It's official starting 2018. Newly enlisted troops won't get the traditional 20-yr, all-or-nothing retirement plan. What are your thoughts?

1SG Private RallyPoint Member — Tue, 15 Dec 2015 20:02:03 -0500

After an extra month wait, the annual defense authorization bill is finally law.

President Obama signed the budget and policy bill on Wednesday, marking the 54th consecutive year the measure has survived Washington political fights to become law.

The most significant result for troops is the renewal of dozens of specialty pay and bonus authorities, and a massive overhaul of the military retirement system.

Starting in 2018, newly enlisted troops will no longer have the traditional 20-year, all-or-nothing retirement plan. Under the changes, it will be replaced with a blended pension and investment system, featuring automatic contributions to troops' Thrift Savings Plans and an opportunity for government matches to personal contributions.

The new system is expected to give roughly four in five service members some sort of retirement benefit when they leave the military, as opposed to the current system which benefits only one in five.

Response by PO1 John Miller made Dec 15 at 2015 8:28 PM

PO1 John Miller — Tue, 15 Dec 2015 20:28:03 -0500

Thank God I retired when I did. I encourage all newly enlisted personnel to opt into the traditional retirement as well, as long as they have the choice.

Response by SFC Everett Oliver made Dec 15 at 2015 8:32 PM

SFC Everett Oliver — Tue, 15 Dec 2015 20:32:07 -0500

Don't like it nor do I trust it. Every time the Congress has changed something having to do with retirement it has been the retiree that got hit with the cost...I can bet this will be no different...

Response by CSM Charles Hayden made Dec 15 at 2015 8:55 PM

CSM Charles Hayden — Tue, 15 Dec 2015 20:55:34 -0500

1SG Private RallyPoint Member With my age and knowledge, I can understand this 'retirement scheme'. Back when I committed to be a Soldier; no, this retirement plan would have been beyond my comprehension.

Response by SGM Mikel Dawson made Dec 15 at 2015 9:13 PM

SGM Mikel Dawson — Tue, 15 Dec 2015 21:13:01 -0500

Glad I got mine locked in! Just got my paper work sent in the mail, waiting for Happy 2016!!

Response by Capt Richard I P. made Dec 15 at 2015 9:31 PM

Capt Richard I P. — Tue, 15 Dec 2015 21:31:29 -0500

Good. As one of those 4/5 that didn't wait for the cliff, I'd have preferred this method. That said, this will not help retention once the people subject to it get to the 8 year mark. Which is just as well, it may force the staffing process, HR policies and pay to become more competitive to retain people instead of relying on scare tactics like "losing your retirement."

Response by SPC(P) Private RallyPoint Member made Dec 15 at 2015 9:37 PM

SPC(P) Private RallyPoint Member — Tue, 15 Dec 2015 21:37:43 -0500

Of course I am coming from the standpoint of having served my contract of 5 years Active and 3 years Reserves, so I received nothing as far as retirement from my military service. I would much have preferred to have least received something for retirement that I could have continued into the civilian world. I like the new plan better than all or nothing at 20 unless you received a RIF or Medical retirement prior to the 20 years.

Response by SGM David W. Carr LOM, DMSM MP SGT made Dec 15 at 2015 11:56 PM

SGM David W. Carr LOM, DMSM MP SGT — Tue, 15 Dec 2015 23:56:50 -0500

I wish the Thrift Savings Plan TSP with a matching funds option was during my whole career. Rather than just a portion of 2 of my 26 years. But they also told us of free medical for life.

Response by SFC Private RallyPoint Member made Dec 16 at 2015 12:02 AM

SFC Private RallyPoint Member — Wed, 16 Dec 2015 00:02:50 -0500

It is a good and a bad system in a sense. It is bad for those already in right now because it doesn't benefit us much. It is a good system for those who will be entering the service in the near future because they will get a matching contributions into their TSP account as they progress in their military career. And if they decide to get out after ten years, they are not just walking home with heir DD214 by itself, they take with whatever their contributions are and their Uncle Sam's matching and when they hit 59 1/2 they can withdraw without penalties. So yes this is good for future generations! However we are grandfathered in the old system! So no worries there unless you automatically elect to join the new system then your retirement gets reduced by so much and you only get 20% at he end plus whatever you contributed into your TSP account! Hope this helps

Response by CMSgt Private RallyPoint Member made Dec 16 at 2015 12:13 AM

CMSgt Private RallyPoint Member — Wed, 16 Dec 2015 00:13:41 -0500

As someone that is in the process of retiring after 30 years, I am pretty thankful for the retirement plan I am under, but I can see some benefits to the new system. One thing that will be critical though is the need for strong financial education to our young service members on how to capitalize on this new program.

Response by WO1 Private RallyPoint Member made Dec 16 at 2015 8:49 AM

WO1 Private RallyPoint Member — Wed, 16 Dec 2015 08:49:23 -0500

It is a clear case of the army adapting to society to manage recruitment and budgeting. We lower budget costs by sharing the cost of retirement with the service member while providing recruiters a new angle to present when pitching short term service.

Response by 1LT Private RallyPoint Member made Dec 16 at 2015 9:33 AM

1LT Private RallyPoint Member — Wed, 16 Dec 2015 09:33:40 -0500

I assume those already serving will be grandfathered?

Response by SSgt Jim Gilmore made Dec 16 at 2015 9:36 AM

SSgt Jim Gilmore — Wed, 16 Dec 2015 09:36:34 -0500

Big Mistake!

Response by MSgt Private RallyPoint Member made Dec 17 at 2015 4:11 PM

MSgt Private RallyPoint Member — Thu, 17 Dec 2015 16:11:55 -0500

If they completely abolished the pension system I would say it was a mistake. This new system will be better for anyone who doesn't stay in 20 years. It might even be better for those who day stay in for 20+ provided they have been contributing to TSP the whole time and getting matching funds.

