Posted on Mar 3, 2015
Do you think 20 year retirements are hurting the military?
7.5K
70
27
2
2
0
Please read the article first.
http://warontherocks.com/2015/03/military-retirement-too-sweet-a-deal/?singlepage=1
http://warontherocks.com/2015/03/military-retirement-too-sweet-a-deal/?singlepage=1
Posted in these groups: 
Retirement
Pension
Retirement Pension
Posted 9 y ago
Responses: 17
5
5
0
The key to a highly competent military force is having a core of long serving professionals who provide the leadership and who keep and pass on the institutional knowledge gained with blood. Love of country and patriotism may be reasons why people sign up for military service, but patriotism only keeps you going for so long. In the end, to ask someone to give up their youth and the prime earning time of their life in the service of the nation, you have to offer them an incentive to stay long term. And that incentive has to be competative and worthwhile. Else you are going to lose your best and brightest to the lure of the civilain market.
(5)
(0)
5
5
0
I don't think they're hurting the military so much as they are hurting the taxpayer. We have a Congress and Senate that have a much, much sweeter deal that is even harder on the taxpayer from an individual retiree perspective. 6 years and retired? And at minimal risk to their life while they send our military off on lengthy deployments and combat? Maybe our Congress should be like the King of Jordan and lead our troops into battle. That would change their perspective.
I think as a matter of principle we need to address Congressional pension plans before addressing military retirement.
I think as a matter of principle we need to address Congressional pension plans before addressing military retirement.
(5)
(0)
MSG (Join to see)
you serve 4 years as potus your set for life, you serve 4 years in millitary oh well
(1)
(0)
MSG (Join to see)
the 1% that do serve to protect the 99% that dont, could'nt or dont want to well too fn bad we pay out more money in welfare to support generations of lazy mfs, than in our vets, our politions get better than we do, no cost of living for dav, but they got theirs thats the true crime
(1)
(0)
Capt Jeff S.
I think it's pathetic that those who write the laws exempt themselves from them, and that they don't lead by example when it comes to personal ethics, incompetence, and sexual misconduct.
It would be nice to see Congress held to their own version of a UCMJ with presumably high ethical and moral standards for members (at least as high as the UCMJ seeing as they command the military), so that misconduct would result in their having to answer to a court of their peers for NJP or JP depending upon the severity of the offense.
It would be nice to see Congress held to their own version of a UCMJ with presumably high ethical and moral standards for members (at least as high as the UCMJ seeing as they command the military), so that misconduct would result in their having to answer to a court of their peers for NJP or JP depending upon the severity of the offense.
(0)
(0)
4
4
0
The 20 year cliff is an arbitrary number. It could be 18 or 22 or some other arbitrary number. The vested 3 number is also arbitrary.
From the article:
"Twenty years until vesting is four times longer than what is legally allowable in a private sector pension. Why? It is coercive. And it’s not just distorting the behavior of the employees, but the employers as well."
My personal opinion is that each year of service should grant 2.5% retirement of your base pay. You complete 1 year, you get 2.5% of Private Pay. You complete 30 years, you get 75% of Colonel Pay. (Averaged over last 3 years base).
This will completely remove the "incentive" to stay until whatever arbitrary retirement year number. That would smooth out that curve, and fix the "vesting" issue I quoted above.
Now, the trade off to that is... everyone is moved to the Retired Roster. You can be recalled until 30. I'm not saying it's going to happen, but I'd rather recall someone who has been in, and been trained, and give them a refresher, than "draft" someone when we want to surge up.
When we have large scale conflicts, we offer up "activation slots" and people can come back.
Just my 2 cents.
From the article:
"Twenty years until vesting is four times longer than what is legally allowable in a private sector pension. Why? It is coercive. And it’s not just distorting the behavior of the employees, but the employers as well."
My personal opinion is that each year of service should grant 2.5% retirement of your base pay. You complete 1 year, you get 2.5% of Private Pay. You complete 30 years, you get 75% of Colonel Pay. (Averaged over last 3 years base).
This will completely remove the "incentive" to stay until whatever arbitrary retirement year number. That would smooth out that curve, and fix the "vesting" issue I quoted above.
Now, the trade off to that is... everyone is moved to the Retired Roster. You can be recalled until 30. I'm not saying it's going to happen, but I'd rather recall someone who has been in, and been trained, and give them a refresher, than "draft" someone when we want to surge up.
When we have large scale conflicts, we offer up "activation slots" and people can come back.
Just my 2 cents.
(4)
(0)
(0)
(0)
Sgt Aaron Kennedy, MS
CSM Michael J. Uhlig When I got out at just after 8 years, it wasn't because I wanted to sever ties with the military, it was because I had to choose what was best for me & my family at that specific point in my life.
Situations change however. There are times I would have loved to have come back in, but "prior service" is often an insurmountable obstacle. The "perception" (not necessarily the reality) is that you're not wanted back. Your time is over.
But can you imagine a "Calling all veterans!" How many would show up? Even if it were for stateside administrative roles, or training, etc. Remember the old "Free a man to Fight, posters?"
Heck, don't even call it "Retirement Pay" call it "Contingency Pay." We've got you on retainer in case a Contingency breaks out, and we need your specific skill set.
Situations change however. There are times I would have loved to have come back in, but "prior service" is often an insurmountable obstacle. The "perception" (not necessarily the reality) is that you're not wanted back. Your time is over.
But can you imagine a "Calling all veterans!" How many would show up? Even if it were for stateside administrative roles, or training, etc. Remember the old "Free a man to Fight, posters?"
Heck, don't even call it "Retirement Pay" call it "Contingency Pay." We've got you on retainer in case a Contingency breaks out, and we need your specific skill set.
(1)
(0)
Read This Next
Continue with Facebook 
Continue with Google