Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: where's_the_Outrage?; Born to Conserve; Owen; Farmerbob; joe fonebone; Portcall24
It's interesting to see the fists fly whenever somebody mentions military retirement or worse yet, brings up the difference in serving your time in a military position and combat.

Military folks who serve the full twenty deserve to get Social Security as well as military retirement (as I do) because we pay into the Social Security fund, just like any other working stiff. If they had left my pay alone and let me keep what they deducted, then I would have made a little more and I wouldn't have a gripe if I didn't qualify for SS when I turned 65. Not hard to understand.

Combat is combat - you either were in the beaten zone or you weren't. Nobody argues that Air Force or Navy or Marine Corps aircrews who were in the position to be shot down were in combat - or navy riverine folks, or for that matter rear area folks within the range of Katyushas or Scuds.

But combat means within the lethal reach of the enemy and in most cases also means a Purple Heart and missing parts of your body. I know that submariners have a dangerous job but they really haven't had to face depth charges for a few years. Just experiencing a dangerous part of the service isn't really the same as combat.

Those few of us who have endured combat and its after-effects deserve a niche among our fellow citizens. But even as I say that, I know that there will be the usual chorus of "well, we signed up for the same things you did". Yes - but it's a bit like being struck by lightning: those of us who did fight got the main blast and those who either volunteered and didn't get picked to fight - or those who got picked for safer job - know full well that the guys (and lately gals) in combat took the full burden of death and loss.

42 posted on 01/13/2022 5:12:29 PM PST by Chainmail (Frater magnus te spectat)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]


To: Chainmail

Just an FYI, this turned into a military focus, but my recall is the Windfall Elimination thing for Social Security is focused on teachers and state/local employess. They don’t pay into SS while teaching. Separate system. Then they may get a different job that does pay in at a later time.

There is some aspect of years worked and amount contributed that translate to a big SS benefit to go with their teacher system benefit. The Windfall Elimination thing was pointed at stopping that, far more than any military aspect.

Someone can polish up my description.


43 posted on 01/13/2022 5:33:41 PM PST by Owen
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 42 | View Replies ]

To: Chainmail

I need another a quarter to be eligible for any SS benefits. I get a nice state pension. That said, I paid into SS as a working teenager and while serving 6 years in the military back in the day. That is not good enough to get any benefit from SS. I think it is absurd that I have put money into the SS system and have to abide by some obnoxious vesting rules.


45 posted on 01/13/2022 5:59:47 PM PST by EVO X ( )
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 42 | View Replies ]

To: Chainmail

A small quibble with “If they had left my pay alone and let me keep what they deducted, then I would have made a little more...”

If they had left your pay alone and allowed you to keep what they deducted from you and the employer (12.4%) and you had put it in a S&P index fund during that period, you probably could have really retired when you left active service and not needed another job.


52 posted on 01/13/2022 7:44:37 PM PST by redlegplanner ( No Representation without Taxation)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 42 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson