Military retirement under attack

[Hacker]

Solution: Everyone who signs up for the service starting tomorrow will be under the new system. Everyone who signed up yesterday will be under the old system. Problem solved.

The problem is, that's not a 'now' fix -- that changes things 20 years down the road.

Let's face it: this whole retirement discussion is a political dance brought up by the current economy. They want a change that will provide benefit TODAY, or this year. To say that it will help in 20 years means absolutely nothing to anyone.

[LL Windshear]

KennyB, your draft letter pretty much sums it up for me. Did you get that from somewhere, or was it original? Either way, I thought it was great. Copy/pasted to the wife. She might modify it to read from a spouses POV.

Cheers.

[KennyB]

I wrote the letter last night. I came home, starting reading online news sources and realized this retirement proposal had made it to Fox News, got all pissed off, and then got onto my Senators and Congressman's website.

Hacker, totally agree with the 'now' fix analysis... that's why I think the DBB hiding behind all this 'fairness' talk is a bunch of bullshit! There's nothing romantic about the prosposal... it's not about equality for all who serve, it's about $$$.

[DeHavilland]

Those past 15 years have already made a choice...on paper...REDUX or Top 3. This plan appears to fly in the face of that.

This has probably already been posted, but...

https://dbb.defense.gov/pdf/DBB_Military_Retirement_Final_Presentationpdf.pdf

I just tried this link and also going direct to the Defense Business Board. All links are dead. Did anyone download the PDF presentation before they shut the link down? I and many others would be very interested in seeing the actual proposal. And yeah, after just what I have read in the "Times", I think it sucks.

[nsplayr]

Solution: Everyone who signs up for the service starting tomorrow will be under the new system. Everyone who signed up yesterday will be under the old system. Problem solved.

What I wish they would do is have an optional grandfather clause. If you came in under the old system, you can keep it if you want, or you can choose the new system. If you sign up for the military tomorrow it's the new system for you.

I agree that this is being driven largely by money, but there is a real problem in creating an even more hollow force when you pay an increasing percentage of the DOD budget to retirees who aren't producing anything in the way of actual defense any more. If retirees live longer and healthcare costs continue to increase, is the DOD just supposed to do nothing about it? Some would say yes, we've earned it and I mostly agree, but there are some minor changes that can be made (Tricare fees for example).

I think what they're trying to do is "bend the cost curve" way down the road because it's becoming clear that no matter how good a retention tool the 20 year, full and immediate benefits retirement is, it's unsustainable indefinitely. Healthcare costs alone will eat DOD alive just like they were eating the car companies who had to pay for generous union retirements and benefits. Many people argue (correctly) that the government is inefficient and doesn't live by market-based principles and this is a great example, very few companies today offer benefits on par with the military and are able to remain successful. Not that the military is or should be a company, but there are lessons to be learned from the private sector, which is the whole point of the board that recommended these changes in the first place.

The idea of increasing fairness in the system and putting money in more people's pockets doesn't have to be necessarily tied to saving money though. Why not have 2 systems that allow people to choose, upon entry, if they wanna give it a go at a career or if they want to take TSP matches since they will likely get out before 20? There are other effects that would have to be looked at, such as creating an essentially two-track military of future leaders and short-termers and you have to address the retention issue but those aren't insurmountable hurdles.

How many would take a pilot slot if they guaranteed you 10 years of actual no-shit flying and a full benefits retirement if you signed up for 20 years? How many young kids would sign that dotted line with even less on the table?

Honestly anyone who didn't think they'd make it to 20 for whatever reason and wouldn't switch to a new system that paid benefits without requiring the full 20 is an idiot. That other 80% of troops who honorably serve but who don't make it to 20 would all benefit from a new system. The reason you don't hear their perspective is because they all got out.

Edited August 16, 2011 by nsplayr

[ClearedHot]

I just tried this link and also going direct to the Defense Business Board. All links are dead. Did anyone download the PDF presentation before they shut the link down? I and many others would be very interested in seeing the actual proposal. And yeah, after just what I have read in the "Times", I think it sucks.

The link works for me, goes directly to the PDF and downloads a 24 slide presentation.

