The Water Cooler

BOL message board for off-topic posts

Boards ▾

BOL Round Table

The No. 1 'Bama fan community on the Internet

The Water Cooler

BOL message board for off-topic posts

The Tailgate

Tailgating, recipes, cooking, food & drink

Ticket Exchange

Buy, sell or swap tickets

Reply

OT: Military Retirement Changing....For the Worse

  • phlux

    Just wanting to share this with all of you and see what your opinions were. Apparently, a bill is being proposed that will keep military members from receiving retirement until they are 60 years-old. I joined the Coast Guard at 19, and I am now 22. If I stay in the entire 30 years, which would be the maximum amount of time I could remain enlisted in the USCG, I would be at the ripe old age of 49. I would go 11 years after that without seeing a dime from the military for my service.

    Not only could this affect current active duty members, but it could also affect current retirees. I think the politicians' salary, benefits, and retirement should be overhauled instead of ours. Even at 30 years of service, we only collect 75% of our BASE pay, which is usually not a whole lot of money.

    These senators, on the other hand, work for four years and collect 100% retirement for the rest of their lives. How is this fair?

    I'd love to hear some of your input.

    Forgot to link you: http://militaryadvantage.military.com/2010/11/overhaul-military-retirement/

    This post has been edited 2 times, most recently by phlux 3 years ago

  • I couldn't agree more. +1

  • It may not be fair, but neither is life, and government supported retirement at 50 is not sustainable.

    signature image signature image signature image
  • Not true at all. If you are in the military right now, you would get your retirement at 20years. That new bill would only effect members who joined after the bill being passed and implemented. If you are in the service right now, then you are safe for retirement at 20years. You and I are considered "grandfathered in."

    This post was edited by Colebone2000 3 years ago

    signature image signature image signature image
  • BSEan said... (original post)

    It may not be fair, but neither is life, and government supported retirement at 50 is not sustainable.

    This. To me it's very similar to a teacher's retirement (even though it's a state level issue). My wife is a teacher and can retire and start drawing full retirement at 49-50 years old. I'm thankful that she can do this, but at the same time I'm an engineer and will have to wait till I'm well into my sixties to start drawing from pensions, 401Ks, IRAs etc. I won't say it isn't right or fair, but there's definitely a large gap there that will likely close in the coming years.

  • phlux

    From what is being thrown around our base, the "grandfathered in," clause may not be relevant in this situation. They have the "right," to change it on us all they want.

    As for the poster saying military retirement is not sustainable, how is 100% retirement for politicians who work for four years sustainable? One of these people is making WAY more money than the other...

  • Dont worry. You will be grandfathered in.

    signature image signature image signature image
  • JefMorris

    phlux said... (original post)

    Just wanting to share this with all of you and see what your opinions were. Apparently, a bill is being proposed that will keep military members from receiving retirement until they are 60 years-old. I joined the Coast Guard at 19, and I am now 22. If I stay in the entire 30 years, which would be the maximum amount of time I could remain enlisted in the USCG, I would be at the ripe old age of 49. I would go 11 years after that without seeing a dime from the military for my service.

    Not only could this affect current active duty members, but it could also affect current retirees. I think the politicians' salary, benefits, and retirement should be overhauled instead of ours. Even at 30 years of service, we only collect 75% of our BASE pay, which is usually not a whole lot of money.

    These senators, on the other hand, work for four years and collect 100% retirement for the rest of their lives. How is this fair?

    I'd love to hear some of your input.

    Forgot to link you: http://militaryadvantage.military.com/2010/11/overhaul-military-retirement/

    From what I read they see a ton of holes in this formula. The biggest obstacle they believe is retention. If there is no incentive to stay till 20 people won't do it. A guy can leave at 7yrs, 11 yrs, or even 19yrs and walk away the same as a retiree. I don't think they are willing to go down this road. I know for me, if I won't see a dime till 65, then I'm jumping in the job market as earlier as possible to get a jump on my second career.

    What I do think they will do is make retirement a 20yr mark but not pay us till we are around 55. Which for most of us enlisted is still 15-17yrs after we retire.

    It definitely has me worried though. I've put in 14yrs so far on a promise of a certain retirement. That promise may get broken.

    signature image signature image signature image

    Combat Search and Rescue.... "that others may live".

