Posted on Sep 13, 2021
Is it true the military is changing the TIS to 25yrs for retirement and cutting our pay?
1.53K
19
12
1
1
0
Posted >1 y ago
Responses: 5
The longer you're in the Army and the higher you get you'll hear more crazy stuff being floated around the halls of the Pentagon. Reports like this are made every year with all kinds of recommendations. It's always about squeezing more out of every penny that comes from the American taxpayers. Just remember that any big changes require changes to laws, and changing laws requires the lawmakers who still have constituents to appease, and the American people don't like changing Soldiers benefits much
(5)
(0)
SGM (Join to see)
This is also why you see drawdowns.
Smaller active duty end strength means smaller payroll AND less folks making it to 20 and retirement, which is part of that payroll budget.
Smaller active duty end strength means smaller payroll AND less folks making it to 20 and retirement, which is part of that payroll budget.
(1)
(0)
That is a recommendation from a new budget analysis released last week:
https://www.militarytimes.com/pay-benefits/mil-money/2021/09/10/drastic-changes-to-military-pay-benefits-needed-to-meet-rising-personnel-costs-report/
"To counter ever-rising personnel costs in the ranks, defense officials should consider radical changes to troops’ compensation packages like replacing annual pay raises with more targeted bonuses and mandating 25 years of service for full retirement benefits, according to a new budget analysis released this week."
"“While today’s U.S. military is near its smallest size since the end of World War II in terms of active duty end strength, personnel costs are at a historic high,” wrote Seamus Daniels, associate director for Defense Budget Analysis at the Center for Strategic and International Studies."
Recommendations at this point.
https://www.militarytimes.com/pay-benefits/mil-money/2021/09/10/drastic-changes-to-military-pay-benefits-needed-to-meet-rising-personnel-costs-report/
"To counter ever-rising personnel costs in the ranks, defense officials should consider radical changes to troops’ compensation packages like replacing annual pay raises with more targeted bonuses and mandating 25 years of service for full retirement benefits, according to a new budget analysis released this week."
"“While today’s U.S. military is near its smallest size since the end of World War II in terms of active duty end strength, personnel costs are at a historic high,” wrote Seamus Daniels, associate director for Defense Budget Analysis at the Center for Strategic and International Studies."
Recommendations at this point.
Drastic changes to military pay, benefits needed to meet rising personnel costs: report
The average cost per active duty service member for the military this fiscal year was $136,000.
(2)
(0)
SSG (Join to see)
SFC Kelly Fuerhoff - understood. It looks like this has been a recommendation for a while. First I heard of this 25 years for retirement suggestions .... hopefully that doesn't stick...LOL
(2)
(0)
SFC Kelly Fuerhoff
SSG (Join to see) - They can wait do that in 3 years after I retire lol. I don't know if I could push out to 25...if I had to because they changed it before I hit 20 I suppose I would. But I hope not.
(3)
(0)
SPC (Join to see)
Bad idea for 25, or good idea depending on your perspective. After a lot of people do their 6-8 and eyeball re-enlistment the Army pretty much has them in the "might as well" mentality for the full 20. Things like bonuses and pay increases just tip them over that line.
(1)
(0)
CPT Lawrence Cable
SFC Kelly Fuerhoff - You are already contracted to the old retirement. The reason that it didn't change went they reduced the defined benefits and added the savings plan is that they contracted that retirement when you enlisted. If they did extend they retirement time to 25 years, it still wouldn't effect current service members since retirement plans are part of your contract.
(1)
(0)
Read This Next