Do you think 20 year retirements are hurting the military?

MAJ Private RallyPoint Member — Tue, 03 Mar 2015 02:16:20 -0500

Please read the article first.
http://warontherocks.com/2015/03/military-retirement-too-sweet-a-deal/?singlepage=1

Response by MAJ Private RallyPoint Member made Mar 3 at 2015 2:17 AM

MAJ Private RallyPoint Member — Tue, 03 Mar 2015 02:17:33 -0500

I found this to be interesting.

Response by CSM Michael J. Uhlig made Mar 3 at 2015 2:54 AM

CSM Michael J. Uhlig — Tue, 03 Mar 2015 02:54:43 -0500

I found this article very interesting, and somewhat a jab at our service members - from a monetary perspective without taking into consideration the sacrifices made to earn the retirement.

At 20 years of service, I had already completed multiple combat deployments as well as operational deployments to Bosnia and even Hungary, not to mention a couple dependent restricted tours to Camp Casey, Korea.....and we are not even counting the other operational and humanitarian support operations...so for my first 20 years of service, the sacrifices made (personally and by my family) was just about 8 years of combat/operational and restricted missions.

I do not think I am special or that my service warrants any special accolades, as a matter of fact, I believe I had it a little easier than those that entered the service after 9/11. I also believe we can look at other areas for our fiscal responsibility, namely how do elected Congressional officials earn a lifetime of retirement benefits after one term?

While there might be a better way to make restitution to our service members at retirement, I believe they've earned every damned bit they are entitled to, I do not believe there is another profession that puts their ass on the line as much as our service members and give as much selfless service and sacrifice as our service members.

Response by CPT Private RallyPoint Member made Mar 3 at 2015 4:04 AM

CPT Private RallyPoint Member — Tue, 03 Mar 2015 04:04:13 -0500

I personally don't understand why this argument has to be all or nothing. I can see reducing the pension itself as long as the military has a decent matching plan for the TSP/401k and actually educates SM from day one about how to handle their finances and how to save for the future. I could even go so far as mandatory (yes I know this would infringe on a persons freedoms, but then again we are in the military) allocations to that same TSP/401k plan.

What I think is non-negotiable is the medical benefit that retirees get. Our way of life is not the same as that of a federal employee, or any other civilian other than the emergency services. Personally I think they should have a similar medical plan to ours. I don't know too many SM that have retired that don't have some sort of chronic injury or pain that is directly related to military service.

As long as current SM are grandfathered in at a certain TIS period this wouldn't be unbearable (to me at least). I say all of this at my 17 year mark and unless I can actually get the one assignment (and position) that I have been asking for my whole career i will be retiring in 3 years for that "too sweet" retirement. Of course Ill have to get another job and start a new career unless I want to adjust to suddenly living at half my current standard of living.

Response by SGT Jim Z. made Mar 3 at 2015 5:10 AM

SGT Jim Z. — Tue, 03 Mar 2015 05:10:54 -0500

I do not have a dog in this fight as I left the military on my own accord however, the "fully" invested retirement is another tool in the recruiter's toolbox and to tinker with it may hinder that "tool". Do I think their needs to be some reforms done in how the cash payments are funded yeah I think so and I kind of like the 401k/TSP option as long as the Federal Government matches and the vesting is incremental for example after 5 years you are 25% vested, 10 years 50%, 15 years 75%, and 20% your fully vested. I do not agree with the other benefits such as medical being screwed with at all and they need to remain at the 20 year mark.

Response by Capt Jeff S. made Mar 3 at 2015 6:32 AM

Capt Jeff S. — Tue, 03 Mar 2015 06:32:38 -0500

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.

Response by Cpl Jeff N. made Mar 3 at 2015 6:44 AM

Cpl Jeff N. — Tue, 03 Mar 2015 06:44:51 -0500

I hate maybe votes but I cast one here. I think CSM Michael J. Uhlig make a great example by looking at his years of service, the number of deployments, risks assumed and sacrifices made vs perhaps someone that served almost all of their time stateside or in rear areas without the physical and/or emotional demands of forward deployment.

