Military retirement under attack

[M2]

Just announced, you gotta make SSgt by 8 years (not 10), no more retiring as a Staff, and TSgt's will be done at 20...

High Year Tenure Changes for Airman Announced

The Chief of Staff of the Air Force has announced HYT adjustments to SrA, SSgt and TSgt. The AF has developed various programs to meet Congressionally-mandated end strength while positioning the force to meet mission requirements. Adjustments to High Year of Tenure (HYT) not only align Airmen with sister service men and women but, also ensure that the Air Force retains the most qualified Airmen.

Specific changes: SrA HYT is reduced from 10 years to 8 years service. SSgt HYT is reduced from 20 years to 15 years service. TSgt HYT is reduced from 22 years to 20 years service. Please refer to PSDM 11-110 for mandated separation/retirement effective dates.

[nsplayr]

Interesting and I thought relatively well-done survey on military compensation done by the Center for Strategic and Budgetary Assessments. Includes interesting options and lets you weight how strongly you prefer each separately and then some in packages. Found here; takes IVO 15 mins.

[afnav]

Just announced, you gotta make SSgt by 8 years (not 10), no more retiring as a Staff, and TSgt's will be done at 20...

I remember when we had a flight engineer at Tinker retire as a staff. He was...wow. Descriptions do not do justice to that piece of work.

[nsplayr]

Another Pentagon study recommending changes to deployment pay/benefits.

[backseatdriver]

Another Pentagon study recommending changes to deployment pay/benefits.

Are you effing kidding me? We're almost 11 years into one war, have already started and closed out another one in that time, and NOW some genius decides dudes at a FOB deserve more pay than someone at the Deid. Awesome.

[Magellan]

Are you effing kidding me? We're almost 11 years into one war, have already started and closed out another one in that time, and NOW some genius decides dudes at a FOB deserve more pay than someone at the Deid. Awesome.

Sounds like typical Bang-Bang guidance politics to me.

[guineapigfury]

I also love that the implication is that they will cut pay for the rear area guys as opposed to raising it for the "outside the wire" guys.

[Prosuper]

I remember when we had a flight engineer at Tinker retire as a staff. He was...wow. Descriptions do not do justice to that piece of work.

I remember when I got to Tinker in 1981 and we had guys retiring at Buck Sgt, spending most of their career in SEA. Though back then if you busted a UA you just got a LOR and mandatory prevention class.

[nsplayr]

The report recommends modifying military retirement. For anyone currently in the military with fewer than 10 years of service, benefits would be cut. Instead of receiving 50 percent of basic pay after 20 years, with immediate benefits, the report says the benefits would be 40 percent of base pay with payments not beginning until age 60. For people not yet in the military, there would be no fixed retired pay in the future, only a pre-tax retirement savings plan based on contributions from the member.

I've definitely argued for changes to the mil retirement system at length here before, but this is way too much and unnecessary. This plan would be even less generous than federal civilians which would make no sense whatsoever. What I'd vote for is something similar to what federal law enforcement officers get plus the more generous health benefits in line with what we're getting now.

Don't worry though...CAP is not particularly influential with Congressional leaders and any changes to mil benefits has to run through them. Thanks for posting though, good to see what's being tossed around out there.

[Magnum]

An AF Crimes article was on Drudge.

Liberal think tank proposes cutting retirement benefits, pay, health-care, etc...

https://www.airforcet...t-cuts-110112w/

The report recommends modifying military retirement. For anyone currently in the military with fewer than 10 years of service, benefits would be cut. Instead of receiving 50 percent of basic pay after 20 years, with immediate benefits, the report says the benefits would be 40 percent of base pay with payments not beginning until age 60. For people not yet in the military, there would be no fixed retired pay in the future, only a pre-tax retirement savings plan based on contributions from the member.

Here is the "Rebalancing Our National Security" report by the Center for American Progress.

https://www.americanp...ional-security/

I suggest you read it to know the ideas being floated. Not good.

Funny this chart recommends all of the suggested cuts go to either green stuff or international stuff. Only one section says it should pay down the national debt. In my opinion, it should read something like this:

$20B: Mx nukes or pay down .125% of debt

$74.4B: Cost overruns or pay down .465% of debt

$1.65B: 7 more F-35's or pay down .0103% of debt

$5B: R&D or pay down .03125% of debt

$90M: 1 Osprey or pay down .00056% of debt

$15B: Health care or pay down .093% of debt

$4.5B: Nuke research or pay down .028% of debt

$2.6B: Sub or pay down .01625% of debt

I'm ok with cutting the defense budget a bit as long as everything else gets cut and the money stays in the country.