[Champ Kind]

I am all about having the choice, but how would that save money in the end? Are you saying that the percentage of people staying in for 20 years would diminish if there were an alternate plan (i.e., some type of TSP matching) in place? I'm not so sure. It just seems like the gov't would wind up spending more money than it is now in paying for the TSP matching for those honorably serving less than 20 years, plus the full pensions for those that make it to 20.

Right now I contribute zero to TSP. I do contribute 15% of my income to mutual funds though in the form of Roth IRAs. Why would I stop contributing income in proven funds with long track records like I'm doing now in favor of TSP, even if it is supposedly going to be matched?

I would love to stay in for 20. I just don't know if I can stomach it. Aside from the flying, the mission, and the people (well, some of them), the appealing thing about serving in the military is the stability (as far as the pay goes). That is what makes a lot of people scared to leave the service. Well, I'm not feeling so "stable" these days, and I'd just assume worry about my job/retirement at a place where I could just punch a clock and work according to a contract and move onto something else whenever I want versus what I'm doing now. With each passing day, the USAF is starting to feel more and more like a business and less and less like a flying military force.

[ThreeHoler]

I am all about having the choice, but how would that save money in the end? Are you saying that the percentage of people staying in for 20 years would diminish if there were an alternate plan (i.e., some type of TSP matching) in place? I'm not so sure. It just seems like the gov't would wind up spending more money than it is now in paying for the TSP matching for those honorably serving less than 20 years, plus the full pensions for those that make it to 20.

They have two current suggestions for retirement from the linked document.

The first keeps the current system with three changes: one time lump sum with no monthly payout until 67; 2.0 multiplier (40% base pay for 20 years); High 3 changes to High 5 which will drive down the average monthly payout. There is no mention of what they might do with the CPI.

The second is the TSP + matching. Based on the math they've done, they're going to save huge amounts of money because they're not paying out a monthly amount...they're only matching what members contribute over their careers ($16.5k max gov't contribution per year unless in CZTE, then max $49k gov't and member combined contribution). For the hypothetical situation, let's assume a 2Lt starts contributing immediately and stays in 20 years:

Gov't money spent (not counting overhead etc):

16.5k * 20 = 330,000

or

24.5k (max gov't matching to stay below 49k) * 20 = 490,000

Current system gov't money spent (assume retires as LtCol with 20 years, pay frozen at proposed 2012 charts):

7,908 * .5 = 3,954/month

3,954/month * 12 months * 36 years (average military life expectancy remaining past retirement) = 1,708,128

As a Maj:

7,136 * .5 = 3,568/month

3,568/month * 12 months * 36 years (average military life expectancy remaining past retirement) = 1,541,376

Looks like 66%+ savings to my shitty math skills (based on the PPT available information).

[nsplayr]

I am all about having the choice, but how would that save money in the end? Are you saying that the percentage of people staying in for 20 years would diminish if there were an alternate plan (i.e., some type of TSP matching) in place? I'm not so sure. It just seems like the gov't would wind up spending more money than it is now in paying for the TSP matching for those honorably serving less than 20 years, plus the full pensions for those that make it to 20.

I do think there would be less people staying until 20 because it would be much more attractive to punch earlier. The negative effects of this would have to be looked at. WRT saving money, like I said, I don't think this should be about saving money necessarily. A better system that costs exactly as much or even costs some % more is worth it in my opinion. If we made some reforms to healthcare costs for retirees we'd have more than enough to pay for a better retirement system.

Right now I contribute zero to TSP. I do contribute 15% of my income to mutual funds though in the form of Roth IRAs. Why would I stop contributing income in proven funds with long track records like I'm doing now in favor of TSP, even if it is supposedly going to be matched?

Because your gains are 100%, immediately, on any matched funds. If you invest $1000, and the government matches it 1-to-1, you just made a great investment no matter how the fund performs. Even if say TSP funds perform 10% worse than your current funds (unlikely), you're still coming out ahead because the government is paying you to save. A Roth is a good option for a lot of military folks because our taxes are so low due to deployments and having a good deal of un-taxed compensation (BAH, BAS, etc.), but that math changes when you factor in 1-to-1 matches or even 50% matches.

