Military retirement under attack

[ClearedHot]

For the first time in a long time I am wondering how some of this stuff effects me. The TRICARE amendment got the antenna up, but as Rainman pointed out Tricare Standard would still offer a reasonably priced solution for my family. This proposal regarding retirement has been somewhat vague with regard to folks like me who are over 20 years. Thus far all I've seen is "20 years and beyond. Troops who stayed in past 20 years would continue to receive annual TSP contributions." I hit 21 years this October and would really like to see what they are proposing...if this would cost folks dollars, I would think this could cause a mass retirement before it became effective.

[Catbox]

I worry more about the Fed borrowing/printing so much money that inflation skyrockets and our retirement checks become worthless...

The sentiment of the day, I'm afraid this one is all too possible.

Edit: the sentiment of Nov 2010. Whoops.

Edited July 27, 2011 by Catbox

[epsilon]

What is essentially a reserve retirement for a full active duty ration of BS? No thanks.

Simply put. I couldn't have said it better.

I'm out in 3 yrs if they pass this clown-act of a bill. ZERO incentive to put the family through this....especially if the airlines are hiring.

[nsplayr]

How is identifying a major flaw in the TSP 401k plan off-topic from this discussion. This is a serious aspect to consider with this proposal for a retirement plan fix. And it seems you really do have too much faith in this government that they will replace the money that they took out of the Federal Workers 401k. Kind of like they are going to pay back the money they borrowed from the Social Security pot of money.

Sure it's valid, but if you're worried about the government raiding the 401K fund you probably should also be worried about them raiding the pot of money where your retirement check comes from if/when you put in your 20 years. All of those payments relies on the "full faith and credit" of Uncle Sugar so if you're really worried about the government not making good on it's commitments then having the current retirement versus a 401K type-system doesn't really make any difference. And honestly depending on the rules in the 401K system for withdrawing money from the account, at a certain age you could just pull out all the money (including gov matches) and roll it into a private account that the government can't touch, you can't do that with the current system where you rely on them to cut you that check each and every month until the day you die. There is no lump sum you can ever access because you're benefits are not finite if you happen to live for a really long time.

Anyways, all this is to say I think while it's a valid concern maybe (especially considering the recent debt ceiling shenanigans) it's not any more valid than under the current system because at the end of the say the Man guarantees the money either way and he's only as good at his word in either system.

[Herk Mafia]

We had a CC/call with Schwartz the other day and he was advocating for having a TSP-only retirement where the gov would match a portion of your contribution, similar to a civilian 401K. He also said he was for grandfathering present AF personnel under the old system.

[matmacwc]

The sentiment of the day, I'm afraid this one is all too possible.

Edit: the sentiment of Nov 2010. Whoops.

Maybe that's the plan

[MilitaryToFinance]

We had a CC/call with Schwartz the other day and he was advocating for having a TSP-only retirement where the gov would match a portion of your contribution, similar to a civilian 401K. He also said he was for grandfathering present AF personnel under the old system.

I have no intention of staying in for 20 years so I would love some kind of contribution matching. That being said, those in the AF already should be allowed to choose to switch to the new system or remain on the current. Changing the rules of the game mid career would not be a smart idea.

[nsplayr]

I have no intention of staying in for 20 years so I would love some kind of contribution matching. That being said, those in the AF already should be allowed to choose to switch to the new system or remain on the current. Changing the rules of the game mid career would not be a smart idea.

Agreed...let current troops choose either, all new guys get new system. Anyone seen any more written details other than the tabloid AF Times story?

[KennyB]

We had a CC/call with Schwartz the other day and he was advocating for having a TSP-only retirement where the gov would match a portion of your contribution, similar to a civilian 401K.

Sweet, so if the military retirement is close to identical to the civilian 401k matching system, then that variable in my equation to punch early or retire just zeroed itself out. If I can get the same benefit from the military that I can build with a civilian company, what would be my financial carrot/stick to put up with TDYs/deployments/365s for 20 years?

I guess healthcare would be the obvious answer there, but I'm referring specifically to the pension. My friends and family in the public & private sector have all repeatedly told me that the military-style pension does not exist anywhere else in the civilian world... it might be worth waiting for. But if that isn't at the end of the tunnel, is healthcare alone worth it?

[Spartacus]

I guess healthcare would be the obvious answer there, but I'm referring specifically to the pension. My friends and family in the public & private sector have all repeatedly told me that the military-style pension does not exist anywhere else in the civilian world... it might be worth waiting for. But if that isn't at the end of the tunnel, is healthcare alone worth it?

NO!

It is a great benefit (I know... my family has used it way more than most) but taking away the pension, especially from people who have spent the past 10 years deployed, is nothing more than a big F-you.

