Military retirement under attack

[Magellan]

BOHICA.

Get ready to pay for your own retirement.

If they weren't already I doubt they will start now.

[HeloDude]

Just think, if we had a Union, then we'd be better represented in regards to lobbyists.

[ThreeHoler]

The arguments in that article can be found as far back as 1948, when the current 20 year retirement program was set up.

[Skitzo]

2 percent sounds like a good deal provided it has nothing to do with voluntary separation pay or separation pay should it come to that which I think it will.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Champ Kind]

Not attacking you, but it's that attitude that will lead to a significant loss of benefits. "Oh, that's not a big deal..." will be said with every contribution and degradation of benefits.

And to the good Congressman saying that 44 cents on the dollar goes to military personnel... there are a mind-boggling number of ways this country could save money. Congress loses credibility to address the problem with each passing day.

I think the irony is that the money "saved" with mandatory retirement contributions will be lost with recruitment/retention bonuses when numbers in those areas tank.

[matmacwc]

It will look much like the ANG DSG retirement soon, benefits at 60.

[BFM this]

It will look much like the ANG DSG retirement soon, benefits at 60.

When the Defense Business Committee, or whatever it was called, drafted their proposal to shift from a defined benefit, to a defined contribution a couple of years ago, I ran some numbers. What I expected to find was that there would be some reduction in the overall retirement benefit.

What I found, was that it ended up being about a 76% reduction in the benefit between an over-20 member now, to what they were proposing. Other than the fact that some of that reduction was essentially spread across more members in the form of earlier vesting, I thought that figure was staggering, and most certainly would be a game changer in our mid grade NCOs and FGOs and their retainability.

[SocialD]

Just think, if we had a Union, then we'd be better represented in regards to lobbyists.

The technician work force has a union and I think they've been on a pay freeze for a few years now. Or were for a few year period in the last 3-4 years.

[MC5Wes]

Its has been 3 years without a raise. January will be 4.

Plus I lost 48 hours of pay this year staying home for the furlough.

Please Lord let there be a civilian VERA/VSIP soon.

[nsplayr]

Not attacking you, but it's that attitude that will lead to a significant loss of benefits. "Oh, that's not a big deal..." will be said with every contribution and degradation of benefits.

This is the MOAA-type attitude that makes me wanna puke.."Never give an inch!!!" Seriously? Equating a 2% contribution for an extremely generous pension to other huge changes is the kind of games most people hate when politicians play. Some things are a big deal and we should fight them, others while not ideal are not worth blowing your load over STS. Something about picking your battles...

Changing the age when you can start getting paid from immediately to age 60...big fucking deal. I'm not a fan of that at all unless they radically overhaul the entire military pay/benefits/retirement system. A 2% contribution while you're on AD only paid by officers...not nearly as big.

Don't get me wrong, I don't want to take a 2% pay cut more than anyone else, but then again I'm also not advocating for huge cuts in the federal budget. Cancel sequestration without requiring kabuki theater offsets that "raise revenue" without raising taxes or reforming social safety net programs and we can forget about all this nonsense.

I for one vote that if AD starts contributing to their retirement you either A) partially vest much earlier than 20 years (i.e. 5 years ish seems right) or B) you get refunded your contributions if you punch before 20. Otherwise, unless you only make officers contribute, it's just basically stealing from mostly junior enlisted (and anyone else who doesn't make it to the full 20) to pay for a retirement benefit that goes to a small fraction of all those who ever served, who are also mostly officers.

Edited December 9, 2013 by nsplayr

[Herk Driver]

to pay for a retirement benefit that goes to a small fraction of all those who ever served, who are also mostly officers.

Really?

[nsplayr]

to pay for a retirement benefit that goes to a small fraction of all those who ever served, who are also mostly disproportionally officers.

Really?

Fixed for accuracy.

Edited December 9, 2013 by nsplayr

[ClearedHot]

to pay for a retirement benefit that goes to a small fraction of all those who ever served, who are also mostly disproportionally officers.

Huh? In almost every category the number of retired E-7's alone exceeds the combined total of ALL retired officers by a factor of two.

[Spartacus]

This is the MOAA-type attitude that makes me wanna puke.."Never give an inch!!!" Seriously? Equating a 2% contribution for an extremely generous pension to other huge changes is the kind of games most people hate when politicians play. Some things are a big deal and we should fight them, others while not ideal are not worth blowing your load over STS. Something about picking your battles...