I would love to stay in for 20. I just don't know if I can stomach it. Aside from the flying, the mission, and the people (well, some of them), the appealing thing about serving in the military is the stability (as far as the pay goes). That is what makes a lot of people scared to leave the service. Well, I'm not feeling so "stable" these days, and I'd just assume worry about my job/retirement at a place where I could just punch a clock and work according to a contract and move onto something else whenever I want versus what I'm doing now. With each passing day, the USAF is starting to feel more and more like a business and less and less like a flying military force.

So if the AF is feeling like a business that flies rather than a military force, why do you accept artificially low compensation? Wouldn't the proposed changes benefit you if you're likely to punch?

If there was no 20 year guaranteed income at the end of the tunnel, would you stay in with current compensation levels? Educated officers with MAs and flight training have good job prospects on the outside, changes to the retirement system would also force the DOD to work to retain talent rather than knowing they've got us by the balls.

The private sector doesn't have anything like our retirement system anymore, and it shows because people move in and out of companies like a revolving door. If the DOD wants to compete in that environment, they have to make military service more attractive to a employee who can leave if he chooses. To me, that would mean less bullshit, more pay, and more incentives for performance rather than longevity. The best argument against changing the system is that while this is more market-driven and more efficient most likely, military service is so uniquely important to the nation that it's worth it to retain inefficient and socialist systems to maintain a certain level of highly experienced people.

Looks like 66%+ savings to my shitty math skills (based on the PPT available information).

Your numbers look legit for those who make it to 20, but you have to factor in that under a matching system money goes to thousands and thousands of people who contribute and get matches but don't make to to 20 years. Those people are currently free to the DOD WRT retirement compensation. So the actual costs would be more on-par I'd be willing to bet since you would not only have many, many more people receiving some benefits, but a matching system also incentivizes greater rates of savings since your profit is essentially 100% on any money saved if they give you 1-to-1 matches.

[ThreeHoler]

Agreed. We could figure that only 17% of the officer population gets the 330,000-490,000 gov't contribution. With a few more assumptions...these are pulled from my butt:

Say 33% get out at 5, 30% get out at 10, and 20% at 15, we get the following...

5 * 16.5 = 82.5

10 * 16.5 = 165.0

15 * 16.5 = 247.5

Add them all up...and you get an average payout of 182k/officer. Average goes up if people stay longer, down if they stay less. For officers, it will probably center more around 10-15 based on current flying commitments.

[epsilon]

For the masses... a sample letter to your Senator/Congressman. A place to start... change it up/write your own, but take the time to make your voice heard. We can't bitch about how little Congress does if we didn't attempt to suggest some changes.

-------------------------------------------

My name is Ken Blankenship. I'm a Texas resident and a registered voter in XXXX county. I'm married with ### small children.

I'm also an X-year combat veteran who has served in Operations IRAQI FREEDOM, ENDURING FREEDOM, and UNIFIED PROTECTOR, piloting both the C-130 and KC-135.

With regard to the pending military retirement change proposed by the Defense Business Bureau, I can assure you that it will be a game changer for myself and my family if implemented. From my earliest years at <XX COLLEGE>, I've mentally and physically prepared myself to become a useful instrument of national policy, ready for my country's call to arms. After the completion of various training programs over the years, I've signed multiple military service commitments extending my active duty contract. I've deployed XX times in support of global contingency operations and dealt with extended time away from my family. We know that military service is a life of sacrifice so our great country can continue to prosper and act in our defense and the defense of our allies.

In XX years, my family has moved XX times to support my training and duty assignment changes. During this time, my wife has held several part-time jobs, as very few companies are willing to support military spouses long-term. She has been unable to establish a successful career using he rBachelor's degree due to the uncertainty of our frequent moves. Last year, we were finally able to purchase our first home, which we will live in for three years and then sell (if able) because our budget can't support multiple mortgages. This constant cycle of moving has created instability with my wife's potential income and will result in a constant regeneration of a mortgage payment for the duration of my military career, resulting in restarting a final 30-year mortgage when we're finally able to settle down in one location.

