New retirement proposal bad for grads?

Interesting how few applicants have ANY idea about the very basics of joining the military (or enrolling in an academy) and yet we're assuming they have a CLUE what retirement looks like. Honestly, there are few junior officers who have beyond the most basic understand of what military retirement looks like.

But we assume "they signed up for this stuff…."

Negative ghost rider, you signed up to serve at a specific salary, for at least the five years (or so) you owed.

Heck, half of my class just had their lieutenant commander boards, and only 66% were picked up…. so 34% percent of the board have one more shot. Of the folks on their second look this year, only 25% were picked up…. So nearly 1/3 of my class won't have a retirement to look for…..

Unlike other retirement programs, they aren't paying into this future military retirement.

I find the people most willing to complain about the changes are 1. folks about to retire (which is understandable) and 2. people who have no skin in the game (parents and family).

The current system doesn't work. Only 1% of those who serve retire. So the other 99% don't get retirement…..

The military should approach it like the private sector…. match contributions for the other 99%….
 
Last edited:
The problem is if you look at some of the ideas they have been considering, some have a graduated matching that really doesn't amount to much during the first four years.

For a lot of the enlisted your assuming they will have enough disposable cash each month to contribute enough to make the matching amount to much.

There are avenues already available to save for retirement in the service beyond the 20 year retirement, TSP, IRA, Roth IRA. Service members are not restricted from any of these though many junior enlisted don't take advantage because of the amount of their salary. Turning the whole system into a 401K program won't magically give these service members more money to invest.

Granted leaving with something before 20 years is better then nothing, but to think this will be a retirement windfall for a majority of service members is hopeful at best.

I know this horse has been beaten but there is still the issue of retention, the current system being floated calls for retention bonuses, it's yet to be seen if these bonuses will keep people from heading to the private sector between 10 to 15 years TIS. Entering the civilian sector before age 35 is an advantage over entering at 42 plus.

I'm not sure what they do at the SAs but both my sons received quite a bit of information on retirement and options during their time in ROTC, older son has made good use of that info over the last 3 years.

I can understand the need to look at options in the military retirement though I feel they have tunnel vision on the 401K plan without exploring any other option.
 
The current system doesn't work. Only 1% of those who serve retire. So the other 99% don't get retirement…..
Pretty sure the last stat I read was 18% and 82%. Not great for the majority, but not the extreme spread you are contending.
 
Last I read was 10% of service members retire and 10% of the population serves, so 1% of the population.... Of course, those are VERY round numbers so you may be more accurate.
 
Had more time to think about this and have just a couple thoughts.

Let's say that the new system is put in place and they go with the 401k model and get rid of the 20 year pension retirement.

I would imagine this would result in:

1. There would no longer be a Military retiree, given that they would just simply leave the military when they choose and take their 401k with them.
2. Nobody will get the current medical for life when they retire because in essence they are not retiring. (Big cost savings there)
3. Much shorter lines at the Commissary and PX because there won't be any retirees that shop there anymore (That is if they still have a Commissary and PX).
4. A much better chance at getting a room at the Hale Koa in Hawaii, ever seen how many retirees fill that place.
5. No more use of military facilities by what are now retirees, easier T times now.
6. No more double dipping with a Gov. Job after they retire from the military.
7. Cost savings in processing all those retired ID Cards.

You know, maybe there's something to this idea.
 
I don't have a gripe about future servicemembers being forced into the new plan. They would know what they're signing up for as far as benefits are concerned. I just would hate to have the 'ole " bait and switch."

Right! If current mid and cadets are able to keep the current plan or accept the new... at their choice, it's fair. But to change plans for pensions or Soc. Security for that matter after people have planned for the future based up the presumption of the govt. honoring the plan in place when they committed is unfair.
 
Except that no one can PLAN for their future until they've been picked up for O-4…. which midshipmen and cadets haven't done. They're also not paying INTO the retirement system, so they're not being robbed of anything.

My class graduated with 200 cadets…. 3-5% didn't make O-3…. of half the class that went up for O-4 (the other half will be up next year), 33% didn't make it.

Cadets or midshipmen are not a shoe in for 20 years….. planning or assuming otherwise is not smart, on their part.
 
Right! If current mid and cadets are able to keep the current plan or accept the new... at their choice, it's fair. But to change plans for pensions or Soc. Security for that matter after people have planned for the future based up the presumption of the govt. honoring the plan in place when they committed is unfair.

Being able to serve for 20 isn't a guarantee, nor should it be.

If anything, I think a new system that's not "all or nothing" is a good thing. At least in the Marine Corps, there's no incentive to go beyond the first enlistment if you're not planning on staying for 20. Many of the Marines I talk to who reenlist (and aren't planning on making it a career) do so largely just to buy themselves a couple more years of stability (wife is pregnant, didn't get a chance to set up a job/school yet, etc). Under the new plan there will probably be a dip in retention for the middle years of service (the ones who under the current system are just biding their time to 20), but if guys think that when they leave they'll get more than a DD-214 and a boot out the door then maybe they'll stick around for longer than one enlistment.
 
I'd go so far to say that a new system would be more pro-troops than the old system...
 