  • phlux said... (original post)

    From what is being thrown around our base, the "grandfathered in," clause may not be relevant in this situation. They have the "right," to change it on us all they want.

    As for the poster saying military retirement is not sustainable, how is 100% retirement for politicians who work for four years sustainable? One of these people is making WAY more money than the other...

    Neither would be sustainable in their current formats. Both need to tweaked and worked on.

    At least at 23 if you find this out you have time to start saving to cover yourself. If the guys that are close to retiring get it flipped around on them they don't have time to catch up with personal savings.

  • I am an Army Reserve retiree with 28 years of active and reserve service, Desert Storm deployment and two post 9-11 active duty tours . My retirement benefits begin at age 60 (about 3 years to go).

    I don't like it that military retirements are being moved out to age 60, who would? However, the question should be, "is it necessary?".

    I believe the answer is overwhelmingly "yes".

    The country has been spending beyond its means. We are in very, serious debt crisis that threatens not only our children's economic future but our national security.

    Some in the private sector have taken huge hits in terms of what they pay for and/or receive in retirement/health benefits. State government workers and teachers have also taken big hits.

    There is no choice. The feds MUST also reign in spending on every level: social security, medicaid, medicare, public assistance, and military spending. There will be sacrifice and it will be painful.

    Unfortunately, the military will have to take a hit. Nobody wants that but it's no longer an option. Those that serve in the military must also share the economic sacrifice.

    Let's face it, pensions are supposed to be about security in your elderly, non-working years. Taken before retirement age, they have become supplemental income.

    Demographics have changed. We have a larger percentage of the population who are 65 and older. The current system is unsustainable. The private sector and government will be unable to pay out a pension that lasts for 20 years or more.

    An individual that enlists at 18 in the active military is now eligible to retire on half pay at age 38. If they live to just the average male life span, that is a 40-year pension. It's unsustainable.

    Sorry but there is no choice.

  • JefMorris

    Colebone2000 said... (original post)

    Dont worry. You will be grandfathered in.

    They stated no grandfathering. If you have 10 years in then they would pay you half a normal retirement. Then for every year after "the deal" that money would go into a 401k for you to access at 65.

    signature image signature image signature image

    Combat Search and Rescue.... "that others may live".

  • Then lets start a riot or go on strike!

    signature image signature image signature image
  • Colebone2000 said... (original post)

    Then lets start a riot or go on strike!

    Im always in for some good old fashioned rioting. Just let me know the time and place! mrt

  • PM sent

    signature image signature image signature image

    Crimsonbleeder "If Trent doesn't go pro this year I will eat my car tires"

  • RTR 65

    bamacharm said... (original post)

    I am an Army Reserve retiree with 28 years of active and reserve service, Desert Storm deployment and two post 9-11 active duty tours . My retirement benefits begin at age 60 (about 3 years to go).

    I don't like it that military retirements are being moved out to age 60, who would? However, the question should be, "is it necessary?".

    I believe the answer is overwhelmingly "yes".

    The country has been spending beyond its means. We are in very, serious debt crisis that threatens not only our children's economic future but our national security.

    Some in the private sector have taken huge hits in terms of what they pay for and/or receive in retirement/health benefits. State government workers and teachers have also taken big hits.

    There is no choice. The feds MUST also reign in spending on every level: social security, medicaid, medicare, public assistance, and military spending. There will be sacrifice and it will be painful.

    Unfortunately, the military will have to take a hit. Nobody wants that but it's no longer an option. Those that serve in the military must also share the economic sacrifice.

    Let's face it, pensions are supposed to be about security in your elderly, non-working years. Taken before retirement age, they have become supplemental income.

    Demographics have changed. We have a larger percentage of the population who are 65 and older. The current system is unsustainable. The private sector and government will be unable to pay out a pension that lasts for 20 years or more.

    An individual that enlists at 18 in the active military is now eligible to retire on half pay at age 38. If they live to just the average male life span, that is a 40-year pension. It's unsustainable.

    Sorry but there is no choice.

    I'm ex military too though I did not stay in until retirement. While I agree that everything needs to be cut including military spending, the problem is the politicians aren't really cutting anything right now and when they do it will be selective.

