- Joined
- Nov 25, 2007
- Messages
- 9,295
Actually I'm not sure most would see the money a butter bar sees straight out of an academy (debt free no less).
Actually I'm not sure most would see the money a butter bar sees straight out of an academy (debt free no less).
The people who become officers visa vis academy or ROTC are certainly not doing it to get wealthy; but they live far from a "privileged" life, and deserve at least an attractive retirement package.
How does the current system hurt people?
Not having a positive action is not the same as receiving a negative one.
(I'm for increasing retirement benefits for the <20yr crowd)
How does the current system hurt people?
Not having a positive action is not the same as receiving a negative one.
(I'm for increasing retirement benefits for the <20yr crowd)
If so, we should get rid of the survivor benefits - as not receiving a survivor benefit can be considered as a not a positive action.
We can compare the current military and federal retirement system. The federal retirement system, we can see the contribution made both by individual and the federal government. If a federal employee leaves, he or she can take out any individual contribution he or she made to the retirement. For the military system, individual contribution is years of service that only gains monetary value after 20 years of service or he or she becomes a federal employee and purchases it for federal retirement.
So the question becomes, when should military service in respect of retirement have an actual value, only after 20 years or before that?
To support the new retirement accounts, future pensions will only be worth 80 percent of their current value.
There is a difference though when comparing it to the private sector that seems to be over looked. In the military you do risk your life. In the private sector you don't normally risk your life. I think it would make more sense to reward those who serve and cut back on something else.I think some unions said the same thing before their companies went ouf of business.
It is not just simple as saving money and short changing military personnel. Folks like you and me have our opinion, but folks at the DoD have to prioritize their finite resources to keep the DoD functioning to defend our country. If DoD buget is $500 billion, $100 billion goes to cover retirement, there is $400 billion left over for other things. If the overall budget doesn't change, the retirement cost goes up to $150 billion, there is $350 billion left over for other things.
We can always reduce ROTC schoarships, close down service academies, reduce flying hours, defer maintenance, and etc to pay for increasing retirement cost.
What do we owe our veterans, including myself, for their service? I don't recall signing any binding contract with specified amount of retirement benefits with a rider for no reduction when I decide to serve. Don't get me, if I get less benefits I won't be happy. But I am not going to cry about it.
I will take all the money anyone will give me.There are plenty of life-risking private sector jobs with less benefits.
The hardest part about watching these kinds of debates is seeing veterans paraded around as needy victims (even harder if the parading is organized or pushed by veterans).
I will take all the money anyone will give me.