If the current 20-year cliff-vested retirement is traded for a 401k style traditional IRA with income matching, it will significantly affect my family's decision to continue to serve our great country on active duty. Like many military officers, I have marketable career options in the public and private sector based on a resume highlighting years of leadership experience and multiple advanced academic degrees paid for by the military. As a pilot, I'm also aware of the massive commercial airline hiring boom that will occur in the next five years. The military has paid for all of my academic degrees and aviation certifications, and for that I am grateful. That gratefulness will only go so far as I weigh options for my family's future.

All these factors are included in my long-term family planning. Despite the draw to the civilian sector, my family has thus far chosen to stay the course with the military because we understand that our sacrifice will be recognized financially at the end of my career. Military life is inherently volatile, but the stability of the military paycheck and eventual pension has made our decision to stay an easy one. If we continue to soldier through the rough times, we will eventually reach the 20-year retirement which would offset the financial reality that my spouse has been unable to start a career and we are just beginning a 30-year mortgage in our 40s.

I've signed commitments that I've upheld throughout my career; if the Department of Defense can change its financial commitment to my family at a moment's notice, there is little difference between military service and a career in the civilian sector. I can get a 401k with income matching as a private citizen. By design, the military life is different from the private sector, and the notion that we should be treated the same is ludicrous. If the Department of Defense wants to align its business practices with Fortune 500 companies, the end result will be a mass exodus of highly qualified service members to those same companies from which the model was created. The cliff-vested retirement is not about being 'fair' to the 83% of service members who do not serve 20 years (as stated in the Defense Business Bureau's brief); it practically functions as a retention tool to keep highly qualified individuals in the service when years of patriotism and service does not balance with family planning and stability.

Senator/Congressman XXXXX, I urge you to consider this letter when the Defense Business Bureau's proposal makes its way to your desk. I realize budgets cuts need to be made, but gutting the current military retirement system will result in many potential future leaders of the this great country taking their experience and government sponsored educations to the public and private sector. The end goal should not be to align the military with civilian companies; the service requires a greater amount of danger, dedication, and sacrifice. Those individuals who dedicate 20 years to that cause should be able to count on the U.S. Government to repay that debt.

Sincerely,

Ken Blankenship

Well said sir...well said

[hindsight2020]

Last time I talked to my old folks, they were at 550K in retirement income 7 or so years after retirement. That's ONE pension, they both got one each. LTC Joe Bob will never get that kind of scratch in the new system. Anybody who thinks 400K in the bank after 20 years, even with fairy tale compounding miracles that everybody assumes will happen for them, you won't make it. 400K is chump change, especially when you normalize for end of life health care costs in the last two years of your life, unless you get lucky and die suddenly while flying your airplane and your wife is giving you a blowjay. Otherwise you're in the street.

The point about my parent's retirement system is clearly righteous and on point. It's unsustainable what they have and they, as much as they love me, are smiling all the way to the grave knowing they lucked out, and I'm foked. Essentially the modern "contribution" plan based retirement that is being preferred over the old "benefit" plan based retirement, is going to yield a lowering of living standards for the majority. Party had to come to an end someday....

Now, you tackle the health care cost racket we got in this country, you might be able to stomach the lowering of retirement income that will afflict the mine and younger generations. But you keep education, health care and housing costs the way it is now, no freggin way a 401k, even in the best of circumstances, is getting you anywhere near 75% of peak income lifestyle in retirement, specially for the proverbial majority working stiff making 60K dual household income that IS this country. My parents lived on 95% of their income, you're asking people to live on 70% of their diluted income to save the rest to end up with 250K at the end of the day sitting in some retirement account. Whooptie do. No way you can make that math work and still make this country look like what we put on the uniform for in the first place. That's what I'm concerned about. This country needs an economic retooling, 401k is a crappy band aid.

[epsilon]

I am all about having the choice, but how would that save money in the end? Are you saying that the percentage of people staying in for 20 years would diminish if there were an alternate plan (i.e., some type of TSP matching) in place? I'm not so sure. It just seems like the gov't would wind up spending more money than it is now in paying for the TSP matching for those honorably serving less than 20 years, plus the full pensions for those that make it to 20.

Right now I contribute zero to TSP. I do contribute 15% of my income to mutual funds though in the form of Roth IRAs. Why would I stop contributing income in proven funds with long track records like I'm doing now in favor of TSP, even if it is supposedly going to be matched?