Right! If current mid and cadets are able to keep the current plan or accept the new... at their choice, it's fair. But to change plans for pensions or Soc. Security for that matter after people have planned for the future based up the presumption of the govt. honoring the plan in place when they committed is unfair.

I would think that the system will be made fair by seeding the 401 K with a certain amount of money based on years, current pay etc. I do not think mids and cadets should be given a choice nor the seed money. They're new employees when they graduate.
 
Yes indeed... the government will take good care of its servicemen.

And why shouldn't officers be guaranteed 20 yrs. If they do their job? Many of you know better than I... the moves, the deployments, the missed milestones with family, and indeed, the danger.

So many people on here seem to support changes that include lump sums much smaller than the current pensions. Have you seen interest rates? This is not the world where investments are growing steadily. Who can count on the rule of 72 these days?

I don't have the answers, but I love our people in uniform and I want them to be rewarded for their work and sacrifice.
 
Service members are paid…. they have their healthcare paid for…. dependents supported….. moves paid for….. etc etc etc….

That's what they get for their service…. you work and you're paid for it…. not…. you work, you're paid, and after 20 years we'll pay you for the rest of your life…. but if you're a day short of 20…. screw off….. that's NOT right…

There's nothing reasonable about getting retirement when you're in your 30s…. nothing.
 
Yes indeed... the government will take good care of its servicemen.

And why shouldn't officers be guaranteed 20 yrs. If they do their job? Many of you know better than I... the moves, the deployments, the missed milestones with family, and indeed, the danger.

As you go higher, just "doing your job" isn't enough. Guys riding the "retired on active duty" program take up space that younger officers need to advance. There's only so much space in the Marine Corps, and even fewer places for guys who just want to hang out until they get their pension.
At 20 years (without prior enlisted service) an officer is usually a very senior Major (if you're a major at 20 you, uh, should get out) or junior Lieutenant Colonel. Those are guys that should be commanding squadrons and battalions or serving on senior staffs, taking care of their Marines and trying to make changes in the service, not just biding their time.
 
I'm assuming most of the people posting here have seen interest rates and have 401(k)s and IRAs… you CAN make money investing….

I'm actually reading a book right now by Arthur Levitt (former chairman of the SEC) called "Take on the Street." Pretty informative stuff…. makes me want to call USAA and talk about the mutual funds I'm in.
 
I'm assuming most of the people posting here have seen interest rates and have 401(k)s and IRAs… you CAN make money investing….

Yep, and over the last 30 years we have made half what we had expected when you projected those wonderful interest rates....and yes we read books as well.

I find the people most willing to complain about the changes are 1. folks about to retire (which is understandable) and 2. people who have no skin in the game (parents and family).

And those that complain about the current system seem to be those that got out after their initial obligation.

Don't get me wrong, I agree the system needs to revised, but to say the proposed changes will be more "pro troops" is still a stretch.
 
I'm assuming most of the people posting here have seen interest rates and have 401(k)s and IRAs… you CAN make money investing….

Yep, and over the last 30 years we have made half what we had expected when you projected those wonderful interest rates....and yes we read books as well.

I find the people most willing to complain about the changes are 1. folks about to retire (which is understandable) and 2. people who have no skin in the game (parents and family).

And those that complain about the current system seem to be those that got out after their initial obligation.

Don't get me wrong, I agree the system needs to revised, but to say the proposed changes will be more "pro troops" is still a stretch.

If the current system ignores 82% of the troops, you can hardly call it "pro-troops"….

"Half of what your expected?" HA! Sounds like you need some risk in your life!
 
But we can hardly expect those who start to benefit from the 20 year mark to remain objective, can we? Those who are out gain nothing from a change, and lose nothing.

I have my own investments now, none of which were helped by the Coast Guard. I thought ahead enough to set up traditional and Roth IRAs…. and I was at least thinking….

I'm not sure if your average 19 year old is doing the same…. and I know at this point the military isn't contributing….


Right now, to get retirement in the military, you aren't required to have any skin in the game…. get to your O-4 promotion board, pin on lieutenant commander or major, at 10 years, and you can ride out the next 10 years to retirement. If you put on O-4, you WILL make 20 years. Any anyone who has served knows that either they've utter the words, or heard others do so "might as well say in to 20…." Guys get to 10-15…. "might as well stick it out to 20." HA! That's not inspiring…. but it's reality. As Hurricane said, it also clogs up the O-4 rank for officers who WANT to stay in, but get passed over in brutal "blood bath" promotion boards (the kind my classmates just endured).

The truth is, no one has "earned" 20 years or is "owed" 20 years until they hit 20 years. They certainly aren't "owed" 20 years as cadets or midshipmen. So many many many will get out before 20, without any kind of savings plan. The military is failing them. A GS-5 can get in on the federal retirement savings, but an O-3 can't? Crazy.
 
Half of what your expected?" HA! Sounds like you need some risk in your life!

You have no idea what level of risk we have or have not had over the last 40 years, what we have been through are recessions and falls in the market that made the last drop seem very small. The 401K, drop all your money in the market plan is no safe bet, will you make gains, yes, will everyone make what they need to retire, no. Don't think your the only one that was smart enough to save money while in the service, you under estimate quite a few people.

