louisiana: $22,250
34. South Carolina: $21,910
Average Salary of Soldier DEPLOYED IN AFGHANISTAN ... $38,000
It is still 60, unless you were deployed to a war zone 2008-forward. Then your retirement pay date drops 3 months for every 3-month block in-country
Have you ever seen a 50 year old Captain trying to lead 18 year old soldiers? I have (Bundeswehr and U.S National Guard). It is not a pretty sight. War is a young man’s game. And no, there are not, and should not, be enough slots for uniform folks to sit while others bear the real burden.
The 20 year retirement is a small price to pay to avoid an attenuated, lard assed military that is less warrior than social program. And yes, there are specialties where more mature Americans can serve. But those are not line dog roles and can and should be filled with fireable civilians.
WRT “20/30/40 years of work”, how are you counting “a year”? In the civilian world, it is ~2000 hours. A deployment year is, +/- ~6570 hours, not counting wear and tear, stress on the body etc and oh yeah, the chance at getting seriously hurt.
What we will see is a repeat of what we saw last time this was attempted with the Redux program in 1986-96. Mid grade retention will crash, and we will scramble to reverse the effects. Unlike Walmart, the military cannot run job ads for mid and senior grade leadership. Every single leader is hand made from scratch.
Agree we need to shrink the Fed gov’t and its debt. Suggest we start by zeroing out all UN-earned benefits, then we can look at the altering the terms of the earned benefit contract. With the defense of the nation, oh yeah, gov’t job #1, comprising less than 25% of the Federal budget, I bet we can solve the problem well before re-negotiating the terms of the contract the American people signed up to with their Soldiers.
Probably a benefit they can cut. Odd they didn’t do this for reservists deployed to far more intense combat in WWII, Korea and Vietnam.
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.