I would love to stay in for 20. I just don't know if I can stomach it. Aside from the flying, the mission, and the people (well, some of them), the appealing thing about serving in the military is the stability (as far as the pay goes). That is what makes a lot of people scared to leave the service. Well, I'm not feeling so "stable" these days, and I'd just assume worry about my job/retirement at a place where I could just punch a clock and work according to a contract and move onto something else whenever I want versus what I'm doing now. With each passing day, the USAF is starting to feel more and more like a business and less and less like a flying military force.

I agree with almost everything you said. I'm also on the fence, but the things that are driving me away are all AF culture related (as you basically mentioned). I can put up with deployments, remotes, etc, but it is the day to day grind under a relentless queep machine that is killing my will to serve. CBTs, Award packages, meaningless AF buzzwords, uniform changes, and a general lack of respect that an AF officer gets these days by the enlisted force is all adding up. If we could create some sort of real warrior spirit/git er dun mentality at all levels then my opinion might change. My squadron level leadership has also been mostly poor in my 11 years. I can only count about 2 squadron CCs that I would actually want to "be like" later on in life. The poor traits exhibited by these micromanagers, yes men, and queep generators really kills the will to want to serve. I can say, however, that the couple of CCs that were good were REALLY good leaders. If the retirement changed on us (without grandfathering) it would be a final straw.

[Champ Kind]

I agree with almost everything you said. I'm also on the fence, but the things that are driving me away are all AF culture related (as you basically mentioned). I can put up with deployments, remotes, etc, but it is the day to day grind under a relentless queep machine that is killing my will to serve. CBTs, Award packages, meaningless AF buzzwords, uniform changes, and a general lack of respect that an AF officer gets these days by the enlisted force is all adding up. If we could create some sort of real warrior spirit/git er dun mentality at all levels then my opinion might change. My squadron level leadership has also been mostly poor in my 11 years. I can only count about 2 squadron CCs that I would actually want to "be like" later on in life. The poor traits exhibited by these micromanagers, yes men, and queep generators really kills the will to want to serve. I can say, however, that the couple of CCs that were good were REALLY good leaders. If the retirement changed on us (without grandfathering) it would be a final straw.

Bravo. Couldn't have said it better myself, particularly the willingness to deploy versus the day-to-day grind of mindless busy work that doesn't matter.

[dream big]

So if this "new system" gets implemented, will our current TSPs become the new TSPs or will they be two separate TSPs?

[BitteEinBit]

I remain skeptical of all the people who say they would bail if retirement was changed. I really do want to call that bluff, because I believe that even without a pension plan, people are still addicted to the benefits, pay, and job stability. People might bitch, complain, and threaten to leave, but they'll stay, because they can't afford to leave until they're ready.

I like your optimism...you must work at the Pentagon or some staff and tell the bosses "yes Sir, everything is great Sir!" even though they are not.

Rewind back in time to the mid 90s (you may be too young for this)...yes, pilots got out in droves. And just think...they were deploying less, putting up with less BS (AAD/PME emphasis), and actually doing more "fun" flying with less office work (the days of the OST). Do you remember when and why the "pilot/nav bonuses" started?

I think you're spot on if you're talking about those on the support side of the house probably not getting out...the job market is a little different right now on the outside for those guys. But then again, most non-rated AFSC aren't being offered $25K bonuses either. However, if you think those on the rated side won't get out because they are "addicted" to benefits that congress is currently talking about taking away, you Sir, are sorely mistaken. I'll be sure to revive this thread after Oct 2012 when the AF finally figures it out...I'll see your call and raise you a stop loss/higher bonus proposal courtesy of the USAF probably starting in FY2013. This isn't new...we've seen this before.

Ironically, if all the people weathering the bullshit for the 20 year pension left in droves, I would most likely stay in, as I see them as the main problem with the military. The massive staff officer bureaucracy between 10-20 years of service (not counting prior enlisted), the careerism, and the willingness to let things go unchecked because they're holding on for a pension, are the biggest causes of what I see wrong with the Air Force.

Probably because you can't afford to get out because you're not ready. Stay in...hopefully you'll be the change for "what you think is wrong with the Air Force." As for me, I'll give up my "addiction" because I can, and I'm ready...

