Spekkio
He bowls overhand.
Suppose the alternative is a TSP match. Or suppose it's a change to no benefits until 62.5 (both options have been tossed around). Suppose (through admittedly poor money management) a terminal E-6 or E-7 with 18 years of service has under $10k saved up in TSP because he's relying on that pension. You're effectively taking away 10% of their retirement pay with very little wiggle room for them to adjust. Even someone at 10 years may have invested more aggressively if he had known his pension was going to be less than what the law stated 10 years prior, which adds up to a lot of money.I don't think I'm following you. There would be no line drawing. If you did 18 years before the system changed and got out at 20, you'd get 90% of what you'd have gotten if nothing changed (so that would be 45% of base pay instead of 50%), and then you'd get 10% of whatever the new system would pay someone who did a full 20 under it.
If you did 1 year under the current system and then got out at 20, you'd get 5% of the current system (so 2.5% of base pay) plus 95% of what someone who served entirely in the new system would get.
So again, it should start with new servicemembers, or at most those in their first tour who haven't made additional commitments to make a career of the military if a compromise has to be made to get an otherwise good deal done. But our leadership's line should be starting with new servicemembers.