An outrageous proposal

**Pal334** · 04-27-2011, 08:19 AM

Just thought I would share this with you. A "revamp" of the military retirement system that is being discussed. Being proposed to save money. During time of war? I for one will be hammering my representatives .

http://www.airforcetimes.com/news/20...again-042611w/

Excerpt below:

Changing systems
Several changes to the military retirement system have been discussed in recent years. Among the ideas discussed in the sixth and 10th Quadrennial Reviews of Military Compensation, released in 1988 and 2008, respectively:
• Delay pension checks. Several proposals would not provide any pension checks until veterans reach a set retirement age, such as 57, 60 or 62.
• End the 20-year vesting model. Alternatives would base pension checks on the number of years served, even if less than 20. That would allow troops to leave the service earlier but still qualify for lesser pension benefits.
• Two-tiered annuity option. This would give retiring troops a choice of accepting a pension pay level available immediately after retirement or a larger monthly check if they postpone drawing the pension until age 62.
• Defined contributions. The military could contribute up to 5 percent of annual base pay into a retirement fund for the service member to own and control upon leaving the service.
• Gate pays. The services could offer lump sums payable at specified time-in-service milestones. This would provide personnel planners with an effective retention and force management tool

**Old GI** · 04-27-2011, 09:08 AM

I will be retired 19 years in August.

There's an old saying "Nothing's too good for the troops and that's just what they'll get".

When will they place a value on blood, scars, other health issues, the impact on marriages, etc.

A person sitting in a very comfortable office and goes home to their family every night cannot possibly assess what they are getting for their money in a military member.

**crashdive123** · 04-27-2011, 10:22 AM

I've been retired for 15 years now. It never ceases to amaze me as to how they go about messing with military pay. There are plenty of military programs that can be leaned or eliminated - pay and retirement should not be one of them IMO.

**Rick** · 04-27-2011, 10:52 AM

I'm not a vet so I may be talking out my hat. Let me know if you think so. I haven't researched the latest proposal either so I can't speak to it. However, it does seem to me that a revamp might be in order depending on how it's handled. I had an uncle that served 17 years in the Marines and Army combined, wounded three times and received no pension. I've always believed that was wrong.

In the civilian world, depending on where you work, it's pretty common to draw a reduced pension for years served less than the requirement for full pension. I don't know why that isn't available to military personnel. In the civilian world your pension is vested after 5 years (that money is yours) but that's not the case in the military. That's not equitable in my book and I've never had to be shot at to draw that. In many cases a vested pension will be drawn in one lump sum because of the amount involved and the business wants to write it off the books. That should also be available to vets. For example, a five year pension might only amount to $1100.00 (pick a number) so the vet receives a check for $1100 rather than monthly payments for $5 (again, pick a number) for, say, five years of service. Given the benefit of getting the pension off the books and considering the time value of money for the vet it would be a win/win.

In the civilian world a person can work as long as they want. That's not always true with the military. Some do spend well over 20 years but others are stopped cold at 20 years or less.

In short, I would like to see military service commensurate with civil jobs. I think vets would benefit by that change and be able to earn more money for the job they performed.

**Pal334** · 04-27-2011, 02:31 PM

Rick, you are absolutely correct any military member that is wounded should be eligible for compensation for their service (the $ figure would have to be decided) . These pitiful bean counters (and I mean that in the most derogatory sense) could better spend their time figuring that amount out. I don't agree with the potential availability for a voluntary termination of service (not wounded or hurt) pension of any sort. When you go into the service, it has always been "20 or bust" for the pension, and it has drawn some pretty good folks over the years. Anything less would (in my opinion) draw folks that were not really career oriented / committed. In general (always exceptions) 20 years is the max that a person can keep the physical state that is needed . Almost every military retiree that I know of gets out and has many more of those nagging aches pains and maladies than others of his / her age group. To make a total change in the system based on fiscal concerns will do our nation a great dis service, and will deny us some of our greatest assets for protecting our nation.

**Rick** · 04-27-2011, 03:21 PM

Not to debate you since you know far more about it than I but it seems to me that the military today has far more jobs than just ground pounders. There are just so many jobs that an experienced and well trained mind can be used for. Electronics, computers, network warfare and defense, medical, etc. It seems a shame to invest in that much training and experience only to say, whoops, you have 20 in, see ya. You don't have to be a svelt 25 year old to monitor network traffic. An old broken chubby guy like me can do that and leave the arm wrestling to the young guys. Doctors, lawyers, dentists, nurses, therapists of all types, armorers and on and on. We complain about old geezers not moving over to let the young ones have a chance but the young ones that are there can learn a lot from the more experienced ones.

As to someone drawing a pension before their 20 is in consider this. The federal government says if you work at a company for five or more years then that company has to pay you a prorated pension. Why do our vets deserve something less? There are so many other factors to consider besides not wounded or hurt. A family member might become seriously ill, maybe those aches and pains are just too much, maybe they've spent too many years deployed, probably as many stories as there are vets. I think a lot of folks join the service and find out that it's not their calling after seven or eight years. No shame in that as far as I'm concerned. Had they done that time in a civilian job they would be entitled to be paid. I just think military service should be deserving of the same consideration. How many more would be enticed to at least try the military if they could receive similar compensation to the civilian world? And how many would make it a career if they tried it?

**Rick** · 04-27-2011, 03:36 PM

Here's a little better article for you but it was published in August of last year.

http://www.stripes.com/news/military...-says-1.113754

**Pal334** · 04-27-2011, 03:55 PM

I guess it is a matter of perspective.My perspective is obviously very biased. Agreed the bulk of the jobs are not the "ranger Joe" variety. I think if you look at the casualties in the current asymetrical conflicts we are in, a larger than ever percentage of the injuries are in what we used to call non combat postions. The system as is has served our country well for many years. I am a believer in" if it ain't broke don't fix it", especially from a monetary standpoint. By getting folks out early, we are "unleashing" a well trained and experienced labor pool onto the economy. And the rotation of personnel ensures that the military is representative of our population.

**Rick** · 04-27-2011, 06:02 PM

All great points. I appreciate your insight, too. Exchanges like this help me understand those areas where I have no experience or knowledge. Thanks!!