    The guys right worthless POS representatives go to DC to enrich themselves. How about a good faith move of cutting their golden parachute retirements back a bit. Most of them are far better able to afford it than the militaryt retirees. Most are very wealthy. (if not before they are elected then certainly afterword)

    I am very conservative and am always for finding spending cuts in our ridiculous govt but the retiree benefits are a special carrot to keep good people in our armed services. This needs to be one of the last things to get cut, not the first.

  • Don't worry. The president said he has everything under control. He has a master plan.

  • bamacharm said... (original post)

    I am an Army Reserve retiree with 28 years of active and reserve service, Desert Storm deployment and two post 9-11 active duty tours . My retirement benefits begin at age 60 (about 3 years to go).

    I don't like it that military retirements are being moved out to age 60, who would? However, the question should be, "is it necessary?".

    I believe the answer is overwhelmingly "yes".

    The country has been spending beyond its means. We are in very, serious debt crisis that threatens not only our children's economic future but our national security.

    Some in the private sector have taken huge hits in terms of what they pay for and/or receive in retirement/health benefits. State government workers and teachers have also taken big hits.

    There is no choice. The feds MUST also reign in spending on every level: social security, medicaid, medicare, public assistance, and military spending. There will be sacrifice and it will be painful.

    Unfortunately, the military will have to take a hit. Nobody wants that but it's no longer an option. Those that serve in the military must also share the economic sacrifice.

    Let's face it, pensions are supposed to be about security in your elderly, non-working years. Taken before retirement age, they have become supplemental income.

    Demographics have changed. We have a larger percentage of the population who are 65 and older. The current system is unsustainable. The private sector and government will be unable to pay out a pension that lasts for 20 years or more.

    An individual that enlists at 18 in the active military is now eligible to retire on half pay at age 38. If they live to just the average male life span, that is a 40-year pension. It's unsustainable.

    Sorry but there is no choice.

    I can understand your point of view but you are under a different situation than the active duty guy. During your 28 years you have had the opportunity to have another career that you should, could, have invested into a retirement program whereas these guys haven't. Please don't take what I am about to say as an attack on reserve/guard becasue their service is great and they are very much needed. However, it does not compare when you talk about the day to day grind active duty folks go through. It is just a different set of circumstances, I very seriously doubt the vast majority of guys could hold out until they were 50 in most career fields particularly the combat arms guys. If they did I doubt the remaining years would be very enjoyable. I would agree with the other poster who said it would hurt retention and it is just a slap in the face that these mealy mouth politicians get 100% after 4 years. Personally I think we could cut a lot of spending in other areas. Harden up a dang ford focus for Obama to ride in. Over 65 percent of Americans are on a govt check. Kick the ones who can work and didn't earn it off of it. Too many folks are leaching off the system and we keep giving. That IS the problem. These are the same folks who have handicapped stickers that walk/move normal, or they ride the cart arould wal mart because they are fat. Walk fatasses. I got hurt in the Army and I had neck surgery. I can barely curl the toes on my right foot and I have more arthritis than Carter has peanuts but my ass won't use handicap stuff because I can handle it. I don't need it! Sorry for the rant but don't tell me that these guys and my guys who are putting their damn life on the line everyday grinding their bodies up at the minimum should take a cut when you got a sorry arse 20-35 year old person over there with not a thing wrong with them on a check because that is how they were raised to be. IT AINT RIGHT and that is what needs to change.

    signature image
  • JefMorris

    bamacharm said... (original post)

    I am an Army Reserve retiree with 28 years of active and reserve service, Desert Storm deployment and two post 9-11 active duty tours . My retirement benefits begin at age 60 (about 3 years to go).

    I don't like it that military retirements are being moved out to age 60, who would? However, the question should be, "is it necessary?".

    I believe the answer is overwhelmingly "yes".

    The country has been spending beyond its means. We are in very, serious debt crisis that threatens not only our children's economic future but our national security.

    Some in the private sector have taken huge hits in terms of what they pay for and/or receive in retirement/health benefits. State government workers and teachers have also taken big hits.

    There is no choice. The feds MUST also reign in spending on every level: social security, medicaid, medicare, public assistance, and military spending. There will be sacrifice and it will be painful.

    Unfortunately, the military will have to take a hit. Nobody wants that but it's no longer an option. Those that serve in the military must also share the economic sacrifice.

    Let's face it, pensions are supposed to be about security in your elderly, non-working years. Taken before retirement age, they have become supplemental income.