But we can hardly expect those who start to benefit from the 20 year mark to remain objective, can we?

Been out of the service nearly as long as you've been alive, no retirement, no matching contributions, so I have no benefit one way or the other.

You can look at this "Might as well do 20" two ways. One the way you frame it but there is another side. In the end who do you want to stay in, the person that is highly recruited by the civilian sector, or the officer who has nothing better to do then stay in the service. I guess we'll find out when there is no incentive to finish out the next 5 years.

And really, not every officer or enlisted service member that has 10 years TIS is just biding their time to retirement, and no they are not under any obligation to step aside to make room for those below them.

33% not making 0-4, sounds about right to me, just because they "Want" to stay in doesn't mean it should be a guarantee.
 
get to your O-4 promotion board, pin on lieutenant commander or major, at 10 years, and you can ride out the next 10 years to retirement.

For the AF, that is not always true. If you are passed over for O5 twice and under 16 years, they can send you to a SERB. They did hold the board for O4s only a few years back. We had several friends told goodbye. Now if you had 16 years in as an O4 and passed over, they allowed them to ride it out to 20

And why shouldn't officers be guaranteed 20 yrs. If they do their job? Many of you know better than I... the moves, the deployments, the missed milestones with family, and indeed, the danger.
Besides the reason hurricane stated earlier there is another reason. Just like corporations they have an intended ratio that they want to keep regarding management. IE % of flag to field, field to company, within that there is a rank ratio.
~ Upon promotion to O4, you get a line number. To move that number you need an O5 to either retire or be promoted. For the O5 to move up they need an O6 to create a vacancy, so on and so forth.
~~ This is also why back in the mid 90s you saw O4 promotion rates as low as 60%, with differing years in grade for promotion. In 1993 They cut the field grade numbers, thus O3s and the year group marker was @11 or 12 yrs in. These were the guys that just returned for Gulf I. Many were released.
~~~ FFWD a few years, and the O4 board was meeting when they were at the 9 year marker with an 80-85% promotion rate. The reason why is what I stated earlier about ratios between ranks.

Personally, I don't think whether you change the system or not will really impact the members decision to bolt. It's the economy
If you look at the AF they offer the current retirement system to pilots. On top of that, at the 10 year marker they are offered 225K (fighters ---50% up front) if they agree to stay until 19, theoretically they of course will stay until 20. They also get 845 a month in flight pay. Plus, that nice big O4 pay jump. I believe that last year they had less than 25% takers. The reason why for them is that the airlines are finally hiring again.
~ It is important to understand that starting salaries for big commercial airlines start in the low to mid 40s. The 1st year or two they are basically on call. Will work holidays. Supporting my position that it is not how much money in the short term or long term that will factor into their decision, nor being away from the family.

I get, well, that's to be expected it's the AF, but the point is they weren't going to stay no matter what the financial aspect was, but when the airlines weren't hiring they were staying and more than happy to take those bonuses.

They are also having problems with the RPAs, so it is not just manned airframes. They are losing over 300 a year and can only pump through @285. The RPAs are also not taking the bonuses either.

Finally, I think anyone that enters the military knows there will be missed milestones and deployments, plus moving every few years. It does wear on you, and some will use it as a reason to leave, but I believe that is more tied to the spouse. There are some spouses that finally says ENOUGH. In turn, the member says goodbye, hence, again it means the retirement system means very little to them unless, as others have stated if they are in the 15 year range.

IMPO, cadets and candidates should not even think that this system is what they will be getting. They have yet to even commission. I am old, but I remember back in the late 90s the AF played with the retirement system, and it was applied to specific year groups. At one time they bantered around if the member(certain year groups) retired at 15 they would get retirement pay at a much lower rate if they voluntarily left. They also tweaked the system for those retiring at 20 or above. I can't recall the exact details, but basically it went from 50% of your pay to what is now called the High 3, where they now average the last 3 years of your pay and you get 50% of that.
~ Old system it would be for an O5 50% of 8281 at 20. New system it would drop be cause at 17 you would only be making 8053. It does n't seem that the 40 bucks a different a month is not alot, but at 42, with a life expectancy of 75, that 500 a year adds up over time.

If they decide to change it again to something like the High 3, but call it high 5. Than you are talking a lot of money the military will save in retirement pay.

My DS is only an O2, but i you ask him about what he expects will be his retirement system that he will be eligible for if he decides to stay, he will say he expects that upon making O4 whatever is the system will be what he will retire with since he would be field grade. IOWS, he doubts the high 3 will be his system.
~ This is a kid that came in with the intention to do 20. He flies the C130 so they have a different bonus system. It 125K, but it is for 5 or 6 years, and than he can sign for another 125 which will bring them out to 20-21 years. He can take 1 bonus and bolt. It is something he is already thinking about because he can pocket that bonus, get a lower line number with the airlines compared to those that stay until 20. By the time that 20 yr with retirement pay joins, he will be the same age, making the same, if not more, and now a left seater.
 
Last edited:
Back
Top