No more 20-year rule? DOD panel calls for radical retirement overhaul

[The Straight Story]

No more 20-year rule? DOD panel calls for radical retirement overhaul

A sweeping new plan to overhaul the Pentagon’s retirement system would give some benefits to all troops and phase out the 20-year cliff vesting system that has defined military careers for generations, the Military Times newspapers reported.

The plan calls for a corporate-style benefits program that would contribute money to troops’ retirement savings account rather than the promise of a future monthly pension, according to a new proposal from an influential Pentagon advisory board.

The move would save the Pentagon money -- at a time when it's being asked to cut at least $400 billion -- and benefit troops who leave with less than 20 years of service.

The yearly contributions might amount to about 16.5 percent of a member’s annual pay and would be deposited into a mandatory version of the Thrift Savings Plan, the military’s existing 401(k)-style account that now does not include government matching contributions, according to the Times.

http://www.stripes.com/news/no-more-20-year-rule-dod-panel-calls-for-radical-retirement-overhaul-1.150115

[indurancevile]

1. can't take money away from the contractors, no sirree bob

[Drahthaardogs]

2. I assume it would be similar to FERS which is what most feds are under.

Not a terrible system, but sure not as nice as the old CSRS system and definitely a downgrade.

[Major Hogwash]

4. Shit, in most cases, those guys make 3 times as much as the men wearing the uniforms.

Mercs have never been more popular in America than they are now.

[Drahthaardogs]

7. Nah, not really

You have to factor in the free insurance, housing allowance, etc. Then it evens out. Officers are about on par with GS civil servants. I think enlisted men do better than your average blue collar worker, excluding the post officer. The postal service benefits are really skewed when compared to the rest of the government pay scale.

[indurancevile]

8. bs on the post office talking points.

[Drahthaardogs]

17. Not BS, fact.

Post office has their own wage scale. It is inflated when compared to the WG-series.

[indurancevile]

20. prove it.

[Drahthaardogs]

22. Here you go

Top end for hourly postal service employee Level 5 Step 5 = 23.97



Top end for hourly wage grade employee WG5 STep 5 = 21.42

http://postalwork.net/pay_scales.htm

[indurancevile]

24. Here's what you're supposed to be proving:

"The postal service benefits are really skewed when compared to the rest of the government pay scale."

[Major Hogwash]

9. Yeah, really. Sorry you had to hear it here first.

Lots of soldiers of fortune have left Idaho for the gold in them thar hills of Iraq and Afghanistan.

Free insurance doesn't even get added in, sorry.

[Drahthaardogs]

16. You are wrong.

Officer compensation is directly tied to the GS scale, and a full bird colonel is equivalent to a GS-14.

[Major Hogwash]

26. Some Xe employees pull down 175K/year, and receive bonuses on top of that.

There are no E-5s or E-6s that even compare to that kind of money.
The Xe employees that I am talking about weren't middle-management, they were just peons.

You have no clue what you're talking about.

[Major Hogwash]

27. You're just a Hollaback girl, and these facts have been out there for more than 6 years.

So, try and read up before you argue here.

[awoke_in_2003]

10. as usual...

the working man is taking it in the shorts

[nadinbrzezinski]

3. Not shocked, austerity comes to DOD too

[TheKentuckian]

5. You knew "military cuts" just mean cutting pay or benefits for vets.

This will likely turn out to be a model for what Social Security will transform to, some scammy scheme to put a lil cash into the 401k, Democrats will be singing the privatize to save and roll out all the scammy Bushshit numbers along with the "if it is good enough for our veterans" canard and we'll be fully hosed.

There won't hardly be a pension from sea to shining sea.

[jwirr]

21. And that will make it all the easier to convince the soldiers to vote

for the rethugs. Pay cuts were one of the threats the military used to convince them in the past. Or at least when my SIL was in the Army. Vote rethug - those Dems will cut you pay.

[tularetom]

6. Well this'll put us one step closer to a draft

We're going to lose the experienced NCO's who are the heart of our military.

Nobody will want to stick around for 20 years with only some crappy defined contributions plan to look forward to.

[Faryn Balyncd]

11. Here are DETAILS, & comments in Air Force Times :

http://www.airforcetimes.com/news/2011/07/military-dod-panel-calls-for-radical-retirement-overhaul-072511/

The comments are of interest, including this one:

"Things are changing in America. We in the military have been sheltered from some of the worst. I truly feel blessed to have the pay and the medical benefits that I have. I think it's wrong to promise a benefit and not give it. At nine years in I almost feel like this could be beneficial to me. That said if they don't give me the option to keep the plan that I signed up under, then I will feel like I have been lied to by the Government I signed up to protect. When the economic decisions of the past cause us to break our word to the very people who protect us and serve us... what does that say for the future of this great country? We can't pay our debts, we can't pay our workers, we are loosing our credibility with the nations that loan us money. Who will fight and win this battle for us? Maybe we shouldn't have made promises we couldn't keep. Maybe we should stop waging wars we can't afford. Maybe it's time to make the tough decisions and get rid of the things we want so we can keep the things that really matter like the value of our word to our own fighting men and women."

:kick:

[Ikonoklast]

12. Good Luck keeping any one for very long.

An enlistee will get out at, say 42 years old to do what? in this economy.

Starve on the pittance he'll get as a military retiree?

They'll get out while still young, after gaining some skills or experience, leaving the military with a constant drain they will not be able to replace.

[Davis_X_Machina]

13. That's the human face of a smaller military..

..for which I believe I have seen calls on here from time to time.

[Ikonoklast]

14. It would be a difficult proposition keeping the most highly skilled to stay.

A high rate of turnover is an expensive thing to overcome, a hidden cost that still needs to be paid.

Even a smaller military needs skilled people to run it.

[Davis_X_Machina]

15. Trade-offs will have to be made.

If by smaller, you mean 'cheaper' -- and many critics of present defense spending mean precisely that -- this is where you go.

Not all the people walking in the same direction as you are are going to the same place.

[sammytko]

18. All the people that retired about the same time and age that I did have jobs

But then we were/are communications specialists. It depends on what you did and how you handled your career.

[TwilightGardener]

19. This won't fly. You can't treat military like civilians working for corporations.

Because then they'd really decide to just be civilians, working for corporations, after 4 years and the GI benefits. Who the hell would stick around past that? Who wants to endure multiple family separations from deployments and short tours, get shot at, and basically give up all control over one's life in order to receive some sort of 401k that very well may devalue, in lieu of a guaranteed pension for life? No, this won't go anywhere.

[BR_Parkway]

23. Wow, and they said ending DADT would ruin the all-volunteer force - guess

it's great timing that they are dropping it so they have a nice scapegoat for this.

[Skittles]

25. this is a long time coming

it is ridiculous to provide retirement benefits for life for people as young as 37

[TwilightGardener]

28. Unique nature of the military, and a need for experienced career NCO's and officers require it.

[crazylikafox]

29. More money for Wall Street

Must feed the beast