I'm glad they didn't go with the original plan they were kicking around back in 2007 though... Back then they were talking about yanking the pension benefits away from everyone that didn't already have a retirement date.

Response by SFC Jason Hodge made Dec 17 at 2015 4:17 PM

SFC Jason Hodge — Thu, 17 Dec 2015 16:17:31 -0500

And when the market dips or crashes, so does your pension and sorry if you are required to retire during a bear market. They screwed the military again with their poorly though ideas. Where is the money foing to come from when you are now going to have practically everyone that has stayed a significant amount of time to gain a return but didn't retire? Thats a lot more money than the 20 and out plan. Thankfully, I am retired already. I feel for the younger generation who have people that aren't even responsible enough to agree on a national budget deciding their retirement options.

Response by Cpl Tim Linville made Dec 17 at 2015 4:26 PM

Cpl Tim Linville — Thu, 17 Dec 2015 16:26:56 -0500

Disgusting

Response by PO3 Jake Baken made Dec 17 at 2015 4:43 PM

PO3 Jake Baken — Thu, 17 Dec 2015 16:43:27 -0500

Well, it certainly could be good for someone who decides to get out after 12 years. Unfortunately people are living so much longer and it's difficult for the govt to pay someone a pension for 50 years. I don't like it, but I get it.

Response by CWO3 Kristopher Stober made Dec 17 at 2015 4:50 PM

CWO3 Kristopher Stober — Thu, 17 Dec 2015 16:50:51 -0500

Everyone knows who they can thank for this. I bet congress will maintain their pensions, and most likely increase. This is only going to make our country weaker & weaker IRT defense & Homeland Security. Another reckless decision that will change American forever, or at least the effects will.

Response by MAJ Ken Landgren made Dec 17 at 2015 4:53 PM

MAJ Ken Landgren — Thu, 17 Dec 2015 16:53:14 -0500

My concern is the education of the troops. What do they invest in from start to finish? Will they take advantage of matching funds? Is it possible to time the market?

Response by SSG Todd Halverson made Dec 17 at 2015 5:00 PM

SSG Todd Halverson — Thu, 17 Dec 2015 17:00:31 -0500

I do not like the new system. It has the potential to be very bad for the SM. If there is another market crash, there goes their pension or at least a good portion of it. Now if they would have guaranteed return on investment, that would be different, but that won't happen. So the new SMs are screwed if things tank again.
Now it is amazing that the politicians did nothing to revamp their retirement to help with budget constraints. It is always the SMs who are getting screwed over by the politicians. Cut their pension, set term limits and when they will be able to start drawing their pension. Have it market based like they are doing to the SMs.
The real kicker is even after 20+yrs in the Military, you will not be able to touch it until you are 59.5 without getting penalized. So, if you join right out of high school(age 18), retire after 20 yrs (age 38); you can't receive your pension for another 21.5 years. To some, when they get out, they may not be able to work because of a disability. Sure they will get VA Disability and they can go through all the red tape for Social Security. But, that extra retirement income could have a profound effect on their lives and how well they are able to provide for their family.

Response by LTC Paul Labrador made Dec 17 at 2015 5:12 PM

LTC Paul Labrador — Thu, 17 Dec 2015 17:12:07 -0500

I'm curious to see what long term retention will look like after the last of the traditional 20yr retirement folks leave active duty.

Response by 1SG Paul DeStout made Dec 17 at 2015 5:52 PM

1SG Paul DeStout — Thu, 17 Dec 2015 17:52:03 -0500

From my understanding of the new plan, Soldiers will have to contribute to the TSP as part of their retirement. I hope a pay raise comes with this our lower enlisted with families struggle as it is, this will just make it worse.

Response by PO3 David Davis made Dec 17 at 2015 6:12 PM

PO3 David Davis — Thu, 17 Dec 2015 18:12:35 -0500

Most government plans Fail this one will be a the same. I will not encourage anyone else to jion after this nonsense who would. I guess the uninformed.

Response by PO3 David Davis made Dec 17 at 2015 6:13 PM

PO3 David Davis — Thu, 17 Dec 2015 18:13:49 -0500

The Next President will be getting blamed for it.

Response by LTC Silviu Bora made Dec 17 at 2015 6:53 PM

LTC Silviu Bora — Thu, 17 Dec 2015 18:53:36 -0500

Wow - thats such a great recruiting and retention program. Will they do the same for every Governemnt employee? How about for Congress - tehy should have to serve 20 and pay into their own retirement plan too. Assholes!!!

Response by TSgt Private RallyPoint Member made Dec 17 at 2015 7:40 PM

TSgt Private RallyPoint Member — Thu, 17 Dec 2015 19:40:20 -0500

Wait so a senator who didn't do crap for 4 years can get a full retirement and benefits but a man who has properly served his country for 20 doesn't get crap what type of bs is that.

Response by SSgt Edward Jones made Dec 17 at 2015 10:19 PM

SSgt Edward Jones — Thu, 17 Dec 2015 22:19:02 -0500

When I was in the military, I wish they had the TSP that they have now. I work for the Federal Government and we have TSP as part of our retirement program. As long as I put in 5%, the government will match with 5%. We automatically get 1% even if we don't put in. I put 18%, and the government put in 5%, so I actually 23% added to my account. So I think that it is good as long a people put into TSP. As long a person is in the Military and they put into TSP, that money will be there when they turn 59 1/2 they get it out without a penitently. If they can save enough with what ever the pension will be they could retire well off. When I retire from the Federal Government in 4 years, I will have (because I started late) almost $200,000 in my TSP. I have know some who have retired from Federal service with almost $750,000 in their TSP, because they were in the Federal service from the start, plus they had their retirement pay and will soon collect Social Security.