[Fuzz]

Funny this chart recommends all of the suggested cuts go to either green stuff or international stuff. Only one section says it should pay down the national debt. In my opinion, it should read something like this:

$20B: Mx nukes or pay down .125% of debt

$74.4B: Cost overruns or pay down .465% of debt

$1.65B: 7 more F-35's or pay down .0103% of debt

$5B: R&D or pay down .03125% of debt

$90M: 1 Osprey or pay down .00056% of debt

$15B: Health care or pay down .093% of debt

$4.5B: Nuke research or pay down .028% of debt

$2.6B: Sub or pay down .01625% of debt

I'm ok with cutting the defense budget a bit as long as everything else gets cut and the money stays in the country.

Well the think tank is funded by liberal George Soros, so what makes you think they would suggest paying down the debt?

[Hacker]

Liberal think tank proposes

Why do we even bother discussing what a liberal think tank proposes?

This isn't even sponsored by the Pentagon, much less something they're considering.

[Guest]

Why do we even bother discussing what a liberal think tank proposes?

This isn't even sponsored by the Pentagon, much less something they're considering.

That's like asking why did we repeal DADT.

To make some of the guests around here feel welcome.

[Hacker]

It's not PETA or Greenpeace ginning up some some crazy ass ideas that will never gain traction. These are doctors, professors, ex-military, and people who do, in fact, have the ear of decision makers in Washington. This liberal think tank isn't making an appeal to you, they're making an appeal to left leaning politicians and thier consituents. These are people who make what appear to a large portion of the country to be rational, well-thought ideas. Naturally, we think them ridiculous, but have you met the general public? These things sound terriffic. This group has put much more time and effort into a persuasive argument as to why your military retirement should be cut than you have as to why it shouldn't. Not to worry, I'm sure someone else will do it for all of us. If you think it's best to challenge or consider these ideas only after they reemerge in a bill on the House floor or a Pentagon press release... well...

A report from a think tank...regardless of their political leanings ....that is unsponsored by any political or military entity in the government, has zero chance of implementation.

[Magellan]

Has anyone stopped to consider the potential positive effects a change might have on the military?

1. You won't have turds hanging around just for retirement. High year tenure rules will take care of the turds that are still hanging around because they are institutionalized.

2. Different career fields will be able to be paid differently in the form of bonuses to retain the career fields that are needed.

3. Pay will have to mirror or exceed that of the civilian sector in order to retain people.

i.e. to keep a Lt. Col. type in a high demand career field around they will probably have to pay them around 200K+ a year if they strip the 20 year retirement, while senior enlisted will probably have to get paid around 100K+ a year.

4. You end a potential "entitlement" program that everyone likes to target, because they are argued as being unsustainable.

The thing they fail to realize is if they make the pay comparable to civilian jobs you will have to make the jobs comparable. Last time I checked very few civilian jobs require regular 120-365 day foreign business trips, forced relocation every 2-4 years, and the potential of being put in harms way.

When it comes to armed forces you get what you pay for.

[Guest]

Last time I checked very few civilian jobs require regular 120-365 day foreign business trips.

And those that do pay big.

Edited November 6, 2012 by Rainman A-10

[albertschu]

Has anyone stopped to consider the potential positive effects a change might have on the military?

1. You won't have turds hanging around just for retirement. High year tenure rules will take care of the turds that are still hanging around because they are institutionalized.

If the turds aren't hanging around for retirement, what will keep the non-turds?

2. Different career fields will be able to be paid differently in the form of bonuses to retain the career fields that are needed.

Don't some career fields already get bonuses? Bonus and pensions are not mutually exclusive.

3. Pay will have to mirror or exceed that of the civilian sector in order to retain people.

i.e. to keep a Lt. Col. type in a high demand career field around they will probably have to pay them around 200K+ a year if they strip the 20 year retirement, while senior enlisted will probably have to get paid around 100K+ a year.

4. You end a potential "entitlement" program that everyone likes to target, because they are argued as being unsustainable.

So paying everyone twice what they get now is sustainable, but giving pensions to the top 41% isn't? Please show your work.

The thing they fail to realize is if they make the pay comparable to civilian jobs you will have to make the jobs comparable. Last time I checked very few civilian jobs require regular 120-365 day foreign business trips, forced relocation every 2-4 years, and the potential of being put in harms way.

I'm not sure what point you are trying to make. That military service is inherently different from a civilian job and therefore should have a compensation package that is structured differently or that we should change both the compensation package and the nature of the job to match the civilian sector.

When it comes to armed forces you get what you pay for.

[Magellan]

If the turds aren't hanging around for retirement, what will keep the non-turds?

Time will tell. Possibly longer initial service commitments for one, healthcare benefits for military members with family medical issues, the desire to serve ones country, this list can go on forever.

But what would happen if dudes were in a position to stand up for what is right vs what will get them promoted if they weren't gambling it on an all or nothing retirement?

Don't some career fields already get bonuses? Bonus and pensions are not mutually exclusive.

Yes, but you would see a lot more of it.

So paying everyone twice what they get now is sustainable, but giving pensions to the top 41% isn't? Please show your work.

No but it is much more flexible. If they need to cut costs immediately and going forward they can reduce the size of the force. Once people are on a pension they are always on that pension. Switching to a system like this would force military members to be financially savvy and make good decisions or suffer the consequences.

