New retirement proposal bad for grads?

Actually I'm not sure most would see the money a butter bar sees straight out of an academy (debt free no less).
 
LineInTheSand said:
Actually I'm not sure most would see the money a butter bar sees straight out of an academy (debt free no less).
Click to expand...

Not sure I understand your meaning, but I wasn't suggesting that the service academies are not a good deal for those who qualify for appointment. If you can get in, then make it through, the benefits are substantial in many respects. But it isn't just your average high school grad who gets into one of these academies, and there is good reason for that. They want the top kids going in, so as to produce the top officers coming out. These cadets/midshipmen have other opportunities, but choose this. Yes, they get a full ride scholarship, but it comes with commitments beyond what other college students incur.

It is what it is. 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.
 
brovol said:
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.
Click to expand...

No one is saying that they "privileged" in the sense that they are bestowed with wealth, fame, super bowl tickets, super model girlfriends.

The privilege is in the service itself. Full Stop.

If they don't get that and are not thrilled about it (after getting a free college education), then they need to do something else or at least not mention it to any NCO's under their command.
 
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)
 
raimius said:
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)
Click to expand...

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?
 
raimius said:
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)
Click to expand...

Relative. If 50% receive something, the 50% who don't experience a relative negative.
 
MemberLG said:
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?
Click to expand...

Exactly.
 
Quote from Stars and Stripes:

"The 20-year pensions will remain for all but they will not be as lucrative for future servicemembers. To support the new retirement accounts, future pensions will only be worth 80 percent of their current value."

I have read several articles lately, i wish they were a bit more clear in outlining the new system. From what I have read including the quote above, it seems that the new system will include the 401K style program. 1% for all, then up to 5% matching after 2 years TIS making it a total of 6% from the military on top of the 5% the service member contributes. The way it's written there will still be a 20 year pension except instead of the 50% now it will be reduced to roughly 40%. The two are not exclusive of each other. If this is the case, not a bad deal at all. Anyone read this differently?
 
Jcleppe said:
To support the new retirement accounts, future pensions will only be worth 80 percent of their current value.
Click to expand...

J,

I know this isn't your quote.

That statement is only true if the service member chooses not to contribute for the first 20 years, thereby forgoing the government's contribution. I'll let someone else do the net present value of those contributions at 20 years. It isn't an insignificant amount.

Given life in the real non-unionized world, it looks like a pretty good deal to me as well.
 
MemberLG said:
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.
Click to expand...
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.
 
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).
 
LineInTheSand said:
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).
Click to expand...
I will take all the money anyone will give me.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top