Response by 1SG Private RallyPoint Member made Dec 17 at 2015 10:25 PM

1SG Private RallyPoint Member — Thu, 17 Dec 2015 22:25:33 -0500

Are current troops "grandfathered" into the current plan?

Response by PO3 Chris Scheide made Dec 17 at 2015 11:18 PM

PO3 Chris Scheide — Thu, 17 Dec 2015 23:18:31 -0500

This is a bad, bad idea. Too many 'ifs' are involved. If you make smart investment choices you might be able to retire. If you are deployed how are you going to 'manage' your portfolio? If the market crashed when you have 19 years in, then what? Nothing more than the privatization of another federal pension system. People in service need to worry about doing their jobs and not about what their investment is doing.

Response by CPT Private RallyPoint Member made Dec 17 at 2015 11:22 PM

CPT Private RallyPoint Member — Thu, 17 Dec 2015 23:22:36 -0500

Way to screw our future warriors. The military has really become a corporation.

Response by TSgt Marco McDowell made Dec 17 at 2015 11:30 PM

TSgt Marco McDowell — Thu, 17 Dec 2015 23:30:17 -0500

It'd be nice if they tossed I some financial management as well. Sad when I see an E-5 with 10 years in and all he has is $500, a wife and two kids but he does have a sweet entertainment system, nice rims and the missus carries a $400 purse. Banking on just sticking it out 10 more to get a check and not taking into account cutbacks, legal troubles or future setbacks. I wouldn't have minded this setup...as long as they allowed me to roll this TSP into something of my choosing. It is possible to save a nice chunk off of your base pay, deployments,extras from temp duties, tax returns and other pay allotted to us, but since the check is steady twice a month, most guys just fritter it away and then tighten the belt when it's time to sep. We'll see if this puts off people choosing to join in 2018 and after. Depending on the percentage of individuals who want to go the full 20+, I'll bet the others who are doing a 4 or 6 tour won't care.

Response by Maj Private RallyPoint Member made Dec 17 at 2015 11:45 PM

Maj Private RallyPoint Member — Thu, 17 Dec 2015 23:45:15 -0500

I'm interested in seeing how this affects future recruitment numbers.

Response by TSgt Scott C. Brammer made Dec 18 at 2015 2:39 AM

TSgt Scott C. Brammer — Fri, 18 Dec 2015 02:39:23 -0500

This is just another way to discourage career service. They don't want people staying 20 years because they are older and slower and the medical costs are higher. They want 17 or 18 year olds, right out of high school and they want to get rid of you before you hit 30. Just wait until the next big conflict where they need lots of people with experience. What will they do then? Barry Obama has succeeded in cutting the active duty forces to pre WWII levels and "used up" the guard and reserve forces to the point where lots of members are sick of it and don't want to do it anymore. Afterall, who wants to go on active duty for a year every 2 or 2 1/2 years. Hopefully, the next president will be pro-military and will appreciate the sacrifices made by active duty and reserve troops. I don't know about the rest of you but I've had enough "Hope and Change"...

Response by LTC Private RallyPoint Member made Dec 18 at 2015 7:22 AM

LTC Private RallyPoint Member — Fri, 18 Dec 2015 07:22:38 -0500

Its BS. Welfare Queens and Congress will get benefits for life.

Response by PO3 Private RallyPoint Member made Dec 18 at 2015 7:33 AM

PO3 Private RallyPoint Member — Fri, 18 Dec 2015 07:33:05 -0500

This new system is a "to cut total pension cost and pay everyone a little now, so that they can manage it themselves" system.

It got some good things out of it. but what will it impact ... nobody will know ... until years and years later down the road ...

Response by SGT Brian Oxley made Dec 18 at 2015 8:00 AM

SGT Brian Oxley — Fri, 18 Dec 2015 08:00:13 -0500

As a career soldier, it's really hard for me to ponder on how these Republicans and Democrats even that one person who I won't say, can make judgment calls on all military personnel.
80% of Congress never spent time in a trench, holding their fingers in a soldiers bloody shot up body to keep him or her alive, spent 6 months on a Med cruise away from their love ones, left their families for 4 years on tours after tours.
Why do we do this over and over again? , because we love our families but even more " We love our Country " .
That is one thing all them personal who hide behind their desk in Washington D.C will never understand what Pride and Honor is.
God bless the U.S Military.

Response by CPO Ed Ball made Dec 18 at 2015 9:37 AM

CPO Ed Ball — Fri, 18 Dec 2015 09:37:52 -0500

Having dabbled in mutual funds and stocks over the years, one need only recognize that if you have a 50% loss due to recession, it takes a 100% increase to break even. Looking at the history of recessions over the last century, our troops are in trouble if they go on the buy and hold strategy. In 2007 I recognized oil as the baseline of our market, and recognizing the spiraling charts, I realigned my 457 with high risk funds into bonds and a stable money market fund to preserve my principal. Another words when the recession hit in 2008, I was safe. So what happened to our 457 funds since 2008? Some just never recovered to date: -59.30%, -30.85%, -24.40%, -24.10%, with only 8 funds out of 15 showing a gain, etc... My wife's company has their workers pension plan based on the 401K with matching funds up to 5%. Understanding how the market works will be imperative for those electing to serve in the future, but pity those deployed that have no direct access to the market on a daily basis to make the much needed corrections prior to loss of principal due to world economies and their impact on the global market and Central Banks.

