Army Soldiers: What do you think about the new Blended Retirement System?

CPT Private RallyPoint Member — Sun, 15 Oct 2017 16:30:37 -0400

Response by MSgt Danny Hope made Oct 15 at 2017 4:33 PM

MSgt Danny Hope — Sun, 15 Oct 2017 16:33:03 -0400

Not army, but I think the government is only going to it for one reason, it benefits them.

Response by LTC Private RallyPoint Member made Oct 15 at 2017 4:33 PM

LTC Private RallyPoint Member — Sun, 15 Oct 2017 16:33:07 -0400

A much needed change to allow servicemembers more portable retirement options.

Response by LTC John Shaw made Oct 15 at 2017 5:11 PM

LTC John Shaw — Sun, 15 Oct 2017 17:11:26 -0400

I am certain it was proposed because it saves government money in the long-term. I retire this year and I will be on the older system and not using the Blended Retirement.
For personnel who don't get to 20 years at least the blended system provides some type of benefit system. This has been a systemic challenge for all service members.
Either way, start saving each month for your retirement.

Response by CPT Private RallyPoint Member made Oct 15 at 2017 5:38 PM

CPT Private RallyPoint Member — Sun, 15 Oct 2017 17:38:30 -0400

I think they're trying to spin it so that it looks like it's for the benefit of the SM, but it's not hard to see that it's a way for the government to save money. If new to the service and you know that you won't be staying around for 20 then you get to walk away with something, but I think most "lifers" will end up with a smaller retirement when all is said and done. With my prior enlisted time I'm just over the 12 year cutoff of being able to choose. If I was just coming into the military though the choice would be tougher. When you're still fresh off the street it's easy to say that you'll stick around for 20 or more years. After sticking around for a while and experiencing deployments, crappy duty stations, etc. your tune can change.

Response by MSG Private RallyPoint Member made Oct 15 at 2017 9:20 PM

MSG Private RallyPoint Member — Sun, 15 Oct 2017 21:20:23 -0400

I'm at 19 years. It won't benefit me at all.

Response by 1SG Private RallyPoint Member made Oct 16 at 2017 1:58 PM

1SG Private RallyPoint Member — Mon, 16 Oct 2017 13:58:20 -0400

It's the governments way of short changing Soldiers. The concept behind it is that most Soldiers wont see 20 years and this will give them at least something to cash out when they finish their 6 years or whatever. And most Soldiers probably wont even think to increase their TSP contribution to maximize what the GOVT will match. So for their first few years until the get serious about it they will be losing out on the matching contribution. But for career Soldier's its not worth it. I already invest in my TSP and I'm glad I can keep my High 3 plan and still have the additional TSP. GOVT matching 5% isn't worth it to me.

Response by CW5 Jack Cardwell made Oct 16 at 2017 3:46 PM

CW5 Jack Cardwell — Mon, 16 Oct 2017 15:46:36 -0400

Young Service Members will have to be educated on this program. If they make the military they will have to contribute as much as possible at a young age or they will be shocked when they retire.

Response by SPC Private RallyPoint Member made Oct 16 at 2017 3:57 PM

SPC Private RallyPoint Member — Mon, 16 Oct 2017 15:57:41 -0400

I know this doesn't really respond with the question asked, but I would like to hear any advice fellow peers and leaders can give to Soldiers who don't know that much about the BRS and how it compares to the current Retirement system.

Response by CW3 Lynn Peterson made Jan 3 at 2018 12:03 PM

CW3 Lynn Peterson — Wed, 03 Jan 2018 12:03:27 -0500

You wouldn’t be eligible anyway

Response by SSG Private RallyPoint Member made Dec 26 at 2019 6:50 PM

SSG Private RallyPoint Member — Thu, 26 Dec 2019 18:50:33 -0500

It’s beneficial for the soldier who gets out before 20 years.

The problem is for those going to 20. They’re tried to convince all these younger enlisted that want to make the Army a career to go to the blended retirement system. Their whole premise was “at age 70 whatever, assuming you Put 5% each money to be matched, it will be more beneficial in the long run as you’ll surpass your gain.....blah blah blah.” It sounded nice but the more I looked into the calculators they used for these claims the more it was apparent that they were using mostly 10% assumed gain each year. The lowest I saw was 7%. Now I don’t have the time to go researching when to pull money in and out of C,S and I within TSP for the realized gains of the rise and fall of said categories. They are also so random it’d be a foolhardy adventure anyways.

That being said, as the typical categories always said to out money into (the previously mentioned) you only get roughly 5% gain annually. The projections are typically double with the calculations than what you’d actually gain in interest.

The last point is we aren’t guaranteed to live that long.... why take 10% cut to your 38 year old retirement for gains when your close to the end of your life anyways? If you’re frugal enough or smart enough, you’d invest/save the “gain” you would have made anyways. Plus with your own family if you chose (kids), why put that 10% aside when you need it the most when they’re still living in your house?

Again, want to stay for only an enlistment or two? Yeah this is good for you...if you’re dead set on doing the full 20, it seems pretty stupid to WILLINGLY swap over.

I find it underhanded that it’s being pushed with the “well you never know” mentality. They scared a lot of soldiers that want to do 20 into swapping over with the “what if’s”. The reality is, if you have the heart and calling to serve for that long, you’ll do almost anything to make sure you’re still in good health. A lot of the soldiers that were in the zone to chose were told they had to do it when they didn’t. Everyone had to take the course even if they knew they didn’t want to swap over too.