Sage wisdom here.
Young people gonna young. We all did it to varying degrees when we were college-aged. The only difference is, being officers, we were in college then. And probably didn't have as much money to blow on fun things.
I don't disagree. But I think the blended system is, on balance, a good compromise. They didn't shitcan the pension. I believe if you do a full career for one company, you should rate a pension. Heck, I believe that in the civ world, too. I have a personal sore spot with execs mucking with retirement benefits. My dad worked for the same company for 30 years. I grew up in the same house for 18 1/2 years. Out of the blue, the company yanked medical benefits for future retirees in bankruptcy proceedings. So my dad had to take early retirement and move to upstate NY for a new job he could retire out of in 10 years with medical. Total backstab move to fix the higherups' fuckup.
Oh yeah, good call, the match is a guaranteed 100% return. As I was.
To be clear: I come on the side of not touching the BAH system wrt dependents/no dependents. I think that the goal is to provide every servicemember with a dwelling commensurate with his assumed family size and rank, and the system we have accomplishes that. If anything, the 'no dependents' scale has come up high enough that single sailors and JOs collecting BAH can stand to make a good chunk of change off of being frugal, but this 'problem' mostly applies to JOs who get BAH from day 1 and never live in the barracks. I made substantial money off BAH as an O1/O2, as an O-3 with 3 children I expect to pay out of base pay for rent for the first year or two every time I PCS. In my current duty station I would be netting $1500 of tax free money a month if I were single splitting a 3BR with roommates - that's the equivalent post-tax salary of someone making $10/hour. If you set it so that every single JO gets w/ dependent BAH, you are just going to have more instances of people pocketing a lot of tax-free money. It's only a matter of time until John Q. Public catches on and rails against it.
I think that's an unreasonable expectation, and you're forgetting the logistics of what it's like to move out with just the clothes on your back. The military also doesn't provide the level of financial literacy training required for most sailors to be able to take full advantage of this system, which is probably a hidden cost in itself that wasn't analyzed for in the panel's report.
I think we're all a bit too willing to accept the "something" in lieu of the current plan. I've been doing this for 34 years now and I know LOTS of folks who made major career decisions based on the knowledge they could retire after 20. And I'm talking about warfighters who have done some remarkably difficult and challenging jobs. I agree with you that the proposal has some "good" ideas in it, but I think it will radically change the fabric of the force down the road. As always, just my .02c
Post of the year.
People may have seen me complaining about IRR guys getting "screwed" for lack of s better term. But, your post gives me the chance to say that defined benefit plans are dinosaurs, and I think we all need to accept s little responsibility and capitalize on the flexibility of defined contribution plans.
They aren't that uncommon for civil service jobs. Both my dad and brother are in law enforcement and their pension plans put the military's to shame. The military doesn't even pay you 50% of your compensation in retirement, it's more like 25-33% once you remove all of the allowances and special pays. That's one little snippet that I wish more people would throw out there when debating this in a public forum, i.e. Congress.
Yep, all the add on pays can lead to a real decrease in what you are used to getting, a nuke sub CPO retiring off sea duty is going to get much more of a shock than a surface CS CPO retiring off shore duty at the local galley.