Response by CW3 Private RallyPoint Member made Dec 18 at 2015 9:42 AM

CW3 Private RallyPoint Member — Fri, 18 Dec 2015 09:42:22 -0500

This will be detrimental to recruiting, and even to a greater degree, long term retention. Also, I think this will hurt the officers more than enlisted. The Military already struggles to keep really talented officers because the private sector offers higher compensation for management past ~8 years of experience and much more career flexibility. A Major with a Masters degree is most likely not making as much as his/her civilian counterpart with a MBA, and that gap increases for a successful civilian manager. This may save the government money but I do not see how this makes the all volunteer military a stronger institution.

I would rather see an end to double dipping than this. Double dipping is when someone retirees from military service and then works for the government in another capacity as a full time employee. IMHO, the government should only pay a person to do one of two things - retire or work.

Response by 1LT Private RallyPoint Member made Dec 18 at 2015 9:52 AM

1LT Private RallyPoint Member — Fri, 18 Dec 2015 09:52:10 -0500

This could potentially be a fantastic change. If you start investing when you're 17 it's no exaggeration to say you could be a millionaire several times over by the time you're 65. This new plan doesn't seem as "safe" but the actual benefits will be tenfold. It's also exasperated me to no end that the government won't match TSP contributions (which they do for other federal employees) and now that they will it will be a big help. Before this there was no actual motivation to get a TSP over a Roth IRA.

Response by SFC Steve Hoover made Dec 18 at 2015 10:20 AM

SFC Steve Hoover — Fri, 18 Dec 2015 10:20:23 -0500

They say that only one in five benefit from the current program. Well, as far as I know, those other four have (had) the same exact opportunity as anyone who served 20 years. They just had to make the commitment and keep their nose clean. The new system may be better, but when things like this are changed, it is usually for the betterment of someone else, not the Soldier.

Response by SSgt Chuck Bristol made Dec 18 at 2015 11:37 AM

SSgt Chuck Bristol — Fri, 18 Dec 2015 11:37:39 -0500

There is now no incentive to be a career service member. Why stay until retirement when just about every other corporate sponsored retirement plan does the same and better. Factor in the fact that your ability to increase your salary and contributions in the civilian market is much better than the military. Why stay and make less money for the rest of your life, when you can get out and position yourself in the civilian market for better pay, better benefits? Makes no sense.

Response by MCPO Brett Ayer made Dec 18 at 2015 1:50 PM

MCPO Brett Ayer — Fri, 18 Dec 2015 13:50:30 -0500

In 30 years of service I saw more than a few outstanding folks have to seperate with less than 20 for personal reasons that I never had to face.

For years I have thought that 20 or nothing was doing a disservice to the vast majority of our members.

Although I would not have come up with the same plan, at least our members can have something to fall back on if they need to separate with less than 20.

Having said all that, I have no doubt some folks will make bad financial decisions under this new retirement system, and separate with less than they should. Counsel your troops and shipmates wisely.

Response by SSG John Harpold made Dec 18 at 2015 2:29 PM

SSG John Harpold — Fri, 18 Dec 2015 14:29:50 -0500

I think it sounds like a good thing. Set up the troopers for success, 20 years, or less.

Response by MSgt Private RallyPoint Member made Dec 18 at 2015 2:34 PM

MSgt Private RallyPoint Member — Fri, 18 Dec 2015 14:34:52 -0500

Wow am i am glad I retired. I had a feeling when they pushed this TSP garbage a few years back this was coming. So now your retirement is linked to how well your returns from the TSP go? I wonder if there will be an option to invest in mutual funds or securities as opposed to TSP.

Response by SFC Bobby Thompson made Dec 18 at 2015 2:36 PM

SFC Bobby Thompson — Fri, 18 Dec 2015 14:36:39 -0500

Are we saying the United States can no longer afford to keep an experience of Service member to maintain readiness?

Response by SFC Bobby Thompson made Dec 18 at 2015 2:50 PM

SFC Bobby Thompson — Fri, 18 Dec 2015 14:50:22 -0500

Defense of our country still should be a number one priority and maintaining experienced members has always been one of the cornerstones of the military. Do you think you can just hire some one off the street and make him an E5, E6, E7,E8,E9, 03,04,05 or 06? That is why they have these ranks because they have the commiserate level of experience to do those jobs. If you are not offer them that 20 year retirement most people will not stay, especially our officers. Most of the officers already have an education and after a few years are very marketable in the civilian world. If they can join a company that has a 401K, why would they risk their lives for something they could get without risking their lives? overall defense and protecting America as a whole has been put on the backburner by our elected officials. They really don't care about protection or defense more than they do politics. We need some help to try and reverse this, although the military cannot protest, maybe NCOA or Army Officers Association can take up this cause and fight for the service member benefits.

Response by CW3 Jim Norris made Dec 18 at 2015 3:46 PM

CW3 Jim Norris — Fri, 18 Dec 2015 15:46:30 -0500

There are so few assured retirement programs now a days, I suppose that some sort of adjustment had to eventually occur. I don't see how I would have been attracted to my 20+ years via a 401k arrangement. I would prefer that we go back to some sort of universal service arrangement, call it a draft if you will, reduce compensation to first term trainees and junior members. The 'professional' military would start after that first obligatory service period as would a competitive compensation packet. I guess we'll see how the program goes, heck the nation maybe bankrupt before any of these young folks get to the benefit collecting stage.