    Demographics have changed. We have a larger percentage of the population who are 65 and older. The current system is unsustainable. The private sector and government will be unable to pay out a pension that lasts for 20 years or more.

    An individual that enlists at 18 in the active military is now eligible to retire on half pay at age 38. If they live to just the average male life span, that is a 40-year pension. It's unsustainable.

    Sorry but there is no choice.

    They added 40 generals and cut thousands of airman.

    You talk of national security and make a good point. On the flip side I know retention would plummet. I see it happening now under the current system. You will still have the upper level of command and the new enlistees, but the middle tier NCOs and Field Grade officers would leave. Not sustainable.

    The private sector has taken hits and also filed bankruptcy. Doesn't sound like something the FEDs can risk. You have to fund the military. We spend 18months overseas to fight a war people have lost heart with. We go back and back and back. And you want us to take a pay cut. Retirement is all these men/women have to look forward to.

    As a reservist you have had the opportunity to work a steady job during the week. You have also had the opportunity to network with others to help further your career or even someone else's. You know your community and the people in it. Your children go to the same school their whole life. You don't uproot your family unless 1. you volunteer in a new assignment 2. your unit closes forcing a move. What I'm getting at is you have a lot of perks to going in the Reserve but you give up some as well, like an early military retirement. I chose active duty, I give up all your perks for a different set of perks, like a 20yr retirement.

    It could be argued by doing away with the Reserves all together could save the money Congress has stolen from us. The best of all this is we are both paying taxes to help pay our own salary.

    signature image signature image signature image

    Combat Search and Rescue.... "that others may live".

  • colebone i have been in the military for 17 with 3 to go, at first they were saying if you were already in you are good but then they changed it that included everybody so if they pass it i wouldnt get my retirement until 65. which sucks to everybody that says your in the military suck it up deal with it we cant support it shut up because that is one reason i joined to get my money when my 20 is up! but what can i do but just hope that they dont pass it! but hey the people that are tring to get it passed they are good to go! especially the senators and congress who can only serve 5 and then get a full retirement ya that seems fair! but other than that i hope yall have a great day and RTR!!!

  • With life expectancy likely to be well over 90 at that time, the government absolutely should NOT start giving anyone a pension at 49. Paying out 40+ yrs of pension for 30 yrs of service....really?

  • bcbama

    I really appreciate our military but our government can not afford to keep paying pensions for people who retire at the age of 49. Life expectancy is much longer these days and it is not economically feasble to pay somebody a pension for 30 years after they retire. I have two retired military working for me and it amazes me at all the perks they recieve after they have retired.

  • bamacharm said... (original post)

    I am an Army Reserve retiree with 28 years of active and reserve service, Desert Storm deployment and two post 9-11 active duty tours . My retirement benefits begin at age 60 (about 3 years to go).

    I don't like it that military retirements are being moved out to age 60, who would? However, the question should be, "is it necessary?".

    I believe the answer is overwhelmingly "yes".

    The country has been spending beyond its means. We are in very, serious debt crisis that threatens not only our children's economic future but our national security.

    Some in the private sector have taken huge hits in terms of what they pay for and/or receive in retirement/health benefits. State government workers and teachers have also taken big hits.

    There is no choice. The feds MUST also reign in spending on every level: social security, medicaid, medicare, public assistance, and military spending. There will be sacrifice and it will be painful.

    Unfortunately, the military will have to take a hit. Nobody wants that but it's no longer an option. Those that serve in the military must also share the economic sacrifice.

    Let's face it, pensions are supposed to be about security in your elderly, non-working years. Taken before retirement age, they have become supplemental income.

    Demographics have changed. We have a larger percentage of the population who are 65 and older. The current system is unsustainable. The private sector and government will be unable to pay out a pension that lasts for 20 years or more.

    An individual that enlists at 18 in the active military is now eligible to retire on half pay at age 38. If they live to just the average male life span, that is a 40-year pension. It's unsustainable.

    Sorry but there is no choice.

    America needs more people like you.

  • Colebone2000 said... (original post)

    Then lets start a riot or go on strike!

    Why should I have to work until I'm 60-65 to pay for government workers to retire at 49? Is that fair?