[di1630]

I'll be sure to revive this thread after Oct 2012 when the AF finally figures it out...I'll see your call and raise you a stop loss/higher bonus proposal courtesy of the USAF probably starting in FY2013.

When did the 10 yr UPT commitments start and when (if) will we see the predicted exodus when dudes can start punching?

[epsilon]

I like your optimism...you must work at the Pentagon or some staff and tell the bosses "yes Sir, everything is great Sir!" even though they are not.

Rewind back in time to the mid 90s (you may be too young for this)...yes, pilots got out in droves. And just think...they were deploying less, putting up with less BS (AAD/PME emphasis), and actually doing more "fun" flying with less office work (the days of the OST). Do you remember when and why the "pilot/nav bonuses" started?

I think you're spot on if you're talking about those on the support side of the house probably not getting out...the job market is a little different right now on the outside for those guys. But then again, most non-rated AFSC aren't being offered $25K bonuses either. However, if you think those on the rated side won't get out because they are "addicted" to benefits that congress is currently talking about taking away, you Sir, are sorely mistaken. I'll be sure to revive this thread after Oct 2012 when the AF finally figures it out...I'll see your call and raise you a stop loss/higher bonus proposal courtesy of the USAF probably starting in FY2013. This isn't new...we've seen this before.

Probably because you can't afford to get out because you're not ready. Stay in...hopefully you'll be the change for "what you think is wrong with the Air Force." As for me, I'll give up my "addiction" because I can, and I'm ready...

Off the top rope...nice. Yeah, I don't see people feeling addicted to the "services" provided by the AF either. When southwest, fedex, AA, etc. start bringing in dudes for interviews, the ball will start rolling and people will leave by the masses (especially if they canx the old retirement system). I was not on active duty during the last flood of people leaving for airlines, but I can see the same sort of thing happening now...only this time, as "bitteeinbit" mentioned, we are putting up with even more BS than the previous group. As far as the non-flyers? I think they would punch as well....tons of firms are hiring people with experience and/or security clncs.

[FallingOsh]

I remain skeptical of all the people who say they would bail if retirement was changed. I really do want to call that bluff, because I believe that even without a pension plan, people are still addicted to the benefits, pay, and job stability.

You're basing that on what?..... the VSP mess?

People might bitch, complain, and threaten to leave, but they'll stay, because they can't afford to leave until they're ready.

I know PLENTY of people, myself included some days, who would gladly cut their income in half for a chance to not deal with active duty bullshit. If you are so sure that people won't leave, then why have a 10 year commitment out of UPT?

Now the DoD is actually more beholden to how it treats is members.

Oh now you're just making things up.

Ironically, if all the people weathering the bullshit for the 20 year pension left in droves, I would most likely stay in, as I see them as the main problem with the military. The massive staff officer bureaucracy between 10-20 years of service (not counting prior enlisted), the careerism, and the willingness to let things go unchecked because they're holding on for a pension, are the biggest causes of what I see wrong with the Air Force.

And I think the biggest problems in the air force come from people like you who just want to move people out of the way so you get to continue up the chain. You think the tired, beat up pilot who has been away from his family for probably half of his 17 year career is the one who gives a fuck about Friday patches and T-shirts being banned? You think he's the one causing all that fuss? He's the one you're accusing of being a careerist?? You think the guy who could make two or three times the cash as a contractor stays in just so he can preach about everyone getting an online masters? Fuck no. The people ruining the air force aren't tired majors or young LtCols waiting to get out. They're the fuck heads who disregard everyone on their way to O-8.

Our squadrons' senior instructors and leadership fall into this mystical category you've created that accuses them of being careerists who are ruining the Air Force. Feel free to tell them that as they head out the door on their 4,5, or 6th deployment.

You think there's a retention problem for pilots now? Cut that 8 years' worth of time out from under them as an incentive to stay. All you'll be left with is a bunch of douches looking for their chance to pounce on a brand new shiny rank. Have fun with that.

Edited August 16, 2011 by FallingOsh

[ThreeHoler]

When did the 10 yr UPT commitments start and when (if) will we see the predicted exodus when dudes can start punching?