Response by PO1 Tony B. made Dec 18 at 2015 5:40 PM

PO1 Tony B. — Fri, 18 Dec 2015 17:40:26 -0500

A 401(k) is NOT a retirement plan because it involves market risk, meaning you can make a few dollars, here and there, but most importantly you can LOSE the entire amount! Many seniors are in the same boat due to a down market following the '08 housing market meltdown. I've now been retired longer than I served in the military and one of the jobs I had since retirement was a Loan Officer, refinancing VA loans, so I have first-hand knowledge of the financial services industry. It is abominable what senior military leadership did by agreeing to this crap! The republicans have been constantly trying to ruin the military retirement system and they've done it, not to mention voting against at least eight veterans programs that would have greatly aided us. Don't believe me tho, do your own research. I personally believe it the height of foolishness to join the military with THIS to rely on. Financial managers in charge of controlling 401(k) accounts don't possess any greater knowledge than a common citizen. Fees are eating up investment gains, so it is highly doubtful these accounts will ever make much more than the basic money invested. My Finance professor at CSUSM was always fond of saying, "There is no free lunch,' meaning there is a cost for everything. I urge massive reading up on this boondoggle before it takes effect. I don't care what any of you think of me because I'm set financially. Trying to impart knowledge here, but as that old saw goes, you can lead a horse to water...good day.

Response by MSgt Private RallyPoint Member made Dec 18 at 2015 6:46 PM

MSgt Private RallyPoint Member — Fri, 18 Dec 2015 18:46:20 -0500

If these young troops will take advantage of the matching funds this could end up being a better retirement. The down side is if the market crashes near the end of your service. I hope they spend some genuine time and effort training the young troops on the program.

Response by MCPO Private RallyPoint Member made Dec 18 at 2015 8:36 PM

MCPO Private RallyPoint Member — Fri, 18 Dec 2015 20:36:28 -0500

Things have changed sooo much since I retired in 1983 and most of them are bad. When I joined the Navy in 1963, you were told you got a 50% retirement and free medical for life for you and your spouse if you spent 20 years, in addition any medications needed were free. Now you pay for your retired medical plan and have a co-pay on most medications. Congress seems to forget who laid their lives on the line and answered the call of duty when needed. We are getting paid back, with a knife in it.

Response by SSgt Zach Simpson made Dec 18 at 2015 10:06 PM

SSgt Zach Simpson — Fri, 18 Dec 2015 22:06:48 -0500

As a former NCO and and former AETC instructor I can see this as being the worst possible idea ever. They are going to be begging people to join the armed forces. Young people are horrible with money, I saw it all the time at Goodfellow AFB. Young Airman, Soldier, Sailors, and Marines spend money on the most asinine stuff. Eventually they grow out of it and make it to 20 years and have something to show for all their hard work and time given to our country. With this new plan their is the possibility that there will be no money at any point of retirement if the stock market goes to crap. Why do twenty years when there is no payoff at the end? I can see many people leaving the military early when there is the chance to better themselves well before twenty year. The armed forces will face a large mid-senior level force shortage when members depart with no long term incentive.

Response by SFC John Thompson made Dec 18 at 2015 11:10 PM

SFC John Thompson — Fri, 18 Dec 2015 23:10:53 -0500

So Sad

Response by SSG Gerhard S. made Dec 18 at 2015 11:17 PM

SSG Gerhard S. — Fri, 18 Dec 2015 23:17:46 -0500

I personally think it's a great idea. Most in the military DON'T serve a full 20 years, leaving them with a retarded start to their retirement savings. I think this offers service members more choices, and options. Choice is what makes America Great!

Our Social Security system should operate the same way. Instead of giving all that money to politicians to squander, our withholding should go into an account in our own name that can grow, instead of relying on the labors of others to help fund our retirements.

Response by SFC(P) Private RallyPoint Member made Dec 19 at 2015 4:46 AM

SFC(P) Private RallyPoint Member — Sat, 19 Dec 2015 04:46:28 -0500

Are they going to revise the TSP aswell? Or are new service members going to have to wait until they are 71 years old to collect on this one too? If so, I see no benefit to the new system.

Response by Cpl Antonio Gutierrez made Dec 19 at 2015 4:50 AM

Cpl Antonio Gutierrez — Sat, 19 Dec 2015 04:50:32 -0500

Sounds like a 401k or deferred compensation plan. After 20+ years in law enforcement, I was able to roll my money from deferred comp into my PERS retirement fund to buy 5 years credit for time not worked. Now I'll be pulling the plug in 2 1/2 years and I'll retire 5 years early but still get credit for a full oension. The plan can work to their benefit if they're willing to invest the money in the first place. If not, then they'll leave the service with nothing for their time and dedication.

Response by Sgt Jesse B made Dec 19 at 2015 11:35 AM

Sgt Jesse B — Sat, 19 Dec 2015 11:35:21 -0500

There is no shame in congress. The military pay is low. Now retirement sucks, then if they divorce, that's another 50%. Where's congress pay cut and retirement cut!

Response by SSG Trevor S. made Dec 19 at 2015 11:47 AM

SSG Trevor S. — Sat, 19 Dec 2015 11:47:42 -0500

The 20 year program was a retention incentive program. It also gave the military options like early retirement offers to help reduce the force when it was needed. I don't completely hate the new option, but I do feel there should be a substantial incentive to reach a 20 career target.

Response by TSgt Ray Rock made Dec 19 at 2015 11:48 AM

TSgt Ray Rock — Sat, 19 Dec 2015 11:48:53 -0500

This is only the beginning. Next year they're talking about making changes to TRICARE, especially for retirees.

If they make any major changes to TRICARE for retirees expect reenlistments to plummet.

The pension and TRICARE in retirement are the main reasons, and sometimes the only reasons folks stay for 20+ years. If they mess with that there will be major problems retaining folks.