Edited July 29, 2011 by Spartacus

[pbar]

If the government can arbitrarily decide to change the retirement on us mid-stream, then why the hell should anyone of us have to obey the contracts we signed? A one-star admiral from the Joint Staff came down to speak to us today (Joint Forces Staff College) and he said pretty much the same thing as AF Times was saying. I can't believe those Defense Business Board clowns think nobody should get grandfathered into the current system. That's total BS!!! Cut welfare first-those bums haven't earned it! Damn, I have 17.5 years in and I certainly wouldn't have put up with all the BS I've had to endure if I would have known this was gonna happen. I would have left after my initial commitment was up 13.5 years ago. Guess we'll have to do a class action lawsuit and hope for the best. I realize none of these proposals are approved and will certainly face a firestorm of opposition, but I fear the worst with the current regime in power and the budget situation.

[Spartacus]

I was just looking into how I could write my congressman on this and it is incredibly simple. I just Google searched my congressman and went to his official site. I also looked up several others' sites and every single one has a simple way to email them with an issue or concern. Even though I don't think this is something that will happen tomorrow I do think that the military retirement could be taken away soon enough to hurt a lot of us. Maybe we should all start thinking about writing our congressmen with this concern and see if we get any responses?

Edited July 30, 2011 by Spartacus

[spaw2001]

Ok..but in the era of government cuts, doesn't this fall into the category of "cut everything else, but don't cut

my program?" I'm not arguing that I would be happy if they eliminate the pension, but it is just another reason not to rely on the government for anything...big ######ing government has never and will never work...why? At the end of the day, it is impossible for the juggernaut of bureaucracy to truly care for the individual. And when they change their mind at the drop of a dime about a program you rely on, then all they have to do is "create jobs" by opening a call center. They will place a low level, hand-out loving government bureaucrat in a cubicle to answer your questions via teleprompter about the new, amazing 401K program. Yes, I know we signed up with expectations that there would be a "guaranteed" pension after 20.. But it was just that, an expectation in the same way we "expect" congress to manage the economy. After all, isn't their original purpose to control the "purse?" I've learned a lot from the last year or so after VSP, fiscal issues, ops tempo, etc...The problem with us is, we have signed a one way contract with the government...after UPT, we owe the Air Force 10 years and in return, they essentially owe us nothing. Yes, they trained us to fly, but, oh yeah, we are doing their work and at their bidding. So, life lesson learned...Never volunteer large amounts of time ( i.e long ADSC) in exchange for future promises..instead, keep an open contract in which you will stay and work your ass off in exchange for recurring fulfilled promises. After all, isn't it ridiculous to assume that we know the state of anything after 20 years? In the corporate world, they owe you nothing and can "in house clean" your ass ala office space at any point..But you can leave anytime as well. Thus, a relationship of trust and mutual support results by definition. Unless there are radical changes to the way business is done, I will fulfill my ten years, but the Air Force has not earned a day more. Just to make sure, I will be watching my ADSC on my surf as closely as my TCAS overhead Bagram.

Edited July 30, 2011 by spaw2001

[nsplayr]

If the government can arbitrarily decide to change the retirement on us mid-stream, then why the hell should anyone of us have to obey the contracts we signed?

If you don't think it's in the contract that the AF can pretty much change anything at any time for any reason, maybe you should re-read the contract. Force shaping, short-notice deployments/PCS, 6-9 thousand random TDYs, changes to rules/regs, changes to benefits, etc. are all part of the game we play. Just ask some of your buds in the civilian sector if their companies change things on them like this. My father-in-law worked for a steel mill for 30 years, they were guaranteed a full pension with medical benefits after working for at least 25 years, and per their contracts they were forbidden from having a separate IRA or 401(k) if they wanted to get the pension. Steel mill goes bankrupt and they're left with nothing; guess he should have retired at 25 but he wanted to keep working...

Does it make it right? No, I'm 100% for a grandfather clause for any member already in service and I highly doubt any changes would pass without such a clause. If you let current people be grandfathered in you do right by them while, IMHO, improving the system for the future. I just hope that any grandfather clause is optional because as someone highly unlikely to make it to 20 I'd love to try out any new system that will put money in my pocket.

I realize none of these proposals are approved and will certainly face a firestorm of opposition, but I fear the worst with the current regime in power and the budget situation.

I don't even know what this means...the board that proposed this was non-partisan.

[nsplayr]

Ok..but in the era of government cuts, doesn't this fall into the category of "cut everything else, but don't cut my program?"

Exactly...tread carefully those who want to burn down the house cutting spending; to the average civilian voter, military pensions look like a really great deal (they are, although we sacrifice a lot to get them) and the are a potential target for cutbacks as made obvious by this debate.

