Do you think 20 year retirements are hurting the military?

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?

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.

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.

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.

I found this to be interesting.

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.

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.