Response by MAJ Private RallyPoint Member made Dec 19 at 2015 12:05 PM

MAJ Private RallyPoint Member — Sat, 19 Dec 2015 12:05:20 -0500

What the government needs to sinus revamp their federal law enforcement requirements. Their "must be appointed by age 38" disqualifies thousands of experienced warriors that could take their skills and training to the FBI, Federal Marshalls, Customs, etc. after they retire. Now, if you retire from the military, you can look for state or municipal work but, no Fed LE job for you!

Response by MAJ Matthew Arnold made Dec 19 at 2015 3:02 PM

MAJ Matthew Arnold — Sat, 19 Dec 2015 15:02:34 -0500

Did we learn nothing for the faulty VEEP? The retirement system has worked for 100 years or more, I'm not sure, and we're gunna mess with that?

Response by SGT Darush Zardoust made Dec 19 at 2015 3:05 PM

SGT Darush Zardoust — Sat, 19 Dec 2015 15:05:06 -0500

Idk it sounds good for those that doesn't make a career. But how will it effect those that serve their 20+ years

Response by COL Vincent Stoneking made Dec 19 at 2015 4:14 PM

COL Vincent Stoneking — Sat, 19 Dec 2015 16:14:27 -0500

It all gets down to educated risk tolerance. Three words there, each is important.
IF the Soldier makes max use of the the 401K/TSP aspect, including maxing out the gov contribution, AND the market does well over their career, THEN they will come out ahead under the new plan.
IF the Soldier doesn't make a career of the military, AND makes max use of the 401K/TSP, THEN they come out FAR ahead.
IF the Soldier makes a career of the military AND either does not participate fully OR the market doesn't perform well, THEN they take it in the shorts.

There are very few scenarios where I would move in the direction from defined benefit to defined contribution, but that's just my personal risk tolerance. When I was 18-25, I would have had a different answer.

Response by SSG Mark Newman made Dec 19 at 2015 4:25 PM

SSG Mark Newman — Sat, 19 Dec 2015 16:25:20 -0500

I would not have stayed in! Did my time get my education then leave!

Response by SrA Marlin Taylor made Dec 19 at 2015 5:50 PM

SrA Marlin Taylor — Sat, 19 Dec 2015 17:50:54 -0500

About time they did something to help

Response by SFC Conrad B Chavez made Dec 19 at 2015 6:58 PM

SFC Conrad B Chavez — Sat, 19 Dec 2015 18:58:06 -0500

Pretty sad that it has come down to this. It's time to clean house in DC.

Response by SSgt Charles Schaefer made Dec 19 at 2015 8:14 PM

SSgt Charles Schaefer — Sat, 19 Dec 2015 20:14:25 -0500

May be they should do the same for congress and Senate. Limit the term length and they get the same as military and government workers. See how they feel then.

Response by Maj Private RallyPoint Member made Dec 19 at 2015 9:33 PM

Maj Private RallyPoint Member — Sat, 19 Dec 2015 21:33:24 -0500

I'm sad to see those changes. I'm not affected by it since I have been retired for 25 years so, so far I'm grandfathered into the old retirement system. There were four reasons I made the Air Force my career: 1) loyalty to my nation, 2) promise of a non-contributory retirement after 20 years, 3) medical for life and 4) education benefits.

I believe every change you make to 2 - 4 above affects recruiting. Now all of the above, 2 - 4 have been changed since I retired.

There are some in this nation that resent the fact that we could retire from the military in our early forties. What most never understood was that most of us didn't receive enough retirement to live on and had to have second careers.

Response by PO3 Private RallyPoint Member made Dec 20 at 2015 12:49 AM

PO3 Private RallyPoint Member — Sun, 20 Dec 2015 00:49:39 -0500

This is coming from a sailor with almost only 3 years of service done. But this sounds like a better option to me. Why is there so much negativity towards this? I'd really like to know

Response by CH (MAJ) William Beaver made Dec 20 at 2015 7:39 AM

CH (MAJ) William Beaver — Sun, 20 Dec 2015 07:39:55 -0500

Personally, this helps me since the most years I can serve before mandatory retirement age is 16. I am grateful for it. I would be willing to work 20 but the won't let me stay on till 66.

Response by Cpl Clinton Britt made Dec 20 at 2015 8:27 AM

Cpl Clinton Britt — Sun, 20 Dec 2015 08:27:12 -0500

In my opinion, I do not believe that many people will go for the long haul anymore. Only the true lovers of Military Life will stick it out and it will be even more competitive than now.

I mean, really, the main goal of rising in the ranks and serving a full tenure is the BENEFITS. Granted it does have it's pluses.

I am pretty sure that we will wind up paying for other benifits that we have earned in the long run

Response by SSG Private RallyPoint Member made Dec 20 at 2015 9:44 AM

SSG Private RallyPoint Member — Sun, 20 Dec 2015 09:44:53 -0500

So are they taking away indefinite reenlistments?

Response by SMSgt Private RallyPoint Member made Dec 20 at 2015 10:02 AM

SMSgt Private RallyPoint Member — Sun, 20 Dec 2015 10:02:38 -0500

Lets see what kind of Airman, Sailors, Marines, and Soldiers you get now.

Response by SFC Shane Funkhouser made Dec 20 at 2015 10:41 AM

SFC Shane Funkhouser — Sun, 20 Dec 2015 10:41:26 -0500

It's a damn crime, let those sons of bitchs break their body's down for 20 years for shit pay and have the same retirement we have. I bet they wouldn't be changing anything if they did except making it bigger.

Response by SPC Ronny Cortez made Dec 20 at 2015 12:47 PM

SPC Ronny Cortez — Sun, 20 Dec 2015 12:47:31 -0500

Why not just give veterans that have served honorably the same retirement benefits our law makers give themselves for the few years they are doing their job.