I would like to see a factoring of years of service. For forward deployed years a year might equal 1.25 or 1.5 toward your 20, 25 or 30 years. The folks that do not deploy might get a reduced factoring for each year of .8 or .9 etc. This reflects the reality that forward depoloyed troops in combat MOS's also face more injury and impact to their ability to work after 20 years in uniform.

20 years in the infantry or another combat arms MOS's is not the same as 20 year in the rear with the gear.

I do think that being able to take retirement at 38 or 40 (enlist at 18, retire after 20) for the rest of your life is a pretty good deal. Having said that, most must still work as the pensionis not enough. I don't have all of the answers and I have no skin in the game as I don't collect a dollar of military pension/disability etc.

Response by SSG Private RallyPoint Member made Mar 3 at 2015 7:18 AM

SSG Private RallyPoint Member — Tue, 03 Mar 2015 07:18:27 -0500

I feel that twenty years is perfect because of the amount of damage our bodies take. Very few are making it the full twenty and most are gone after their first contract.

Response by SGT(P) Private RallyPoint Member made Mar 3 at 2015 7:45 AM

SGT(P) Private RallyPoint Member — Tue, 03 Mar 2015 07:45:29 -0500

I haven't seen a plan yet that I think would be worth the change, but I show bias, I love the idea of a pension before I'm 42.

Response by Sgt Aaron Kennedy, MS made Mar 3 at 2015 10:20 AM

Sgt Aaron Kennedy, MS — Tue, 03 Mar 2015 10:20:34 -0500

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.

Response by MAJ Jim Steven made Mar 3 at 2015 10:43 AM

MAJ Jim Steven — Tue, 03 Mar 2015 10:43:15 -0500

my main thing with this 20 year retirement discussion....you may also need to look at the promotion rates and the up/out mindset.
something isnt right about a policy that says I can draw no retirement until 20 years, but yet, if I dont get promoted, I am put out -thus killing the opportunity to make it to 20 years.

in its current state, you can really get burned by the military.

if you get put out of the army, you dont get 20 years, you dont get ANYTHING for time served, and you get put out because we want people with LESS EXPERIENCE, but POTENTIALLY more promise (promotion).

Response by LTC Paul Labrador made Mar 3 at 2015 10:50 AM

LTC Paul Labrador — Tue, 03 Mar 2015 10:50:03 -0500

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.

Response by GySgt Private RallyPoint Member made Mar 3 at 2015 11:47 AM

GySgt Private RallyPoint Member — Tue, 03 Mar 2015 11:47:03 -0500

There are so many variables. But I'm thinking that with the longer lifespans, they should revamp the system to allow longer careers. It will help both DoD and the individual. DoD will get more bang for the buck. Instead of paying a 40 year old retirement for let's assume 45 years, they lay folk start retiring at 50+. Now they're only paying for 35 years.

Just some thoughts:

-- Starting a new civilian career at 50 would be daunting, so more folks would likely stay longer and retire at 60+ or so. Resulting in the government getting value from the retainer/retirement dollars for the 40 to 60 year olds.

-- For the individual, this will also help. Military unemployment is higher than their civilian counterparts. Many folks are having difficulty transitioning to the civilian world. So if more folks could stay longer and outright retire, they may.

-- I think this will also result in fewer folks staying for retirement overall. If someone joined at 17-22 years old and realized they could not retire until they were at least 47-52, many would probably opt out of longer careers.

Then again, all this logic could be wrong. Who knows?

Response by Maj Chris Nelson made Mar 3 at 2015 12:02 PM

Maj Chris Nelson — Tue, 03 Mar 2015 12:02:50 -0500

So this is an interesting question to field. Do 20 year retirements hurt the military? I don't believe so. There are a number of reasons that people retire at 20 years: 1) retirement eligible 2) start a new career 3) Political Correct BS 4) body is broken and would not be a well oiled machine for another 10 years....the list goes on

Part of the problem is the all or nothing retirement plan that STARTS at 20 years. I am set to retire in less then 1 year. Do "I" want a change? No. Not at this point. Do I think it could change? Yes...but needs to be done smartly.