I see what you are saying. You make a point, but I think the problem that a lot of military personnel have with this is that there are so many other areas in the federal budget that could be cut instead of military pay and benefits. Doesn't the military already give WAY more than the average person? It's kind of a slap in the face to ask someone in the military for a pay cut when Congress won't do anything to their own pay and benefits? It's kind of like the DOD and Congress complaining about the skyrocketing cost of Tricare etc over the past ten years when in reality have they ever acknowledged that a factor in this might be the fact that over the past ten years a lot of military members have had a limb blown off and are suffering from PTSD? Maybe that is contributing to the higher costs? Maybe the higher personnel costs are also due in part to the increased size of the military? I'm also really tired of people comparing the military to a civilian job. They are in no way the same except with rare exception.

[Egghead]

In absolute numbers, enlisted retirees absolutely outnumber officer. In terms of percentages, they are not representative of the force at large. I think that's what nsplayr is referring to when he says dispropotionately.

In 2011:

Retired- 27% officer, 73% enlisted

DoD - 17% officer, 83% enlisted

https://www.dmdc.osd.mil/appj/dwp/reports.do?category=reports&subCat=milActDutReg

The AF does better because our officer ratio is higher (R: 25/75, DoD: 19/81) but the gap is very large in the Army and USMC.

[ClearedHot]

In absolute numbers, enlisted retirees absolutely outnumber officer. In terms of percentages, they are not representative of the force at large. I think that's what nsplayr is referring to when he says dispropotionately.

In 2011:

Retired- 27% officer, 73% enlisted

DoD - 17% officer, 83% enlisted

https://www.dmdc.osd.mil/appj/dwp/reports.do?category=reports&subCat=milActDutReg

The AF does better because our officer ratio is higher (R: 25/75, DoD: 19/81) but the gap is very large in the Army and USMC.

10% is hardly a concerning gap especially when you consider how the other services approach enlistment. In the Marines it is common and somewhat expected that a large portion of the enlisted force will only complete one tour. And those who do serve under those circumstance do get the benefit of, compensation, a lot of valuable training and the GI Bill in return for their service.

[FlyinGrunt]

With regards to quality of life and deployments, especially towards the Army: the grass is greener on both sides. While I have nothing but respect for those who endured, say, the 1 AD's legendary 18 month deployment to Iraq during the early stages of OIF, the short deployment plan has hazards too. Just ask the numerous units who spent a decade on 2 on, 2 off, for instance. Sure, you're never gone for long. But you're never home either. I have seen the divorce rates from that schedule, and they compete with Bragg any day.

And there are still a number of units on 4 on, 4 off . . . until told otherwise. It's tough all over, and when there's no light at the end of the tunnel, reducing compensation is not going to help matters. At all.

[Homestar]

https://www.businessinsider.com/tony-carr-pentagon-budget-vultures-target-personnel-2013-3

I’ve written elsewhere that today’s military personnel, though they’re not asking for additional compensation, would be a bargain at twice the current rate. Given that the $189B in total compensation paid to American servicemembers last year equates to less than 2% of the adjusted gross income of America’s top 1% wage earners — who have not been asked to dig into their pockets to fund the defense of the free enterprise system that has allowed them to amass considerable wealth — military manpower is actually amazingly affordable. DoD’s concern that retirement benefits could consume $3.85T in obligations two decades from now is valid, but misplaced. Rather than worrying about how to pay for it, DoD should worry about how to reinforce to the American people, who voted for and endorsed a war in Iraq that has a price tag approaching $6T, that war is expensive; the cost can be delayed, but must eventually be counted. Whatever the bill for veteran services in the future, it’s part of the price tag of a war already fought, and there is no moral way to avoid settling up.

From Tony Carr

[BitteEinBit]

If anyone thinks "retirement benefits" are off the table, I want some of what you're smoking.

Sure, I know the administration said that any changes wouldn't affect currently serving members of the military, but this is the same administration that said "If you like your doctor, you can keep your doctor"...which is true, you can keep your doctor...you'll just pay more for insurance for that same doctor. I'm thinking there is more to the quote after "changes won't affect currently serving members..." Just listen to the verbiage when this administration makes promises to you. We'll probably still have a retirement, but like the deal with the doctors and insurance, it isn't going to be exactly what you're expecting.