Response by SSgt Richard Mikus made Dec 20 at 2015 1:28 PM

SSgt Richard Mikus — Sun, 20 Dec 2015 13:28:40 -0500

The people who served a 20 year plus career deserve the retirement plan. I only served 8 and it's only right that I didn't get a retirement check. The good thing is that I got my military service credited towards my Postal Service retirement.

Response by CPT Jack Durish made Dec 20 at 2015 1:31 PM

CPT Jack Durish — Sun, 20 Dec 2015 13:31:26 -0500

I didn't trust the new system when first announced. To be honest, I am skeptical of anything and everything emanating from this Administration. Then I thought of the fact that I might have benefited from it had it been in effect when I served. See. There's nothing like self-interest to make an idea appealing. As it is, my five plus years of active duty (plus five years inactive service) had no measurable effect on my retirement income (other than some minuscule contribution to my Social Security benefit). It is as though there is a void in my working life, a time during which my peers who didn't serve were in the job market, establishing careers, and earning pay and benefits. The bottom line is that for those who serve 20+ years on active duty, they will receive something akin to the same benefit. This system will benefit those who serve their nation honorably, but for some period less...

Response by Capt Private RallyPoint Member made Dec 20 at 2015 1:51 PM

Capt Private RallyPoint Member — Sun, 20 Dec 2015 13:51:21 -0500

The new plan offers more opportunities for service members. The 20 year benchmark to qualify for an annuity remains a key part of the retirement plan. The only change is the formula to calculate the amount you earn is no longer 2.5% of highest 3yr salary average x years of service.... It is now 2.0% x "high 3". In addition the TSP will be overhauled to resemble a more traditional 401k with the DoD providing matching funds. In fact. Simply enrolling in the new retirement plan guarantees the DoD will make a 1% contribution every pay period regardless of the service members contributions. This continues up to a total of 10% (from what I've seen) where the service member contributes only 5% and is matched that 5% by the DoD. just for some extra fun, the TSP will be transferable if you transition to a civilian job before your 20. The last change is the mid career bonus(retention bonus), where at 12 years you get a bonus based off pay grade in exchange for minimum 4 more years active duty.

Response by PO1 T.M. Ritchie made Dec 20 at 2015 2:03 PM

PO1 T.M. Ritchie — Sun, 20 Dec 2015 14:03:29 -0500

If Hillary Clinton gets elected there will be nobody enlisting anyway..Everybody can go to college for free and peace will reign upon the earth. Allah will be our God and we will all learn to speak Chinese.

Response by 1SG Private RallyPoint Member made Dec 20 at 2015 2:43 PM

1SG Private RallyPoint Member — Sun, 20 Dec 2015 14:43:59 -0500

I am a 22 year service soldier. I have been utilizing some sort of cash cumulative vehicle since I was 22. I am currently a Duel Status Techician for the Gaurd. I have TSP and FERS to assist in my goal of retiring at 55-57. Even if I put 10% in my TSP, still based on the market! This year alone hasn't been the best in investments! Going to be an eye opener for those who do not know much about investing for retirement. There will have to be classes and major training to get service members some knowledge on how and what to invest in to be able to retire!

Response by MAJ Joseph Ward made Dec 20 at 2015 2:54 PM

MAJ Joseph Ward — Sun, 20 Dec 2015 14:54:14 -0500

Just going to make it harder for them to get folks to stay in, where is the motivation? I had 11 active, and 10 reserve, but didn't have enough "good" reserve years to get retirement. Those Active Duty and Reservists who make a 20 year sacrifice or their safety, family life, sanity, health, and far more deserve a decent retirement in addition to thanks and respect!!

Response by SSG Private RallyPoint Member made Dec 20 at 2015 3:11 PM

SSG Private RallyPoint Member — Sun, 20 Dec 2015 15:11:43 -0500

This has me worried. Especially if Congress is the ones planning it

Response by MSgt Wayne Morris made Dec 20 at 2015 4:58 PM

MSgt Wayne Morris — Sun, 20 Dec 2015 16:58:09 -0500

Wow and stand by for shaky retention numbers. Who wants to stay in for 20 under the current mess, endless deployments and how are those 1-2% pay raises working out for you. Now you are to have to invest your pay in a stock market that crashes and burns periodically and the left spending like drunken sailors and looking for anyway possible to tax you on your money if you do make some. It now sets at 20% plus penalties if you withdraw early so enjoy the ride new folks.

Response by Sgt Kelli Mays made Dec 20 at 2015 6:36 PM

Sgt Kelli Mays — Sun, 20 Dec 2015 18:36:42 -0500

I completely DIS AGREE with this and think it's wrong....yet another thing that obama does to stick it to the military. The only way this will work for the Military is if they receive a SIGNIFICANT PAY RAISE...otherwise, it's going to be really difficult for most Military member to contribute...and the little amounts they do contribute won't add up to squat after 20 years...they'd have to stay in for 40 years. What a load of CROCK.
How about Obama voting for his retirement to be different...or the rest of the presidents....who only serve 4 of 8 years as opposed to the Military to serve at least 20 years....Not only do the presidents get 201000 per year, but they get all of these other perks... yet the Military gets a measly retirement pay and no real other benefits. UGH

Those who serve 20 or more should get at least 60% of what they were making at their time of retirement...not have to put money into thrift and build a retirement account...BOLOGNA! this is a load of crap

Travel Expenses.

