2
2
0
Posted in these groups: 
Retirement
Retirement
Posted >1 y ago
Responses: 13
4
4
0
This article says nothing about retirement for current retirees. All I have heard for almost 2 years now is ambiguity. Ok, great, you want to give Soldiers a small pension/savings/severance what have you to Soldiers who served "some" time and may or may not have really earned it, fine, but don't take away from the pension of those who served 20 or more and most certainly earned it.
(4)
(0)
SGT Bryon Sergent
Why just the 20's!! What about those of us with 15 and up and striving for 20! there going to nail us you watch MSG.
(1)
(0)
CPT (Join to see)
MSG,
In my mind, there was an implied contract here that, upon enlisting, a 20-year retirement was not only available but was also, in many respects, a goal or outcome for the sacrifice endured. This availability was a reasonable expectation. It would seem a straight up betrayal of trust to essentially pull the rug out from under Soldiers who, most reasonable people would say, had these expectations in place. Many likely made critical life decisions based upon the reasonable expectation that the 20-year retirement would be available.
I just can't see having this impact current service members actually flying, but, I guess nothing would surprise me nowadays. My problem, like you said, is that there really hasn't been clarity on any of this, in regards to its impact on current service members. Will we have an option between pursuing the 20 year retirement, or reverting to the new system? Will we be 'grandfathered' here?
Our job should be preparing for and fighting wars, not having to continually worry about what the next blow to our benefits/entitlements will be. It's really not cool to change the rules--even if reasonably accepted by many for decades--mid-way through the game.
In my mind, there was an implied contract here that, upon enlisting, a 20-year retirement was not only available but was also, in many respects, a goal or outcome for the sacrifice endured. This availability was a reasonable expectation. It would seem a straight up betrayal of trust to essentially pull the rug out from under Soldiers who, most reasonable people would say, had these expectations in place. Many likely made critical life decisions based upon the reasonable expectation that the 20-year retirement would be available.
I just can't see having this impact current service members actually flying, but, I guess nothing would surprise me nowadays. My problem, like you said, is that there really hasn't been clarity on any of this, in regards to its impact on current service members. Will we have an option between pursuing the 20 year retirement, or reverting to the new system? Will we be 'grandfathered' here?
Our job should be preparing for and fighting wars, not having to continually worry about what the next blow to our benefits/entitlements will be. It's really not cool to change the rules--even if reasonably accepted by many for decades--mid-way through the game.
(1)
(0)
MSG Scott McBride
Byron, thank you and your spouse for your service (she serves too) I'm not saying you or those brethren like you do not deserve anything, I think it's great that departing Soldiers will receive something, I'm just saying "don't tread on me" or our retirements that we planned for and rely on to supplement our income.
(0)
(0)
3
3
0
I think the current systems (20 year "pension" and TSP) satisfy the proposed requirements that are being used to justify the change. TSP - fully vested, transferable on leaving service. The current "pension" provides the incentive to retain the senior NCOs and commissioned officers needed for continuity in leadership and mentorship.
As others have said, if the current system is sustainable then I don't see a reason to change it. At least not for the reasons/requirements currently being used to justify a change.
***Edited for spelling***
As others have said, if the current system is sustainable then I don't see a reason to change it. At least not for the reasons/requirements currently being used to justify a change.
***Edited for spelling***
(3)
(0)
3
3
0
Is the current system sustainable? That's really all I want to know.
If It's sustainable, why change it. If it's not sustainable, why isn't it.
I'm not opposed to change because it's change. I'm opposed to change because they don't tell use why they're actually changing things.
"It's expensive" is not a legitimate answer, because everything is expensive.
If It's sustainable, why change it. If it's not sustainable, why isn't it.
I'm not opposed to change because it's change. I'm opposed to change because they don't tell use why they're actually changing things.
"It's expensive" is not a legitimate answer, because everything is expensive.
(3)
(0)
Read This Next
Continue with Facebook 
Continue with Google