I think we should be seeing the earliest of the 10yr people eligible to leave in 2012.

[BFM this]

I think we should be seeing the earliest of the 10yr people eligible to leave in 2012.

Just after a two year record high retention rate. Weirdest thing!

[matmacwc]

I think we should be seeing the earliest of the 10yr people eligible to leave in 2012.

2011.....me. And alot of my friends.

Edited August 16, 2011 by matmacwc

[Karl Hungus]

2011.....me. And alot of my friends.

Between folks palace chasing with 6-9 months remaining on their ADSC, the limited few who were approved VSP, and the first of the 10 year guys... there will be a bunch getting out this fall.

[MilitaryToFinance]

I think we're focused too much on our small piece of the puzzle here. The VAST majority of people that joint the military are not in the position of AF officer pilots, who have extremely valuable training and the option to go to a ready-made industry. That force support or MX or AFE airman who's enlistment is up may or may not have a lot of other great options outside the military depending on the economy and their education, so their decision to stay in or get out at the end of their commitments (which are much shorter than pilot ADSCs) is quite different.

And under the current system you walk away with exactly $0 dollars in your pocket other than your own contributions to TSP and the value of your skills and training.

Look, the majority of people are not making the career-or-punch decision at the 10 year point. They're making it at the 4 year or even 3 year point and it's not a career decision, they can re-up for another 3-4 or even just take one more PCS and the accompanying 2 year commitment and stay a little longer. The calculus is quite different and I think if the forums here were better represented with non-aviators we'd be getting a different perspective WRT the thinking behind the decisions to stay versus go. That perspective I think is more in line with the majority of the active force where our concerns, while valid for our community, may not be applicable to the larger force. Like CH said, the Air Force may have some unique challenges under a new system because we rely on the retention of a smaller number of highly-skilled technical operators rather than on larger numbers of relatively less-skilled bodies like in the Army or Marine Corps.

As I've said before, the new system puts money into the pockets of a huge number of people, who as you just said, honorably served out their commitments and are patriots. And it does so only for people who take it upon themselves to save for their retirement; if you contribute nothing there's nothing for the government to match. A new system like the one being proposed would both give something to a greater number of service members and would incentivise positive behavior such as savings and planning for retirement at a young age. I like all those things, especially as someone who's inclined to punch at the 7 year point; the current system has nothing for me and I'd be getting a better retirement bang for my buck if I were working a GS position.

As one of the few non-pilots on this forum I'll chime in here. I agree that there should be an option for current folks to choose one or the other but I love this proposed plan. I have a 4 year ADSC, when I finish up my first assignment I can get out, PCS and only serve my 2 year additional and get out, a lot more options. Most of us don't incur a 10 year commitment when we go on active duty. I have no intention of staying in 20 years and I'm going to get nothing for it. I contribute to TSP but get no matching, I will never get an annuity or any benefits. I'll serve 4-6 years and get a thank you for your service, don't let the door hit you on the way out and that's it.

The current pension system is unsustainable and there is no way anybody can argue that. It's a great deal and I understand the people who are currently serving being pissed if that option is taken away but there is a reason no businesses offer them anymore. People keep throwing up the examples of market fluctuations and what happens if the market crashes when you're at 18 years of service, etc. I hate to sound like a jerk but welcome to the rest of the world folks. This is not some new problem nobody has seen before, this is something all Americans face and is just the reality of any investment.

[backseatdriver]

...this is something all Americans face...

Except all Americans don't endure the hardships of military service. I think the AFA's response to the proposal said it best:

The [Defense Business Board] points out that military pay, healthcare benefits, and retirement benefits exceed that of the private sector today. No data was presented to back up that claim, but even if it is true, it is irrelevant. I know of no company in the private sector that asks its employees to sign a piece of paper saying that, if called upon to do so, they will give their lives in the defense of the parent corporation. Comparisons with the private sector are interesting, but they do not dictate what is appropriate for military members.

I'm not saying options aren't good, and I think the ability to leave before 20 with some money in your pocket is a good thing, but I think it's fair to say we shouldn't act like military retirements and civilian retirements should be compared like apples to apples.

Edited August 17, 2011 by backseatdriver