  • JefMorris

    Mxylplyx said... (original post)

    With life expectancy likely to be well over 90 at that time, the government absolutely should NOT start giving anyone a pension at 49. Paying out 40+ yrs of pension for 30 yrs of service....really?

    I would argue the average life expectancy of a military member in todays environment is nowhere near 90yrs old. I come from a military family and none of my family has made it out of the 60s. I could be unique but it doesn't matter; a promise made should be a promise kept.

    off to work, RTR

    This post was edited by JefMorris 3 years ago

    signature image signature image signature image

    Combat Search and Rescue.... "that others may live".

  • phlux said... (original post)

    Just wanting to share this with all of you and see what your opinions were. Apparently, a bill is being proposed that will keep military members from receiving retirement until they are 60 years-old. I joined the Coast Guard at 19, and I am now 22. If I stay in the entire 30 years, which would be the maximum amount of time I could remain enlisted in the USCG, I would be at the ripe old age of 49. I would go 11 years after that without seeing a dime from the military for my service.

    Not only could this affect current active duty members, but it could also affect current retirees. I think the politicians' salary, benefits, and retirement should be overhauled instead of ours. Even at 30 years of service, we only collect 75% of our BASE pay, which is usually not a whole lot of money.

    These senators, on the other hand, work for four years and collect 100% retirement for the rest of their lives. How is this fair?

    I'd love to hear some of your input.

    Forgot to link you: http://militaryadvantage.military.com/2010/11/overhaul-military-retirement/

    This is crap. The democrats motto for the military has always been "Nothing is too good for the troops and nothing is exactly what they are going to get!" I would like see them serve years overseas away from their families, familiar things like Alabama football (RTR) and never know from day to day where they are going to be at the end of the day. For those of you supporting this action, I would ask if you have ever served in the military? It is amazing to me that the same folks who are wanting to do this have no problems with spending billions to support illegal aliens, billions to support the taliban in Libya or to support financial institutions. Take a look at the link below.... I suggest instead of attacking our troops who are putting their lives on the line that we do this reform act instead. We learn in the military that you lead by example. It is about damn time that our elected officials lead the way.

    Congressional Reform Act of 2011

    1. No Tenure / No Pension.

    A Congressman collects a salary while in office and receives no pay when they are out of office.

    2. Congress (past, present & future) participates in Social Security.
    All funds in the Congressional retirement fund move to the Social Security system immediately. All future funds flow into the Social Security system, and Congress participates with the American people. It may not be used for any other purpose.

    3. Congress can purchase their own retirement plan, just as all Americans do.

    4. Congress will no longer vote themselves a pay raise. Congressional pay will rise by the lower of CPI or 3%.

    5. Congress loses their current health care system and participates in the same health care system as the American people.

    6. Congress must equally abide by all laws they impose on the American people.

    7. All contracts with past and present Congressmen are void effective 1/1/12.

    The American people did not make this contract with Congressmen. Congressmen made all these contracts for themselves. Serving in Congress is an honor, not a career. The Founding Fathers envisioned citizen legislators, so ours should serve their term(s), then go home and back to work.

    Audit of the Federal Reserve Reveals $16 Tril

    The first ever GAO(Government Accountability Office) audit of the Federal Reserve was carried out in the past few months due to the Ron Paul, Alan Grayson

    http://www.unelected.org/audit-of-the-federal-reserve-reveals-16-trillion-in-secret-bailouts
  • I have great respect for what you do and the risks you take to keep us all free and safe. It really sucks if they change the deal on you. If you joined with a promise that you get full retirment at 20, you ought to get full retirment at 20. Period end of story.

    At the same time, our nation cannot afford to do this any further. We have rung up long term retirment liabilities we cannot afford. That goes for military retirements as well as social secuirty and federal, state and local government employees. The system has to be changed. Among other things, the retirment plans for INCOMING police, firefighters, military and other government personnel have to be revised. Working 20 years then getting a full pension is not sustainable. The thought that you get a free ride through the rest of your life starting when you are 38 or 40 is nuts.

    I've worked for 34 years and don't plan on social security being there for me, even though it was promised to me every two weeks when they took money out of my check. That's the same promise they gave you, except I have to work 40 years to get mine, not 20, and I paid in every two weeks, which I don't believe you do.

    We have a system that is broken and we will each have to eat our pile of s##t to get it back to where it works.