Cliff vesting at 20 years with the type of lifestyle that the military leads is hard core....some make it, other do not. IF they want to change things, they will need to implement a graduated vesting for "something" after fewer years...and maybe delayed payment (at less then 20 or 25 or 30 years). TSP will require MUCH more training/input (I never did any TSP as I didn't know enough about it....wish I would have!).

For many military that make it to the full 20+ years active, I think they should start receiving retirement right away due to the potential for less employability due to being physically broken after a 20+ year career. It would be delayed and reduced payment based on years done for anyone that gets out at 5+ and less then 20..... This is just my thought.

Response by CPT Private RallyPoint Member made Mar 3 at 2015 2:16 PM

CPT Private RallyPoint Member — Tue, 03 Mar 2015 14:16:06 -0500

I doubt you're going to find a current SM willing to admit the retirement system is too generous. I retire in 6 years and that $3k-4k paycheck each month starting at age 41 is unreal. The system, as is, cannot be sustained. 40 years of compensation for 20 years of service, depending on the age you pass away, is too generous. We all know that.

They need to grandfather those currently in and completely rehaul the current system for future SM's because it is hurting the military when half your budget goes to legacy personnel.

Response by CPT Private RallyPoint Member made Mar 3 at 2015 8:27 PM

CPT Private RallyPoint Member — Tue, 03 Mar 2015 20:27:29 -0500

A question I have wondered about (obviously not enough to do my own research...) is, where does the funding for federal retirements come from? I understand that federal employees must pay into their basic benefits plan but after they retire they are paid a retirement pension for the rest of their lives, just as we do. An argument can be made that we also pay our dues, or that our lack of paying monetary dues is offset by the fact that the federal employees TSP contributions are matched by the government while ours do not (except for the airforce). Also our retirement is contingent upon actually serving for at least 20 years.

Why aren’t federal pensions under the same scrutiny that military pensions are? From an article (not peer reviewed, just a quick search for a statistic http://www.skyhidailynews.com/article/20110824/NEWS/110829987) approximately 17% of the military actually retire. I can’t find a consistent percentage of the federal workforce (excluding military), but one I did find said that on average 3.5% of the federal workforce retires each year, and that by 2017 31% of the federal workforce (2x the size of the military) will be eligible for retirement.

So far most of the searches I make on Google regarding federal retirement point to the need for military retirement reform, I haven’t found any that look at federal retirement reform. Maybe a better answer for the military’s shortfall of funds would be to make the federal retirement funding source our retirement funding source.

**edited for spacing**

Response by SSG Christopher Freeman made Mar 5 at 2015 2:00 PM

SSG Christopher Freeman — Thu, 05 Mar 2015 14:00:42 -0500

I will comment without reading the article. While deployed, I spoke to a member of the Italian military. We talked of many things about our military and the topic of retirement came up. I told him for us, the normal is 20 years, but there are exceptions at times. For them, 38 years to retire. I believe that retiring at 20 years is one of the greatest benefits of being in the service. I could retire at 38. That is almost unheard of. I believe that it should be a longer period before retirement. However, being in the military tends to take a toll on our body. At 38, I may not be holding up the same way as someone in the private sector. That is a very speculative statement as there are jobs that are as demanding physically as ours. I understand that, but still believe our minimum retirement should be closer to 30 years.

Response by LTC Mark Overberg made Jan 2 at 2018 9:04 PM

LTC Mark Overberg — Tue, 02 Jan 2018 21:04:57 -0500

The article and its data are no longer valid. With the implementation of the Blended Retirement System on Jan 1, 2018, things have changed. For more information, see militarypay.defense.gov/blendedretirement