For those currently in the service who would theoretically be "grandfathered," at a minimum I would expect a change in either how they calculate retirement pay like nixing high-three and making it a high-five with a kick in the nuts, or change WHEN you actually start collecting (age 50+). Either way, we're going to get less than what we expected. Count on it....

[GKinnear]

https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/post-politics/wp/2013/12/10/ryan-and-murray-to-unveil-budget-proposal-tuesday-night/

Senate Budget Committee chairman Patty Murray (D-Wash.) and House Budget Committee chairman Paul Ryan (R-Wis.) were finalizing details and hoping to schedule a press conference to unveil the deal, which would partially repeal sharp agency spending cuts known as the sequester in fiscal 2014 and 2015.

Those savings would be replaced by roughly $65 billion in other cuts and additional revenue, including fee increases for airline travelers, cuts to federal-worker and military pensions and higher payments for federal insurance of private pensions, according to people familiar with the talks.

Well, I guess they went and did it. I'll be standing by for the details for how the guv'ment is about to do us dirty.

Lets see: longer service commitments, less pay/retirements, centralized planning, increasingly chaotic situation in Afghanistan, which side won the Cold War again?

[Skitzo]

Lower COLA increases.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[ThreeHoler]

https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/post-politics/wp/2013/12/10/ryan-and-murray-to-unveil-budget-proposal-tuesday-night/

 

Well, I guess they went and did it. I'll be standing by for the details for how the guv'ment is about to do us dirty.

 

Lets see: longer service commitments, less pay/retirements, centralized planning, increasingly chaotic situation in Afghanistan, which side won the Cold War again?

Still has to be voted and signed...

[hindsight2020]

For those currently in the service who would theoretically be "grandfathered," at a minimum I would expect a change in either how they calculate retirement pay like nixing high-three and making it a high-five with a kick in the nuts, or change WHEN you actually start collecting (age 50+). Either way, we're going to get less than what we expected. Count on it....

Nah. That's not grandfathering. That's straight up fucking you, and at least for me, it would incentivize me to pull an immediate curtailment out of the AGR program and into the airlines or an ART position, where I can continue to earn a full time-paycheck while I wait for the retirement annuity to kick in. For AD, it would mean a mass exodus which would absolutely require stop loss to avert. It would be a panic. It ain't gonna happen that way.

The way these things usually get rolled, if civil service is any indication (specifically the CSRS-to-FERS transition), is that they shaft the new hire into the new system. They won't have the political capital to change it for someone already in.

I'm not trying to be an aloof polyanna but I don't see them straight-fuckin the current batch into a Reserve retirement payout date system while mid-career. I'm personally not worried.

[GKinnear]

Still has to be voted and signed...

Yeah, but the fact its actually an option on the table speaks directly to the current mindset of the budget committee. So it gets removed in conference or a rider gets attached effectively negating it...what's to stop them from trying it again? Eventually the ramifications could lead to decreased upward mobility as the senior level are loath to retire, a la the Russkies. Granted, the post-military career was nothing compared to the US's, but it still begs the question: how will promotions/retention/force management be affected by reduced retirement pay?

My opinion: negatively...

[ThreeHoler]

how will promotions/retention/force management be affected by reduced retirement pay?

My opinion: negatively...

There is one good study on just this question (there are lots of good studies on retirement reform...again this is nothing new and has been going on since 1948). You would be surprised at the opinions of your fellow .mil members.

https://www.csbaonline.org/publications/2012/07/rebalancing-military-compensation-an-evidence-based-approach/

● Service members of all ranks place a high value on basic pay, especially those at the lower end of the pay scale. The study reveals that a dollar spent increasing basic pay for junior enlisted has more than six times the impact than a dollar spent increasing basic pay for senior officers.

● Service members at all stages of their career do not value free TRICARE for Life commensurate with what it costs DoD to provide.

● Service members of all ranks, ages, and years of service prefer maintaining the 20 years of service requirement to earn a retirement rather than lowering it to 15 years.

● More than 80 percent of service members in each age group would be willing to have the retirement collection age raised to 50 in exchange for a 1 percent increase in basic pay.

● The military exchanges are valued as much or more than they cost to provide by a majority of service members at all ranks.

● Of all the additional services and in-kind benefits examined in the study, service members of all ranks place the highest value on being able to choose their duty station and length of tour. Moreover, officers and senior enlisted with dependents tend to value this benefit more than their peers without dependents.