I'm not arguing that I would be happy if they eliminate the pension, but it is just another reason not to rely on the government for anything...big ######ing government has never and will never work...why?

This is at least an intellectually honest position to take; it's' valid to be all for cutting spending and the size of government to the max (i.e. Ron Paul-style economic libertarian) but it's somewhat hypocritical to do so while you pick up the pitchforks so they don't cut your government benefits. I agree they're "earned" versus some other programs out there, but still, you have to admit that if you want the government to do almost nothing it makes sense that you are as independent of any government program as possible.

[SurelySerious]

I was just looking into how I could write my congressman on this and it is incredibly simple. I just Google searched my congressman and went to his official site. I also looked up several others' sites and every single one has a simple way to email them with an issue or concern. Even though I don't think this is something that will happen tomorrow I do think that the military retirement could be taken away soon enough to hurt a lot of us. Maybe we should all start thinking about writing our congressmen with this concern and see if we get any responses?

E-mail? No, twitter is the way to go, apparently. If the President has time, surely so do your representatives in Congress. Really?

[ThreeHoler]

I guess no one remembers the Redux fiasco? They already tried this once...they set it up to automatically roll everyone into Redux, only to be later told they had to offer the option for the 50% base pay or the lump sum plus 40% base pay. I would have to go digging, but I believe it took a legal challenge, but the last time they tried "no grandfather clause" it didn't work out so well for them.

[sputnik]

I guess no one remembers the Redux fiasco? They already tried this once...they set it up to automatically roll everyone into Redux, only to be later told they had to offer the option for the 50% base pay or the lump sum plus 40% base pay. I would have to go digging, but I believe it took a legal challenge, but the last time they tried "no grandfather clause" it didn't work out so well for them.

Not quite, if you entered after 86, you signed up for a 40% retirement plan. When those guys started hitting 10+ years they realized 40% wasn't enough a light at the end of the tunnel to stay to 20 and started raising stink with congress, which eventually repealed it. And that change was grandfathered, all those people, me included, were allowed to switch back to the 50% plan vs the plan we signed up for. As an attempt to take advantage of those with poor math skills and/or a need for immediate cash, at the 15 year point you get offered 30 large to stay under the crappy 40% plan. HQ used to send CC's letters instructing them to push their people towards redux as a cost savings intiative. Said letters promptly published in AF times.

Note, as everyone hopefullly knows by now it's not so much the 40 vs 50% that is significant, it's the difference in how COLA is calculated over your retired life.

[Hacker]

The problem with us is, we have signed a one way contract with the government...after UPT, we owe the Air Force 10 years and in return, they essentially owe us nothing. Yes, they trained us to fly, but, oh yeah, we are doing their work and at their bidding.

Nobody was forced to go to UPT and enter into such indentured serditude. In fact, 99.69% of guys beating down the door to get to UPT would sign their wife and child away just to get the opportunity to do what you and I do.

It's part of the game. If you haven't realized that up to this point, then the joke's on you. Everyone should know this and make choices accordingly from the first time they enlist in and including every decision made thereafter. Caveat emptor.

I will be watching my ADSC on my surf as closely as my TCAS overhead Bagram.

Really? When operating in congested 'wild west' airspace, you're watching your TCAS closely? How about ya try this one one for size: check 12 o'clock and clear your flightpath. Remember that one from day 1 of UPT?

Edited July 31, 2011 by Hacker

[nsplayr]

Bitter much hacker? I think spaw gets it as evidenced by his post that spells out that we all signed the contract and the AF owes us essentially nothing; you're preaching to the choir it seems.

WRT his "watching TCAS over BAF" it was a saying man, not a comment on proper airmanship.

Recommend more

[Hacker]

Bitter much hacker?

Oh, yes, I've been bitter for quite a few years, thanks.

Recommend more

Currently located at one of those GO#1 locations...probably part of the root cause right there.

[Guest]

Nobody was forced to go to UPT and enter into such indentured servitude.

If you haven't realized that up to this point, then the joke's on you.

Caveat emptor.

Remember that one from day 1 of UPT?

Fuckin A. Have a seat.

[guineapigfury]

Really? When operating in congested 'wild west' airspace, you're watching your TCAS closely? How about ya try this one one for size: check 12 o'clock and clear your flightpath. Remember that one from day 1 of UPT?

Some of us are flying in slow airplanes with very limited visibility at night. So yes, I am watching the TCAS closely. It has saved my life on multiple occasions this deployment.

[Guest]

It has saved my life on multiple occasions this deployment.

Wait, what? Do you really believe that? TCAS has saved your life on multiple occasions?

You need someone to teach you some techniques for building and maintaining SA without that thing because you self-admit that without it you would be dead, and that is a real problem.

[Homestar]

TCAS is 1 installed - 1 required in the sandy location where I fly.