I'm not sure what point you are trying to make. That military service is inherently different from a civilian job and therefore should have a compensation package that is structured differently or that we should change both the compensation package and the nature of the job to match the civilian sector.

My point was people will quit and go somewhere else if they don't feel adequately compensated.

[Keydet]

From the beginning, I've always had the mindset that if the current benefits are tweaked for the worse, I would punch as soon as I could. However, if changes are brought about that bring the system more in line with civilian wages and it basically saves money by cutting out subpar performers only sticking around for 20-year pension, I might be able to live with that. It's been mentioned in prior posts, but the constant deployments and the blank check on overtime when the government needs me to work 60-hour work weeks at home should be seen as a reason to compensate a little better than joe-schmo working the cubicle 40-hours a week.

[HuggyU2]

This is an interesting discussion. I didn't have the benefit of a "baseops forum" when I decided to join the military, I was naive compared to the rest of you.

In any case, I joined to fly for my country. I gave up a very lucrative job at IBM to do it.

I didn't look at the retirement plan.

I didn't know much about the work week schedule.

I didn't really know jack.

I DID know there was a multi-year commitment.

I found out I'd make about $26000 my first year. Cool

For me, it didn't matter. It could have been a 20-year commitment, and I would have signed up.

Probably not a "wise" decision for many reasons... but it's the one I made.

Edited November 6, 2012 by Huggyu2

[RAMurai]

Huggy, you and I both know that the list of reasons we joined is not the same as the list of reasons we stayed beyond our initial commitments.

There are similarities, but there are also some very important differences.

[Guest]

Huggy, you and I both know that the list of reasons we joined is not the same as the list of reasons we stayed beyond our initial commitments.

There are similarities, but there are also some very important differences.

Are the two lists really that different?

What are the very important differences?

[albertschu]

Time will tell. Possibly longer initial service commitments for one, healthcare benefits for military members with family medical issues, the desire to serve ones country, this list can go on forever.

Still not sure how your system differentiates turds from non-turds. Don't turds also want free heathcare?

But what would happen if dudes were in a position to stand up for what is right vs what will get them promoted if they weren't gambling it on an all or nothing retirement?

Valid. Although the current system does provide this sort of protection for folks that have already earned their pension. And if you had to choose between capts standing up for what is right and GOs standing up for what is right, I'd pick GOs.

Yes, but you would see a lot more of it.

I don't see how it logically follows that removing the pension system would result in more bonuses, nor do I see the benefit to the tax payer of paying more bonuses.

No but it is much more flexible. If they need to cut costs immediately and going forward they can reduce the size of the force. Once people are on a pension they are always on that pension. Switching to a system like this would force military members to be financially savvy and make good decisions or suffer the consequences.

I disagree. I think it is more flexible to underpay everyone upfront. Once people have been paid huge salaries and big bonuses, they have always been paid huge salaries and big bonuses. I'm too lazy to explain sunk cost more and I'm too lazy to post the link to the wikipedia article, you can look it up.

I don't see how forcing military members to be financially savvy is good for the members, the military, or for the taxpayers. From a national security POV, do we want the military to be full of prudent investors concerned with long term gains or to we want people that will take a hill when their country needs them to and trust that their country will take care of them?

My point was people will quit and go somewhere else if they don't feel adequately compensated.

OK, but from the taxpayers' POV, the pension system is better, since it makes people feel like they are adequately compensated when perhaps they are not.

[RAMurai]

Are the two lists really that different?

What are the very important differences?

The differences mainly stem that I signed on the dotted line as a single guy in college. Now, I'm in my 30s with a family.

Things I hadn't considered as positives:

- Health care for life in retirement

- The retirement cash flow

- Vet's benefits for myself, wife, and children

Things that I used to not care about, but now matter quite a bit:

- How much I'm home

- Missed birthdays/holidays

- My kids being able/unable to get to know their grandparents

...to name a few.

Don't get me wrong: When I was 20, I didn't think that a career in the military would be a cakewalk. Now that I'm watching my daughter grow up (way too fast!) right before my eyes, I think hard about why I do what I do and whether or not it's worth it.

It's still worth it, of course. However, it's definitely NOT your normal civilian career.

If my pay/benefits were changed to reflect what's "normal" for a civilian career, you bet your ass I'd have to re-evaluate my current plan to give 20+ years of service.

[Magellan]

And if you had to choose between capts standing up for what is right and GOs standing up for what is right, I'd pick GOs.

The decisions that Generals make on a daily basis do very little to affect my day to day life/work schedule, but maybe your squadron is run by General Officers. Mine is run by Captains, Majors, and Lt. Cols most of whom are under 20 years and still hoping for at least one more promotion before retirement for the most part. This limits their willingness to put their foot down and take a stand when it comes to taking care of their people, because they have something to lose by not keeping their bosses happy.