• Please take a moment and update your account profile. If you have an updated account profile with basic information on why you are on Air Warriors it will help other people respond to your posts. How do you update your profile you ask?

    Go here:

    Edit Account Details and Profile

Dempsey: Pay and benefits part of budget debate

lowflier03

So no $hit there I was
pilot
Don't forget about this little gem.
http://www.navytimes.com/news/2011/...-calls-for-radical-retirement-overhaul-072511

While I agree that there should be some benefits for those who choose to get out at 10 or 15 years, this plan seems pathetic. They "dont know" if you would have to wait until 65 to get the benefits? If this proposal or a version of it actually got passed I see a lot of people jumping ship. Heck that part where if you are already at 15 or 20 and you take the retirement cut, but you get the 5 years of TSP matching....FU I'm sure that whole 5 years will do alot to make up for the rest of the money thats cut.
 

phrogpilot73

Well-Known Member
I see both sides of the coin. The lucrative retirement is what keeps some servicemembers in, but at the same time - this retirement system was developed when life expectancies were much lower (the same as social security). I would argue that if you're going to fundamentally change the military retirement system, then you should fundamentally change social security as well. But of course, I realize that it's not going to happen.
 

phrogdriver

More humble than you would understand
pilot
Super Moderator
Please. There will be some kind of grandfathering. Those close to retirement won't take a hit. Now those at 10 years? Maybe. Then again, the military's going to get smaller anyway. Threaten to jump ship? They'll probably be just fine with that.
 

S.O.B.

Registered User
pilot
Don't forget about this little gem.
http://www.navytimes.com/news/2011/...-calls-for-radical-retirement-overhaul-072511

While I agree that there should be some benefits for those who choose to get out at 10 or 15 years, this plan seems pathetic. They "dont know" if you would have to wait until 65 to get the benefits? If this proposal or a version of it actually got passed I see a lot of people jumping ship. Heck that part where if you are already at 15 or 20 and you take the retirement cut, but you get the 5 years of TSP matching....FU I'm sure that whole 5 years will do alot to make up for the rest of the money thats cut.

This is actually the article I thought I posted.

There's already a group that gets their retirement at 65 and they're called reservists.

What if you want to stick around beyond 20? Are you going to get capped at 50%?
 

wlawr005

Well-Known Member
pilot
Contributor
I am almost at the 10 year mark, and fortunately I have been contributing to the TSP since 2004. However, I know plenty of people who don't contribute anything because they assume that there will be a retirement waiting for them when they get out. What about those people? I don't think that 10 years of government contributions are going to create a retirement portfolio that enables them to live above the poverty level.

Take that same guy at 10 years who doesn't contribute, retire him as a Chief, and then tell him to go in the civilian world and get a job. There are very few enlisted careers that transistion to the civilian world dollar for dollar. Most enlisted guys have to start fresh, at the lowest salary level available from their new employer. I thought the retirement system was supposed to help compensate for this too.
 

lowflier03

So no $hit there I was
pilot
Take that same guy at 10 years who doesn't contribute, retire him as a Chief, and then tell him to go in the civilian world and get a job. There are very few enlisted careers that transistion to the civilian world dollar for dollar. Most enlisted guys have to start fresh, at the lowest salary level available from their new employer. I thought the retirement system was supposed to help compensate for this too.

I would also argue that the current retirement system helps make up for the extra wear and tear physically and emotionally that military life puts on people. How many civilian jobs send someone away from their family for 6-9 months at a time, promise you will get a break for 2-3 years, then send you on some other bullshit (non-job related) deployment for another 9 months and have it count against your time at home. Oh and just try to run an OSHA or some other safety/health inspection on the conditions you are required to live in for those 6-9 months and see how that turns out. Wash, rinse repeat only with more time away from home the longer you stay in. I'm pretty sure that any civ job that comes close to this actually pays a lot more appropriately. The wear and tear you incur during that 20 years of military life is probably equivalent to 40 working a normal 9-5 and coming home every night.

If they f' up retirement, I wonder if they will balance out the pay.
 

bert

Enjoying the real world
pilot
Contributor
We get our retired pay and benefits at 60, not 65.

Random stupid question for FTS/whatever USMC calls their full-time reservists: I've always assumed you get your retirement pay immediately upon retiring just like active duty - is that correct?
 

dustydog

Registered User
pilot
Random stupid question for FTS/whatever USMC calls their full-time reservists: I've always assumed you get your retirement pay immediately upon retiring just like active duty - is that correct?

Yes. No difference in benefits.
 

Flash

SEVAL/ECMO
None
Super Moderator
Contributor
Please. There will be some kind of grandfathering. Those close to retirement won't take a hit. Now those at 10 years? Maybe. Then again, the military's going to get smaller anyway. Threaten to jump ship? They'll probably be just fine with that.

I am almost at the 10 year mark, and fortunately I have been contributing to the TSP since 2004. However, I know plenty of people who don't contribute anything because they assume that there will be a retirement waiting for them when they get out. What about those people? I don't think that 10 years of government contributions are going to create a retirement portfolio that enables them to live above the poverty level.

When the military last changed it's retirement system (high three, redux, etc) they grandfathered those already in and when the US government changed it's retirement system for civil servants they grandfathered everyone but those who had been civli servants 3 years or less. The political football that is military retirement will likely ensure that almost everyone active duty, or damn close to it, will be grandfathered in when the change happens.

Take that same guy at 10 years who doesn't contribute, retire him as a Chief, and then tell him to go in the civilian world and get a job. There are very few enlisted careers that transistion to the civilian world dollar for dollar. Most enlisted guys have to start fresh, at the lowest salary level available from their new employer. I thought the retirement system was supposed to help compensate for this too.

A lot officer jobs directly translate either, like NFO (No Future Outside), but most still survive.

I think the reasoning that the retirement system was supposed to compensate for that is backwards, likely thought of well after it was instituted. The retirement system was instituted at a time (I believe 1948) when many civilian retirement systems were very similar with defined pensions and health benefits. Most were not as generous but still very similar in overall structure to the military's.
We get our retired pay and benefits at 60, not 65.

Or 90 days earlier for every 90 days we are mobilized past 2008, as long as it is all in the same FY. ;)
 
Top