Table 1. GSA Allowances for Former Presidents, FY2008 Enacted
Allowance Widows Carter Bush Clinton
Pension
7
$0 $191,000 $191,000 $201,000
Staff Salaries 0 96,000 96,000 96,000
Staff Benefits 0 2,000 64,000 65,000
Travel 0 2,000 56,000 50,000
Rental Payments 0 102,000 175,000 516,000
Telephone 0 10,000 17,000 79,000
Postage 12,000 15,000 13,000 15,000
Other Services 0 83,000 76,000 65,000
Printing 0 5,000 14,000 14,000
Supplies 0 5,000 15,000 26,000
Equipment 0 7,000 69,000 35,000
TOTAL
$12,000 $518,000 $786,000 $1,162,000

Response by SPC Private RallyPoint Member made Dec 20 at 2015 6:46 PM

SPC Private RallyPoint Member — Sun, 20 Dec 2015 18:46:03 -0500

Can't wait for Obama to get out of office. Hopefully the next president will repeal EVERYTHHNG he has done.

Response by SSG Private RallyPoint Member made Dec 20 at 2015 8:28 PM

SSG Private RallyPoint Member — Sun, 20 Dec 2015 20:28:04 -0500

These people in Congress are crazy! So glad I just retired in September 2015. They are going to make them really earn this retirement for sure and you better believe if they say they are going to give money towards a retirement for anyone the rules will become so stringent that it will be almost impossible to to make it to 20. Gotta hate congress for all the BS. Meanwhile their one term in congress guarantees them a fat check for doing nothing but spending our tax dollars.

Response by Maj Private RallyPoint Member made Dec 20 at 2015 10:24 PM

Maj Private RallyPoint Member — Sun, 20 Dec 2015 22:24:39 -0500

The current retirement system has been in place for decades. It was bound to change. I am thankful for my retirement. However, the new system may end of being better in the long run. Time will tell.

Response by SFC Private RallyPoint Member made Dec 20 at 2015 11:00 PM

SFC Private RallyPoint Member — Sun, 20 Dec 2015 23:00:53 -0500

Gee I wonder if this is as good of a sure thing as the "Affordable" Care Act was suppose to be which starting next year will be anything but affordable for the people who actually pay for it....

Response by MSG Daniel Hahn made Dec 20 at 2015 11:12 PM

MSG Daniel Hahn — Sun, 20 Dec 2015 23:12:17 -0500

Great idea, welcome the military to the 21st century. Now guys can get out at 10 and actually have something to show for it.

Response by CPT Private RallyPoint Member made Dec 21 at 2015 12:34 AM

CPT Private RallyPoint Member — Mon, 21 Dec 2015 00:34:12 -0500

Nothing Congress can develop that out weight the 20 years retirement plan. Every time civilian is involve in the future of the military the final decision is always in the best interest of the civilians and not the Soldiers.

Response by 1LT Bob Culver made Dec 21 at 2015 2:19 AM

1LT Bob Culver — Mon, 21 Dec 2015 02:19:05 -0500

Having served only a short period and been a civilian LE for 26 years without a defined 20 year retirement, but a 401K plan it is a mixed blessing. While serving say 19 years and failing to get promoted say and loosing your retirement,while rare, sucks! At least with this new system you don't leave with nothing if you stay under 20 and that can be rolled into another plan or supplement another plan. The down side, you will have to work more than 20 years and as with LE, a 30 year career is pretty tough mentally and physically for the average troop.

Response by SGT Frank Leonardo made Dec 21 at 2015 4:56 AM

SGT Frank Leonardo — Mon, 21 Dec 2015 04:56:06 -0500

Well for those who don't serve a life term in the service at least you put something away for the future. But personally I like the life term then pay me once I retire better.

Response by SrA Private RallyPoint Member made Dec 21 at 2015 5:43 AM

SrA Private RallyPoint Member — Mon, 21 Dec 2015 05:43:11 -0500

As someone who is still young and has a thrift saving account, I could see how this could maybe male me more money than traditional. However, I also don't know pretty much anyone within my age group that has a plan or even an understanding of how this stuff works. I slightly agree with it but I think those that do 20 should still get an extra something for their time.

Response by MCPO Harry Kantrovich made Dec 21 at 2015 6:13 AM

MCPO Harry Kantrovich — Mon, 21 Dec 2015 06:13:16 -0500

This is sad to see. The incentives for an all volunteer force are diminishing. Harry Kantrovich, CNOCM, USN(Ret)

Response by 1SG Gregory Campbell made Dec 21 at 2015 8:05 AM

1SG Gregory Campbell — Mon, 21 Dec 2015 08:05:51 -0500

This will directly result in joes who simply get "fed up" with their CoC to say "Screw it" and check out on a whim at 15-20 years.

Another ASININE decision made by folks who have NEVER served in the military.

In 2010, just under 20% of Congress served.... it's now under 10%.

UN-BE-LIEVABLE.

Response by PO1 Dave Jones made Dec 21 at 2015 8:26 AM

PO1 Dave Jones — Mon, 21 Dec 2015 08:26:26 -0500

As someone who retired yesterday, and is awaiting my paperwork I can only say I'm glad I got to this plateau before the rug was pulled out from under me. Sure seems weakening the military is the goal here. I'm with you guys maybe congress should have matching benefits with the military maybe they would think about us a bit more

Response by Col Joseph Lenertz made Dec 21 at 2015 9:06 AM

Col Joseph Lenertz — Mon, 21 Dec 2015 09:06:16 -0500

I think this will harm the military, and it will hit the AF and Navy hardest. The 20 year retirement is an incentive to stay in, particularly once you hit 14 years. The new system has no carrot to stay in, so after the service spends a great deal of money to build your education, skills and certifications, you bail for a better paying job on the outside. This will hurt retention, especially of the best and brightest. The argument that the current system only benefits one in five is specious because it does not recognize the value of the training received or of the voluntary nature of entering and (for most) leaving the service.

Response by MAJ Michael Sjostrom made Dec 21 at 2015 9:49 AM

MAJ Michael Sjostrom — Mon, 21 Dec 2015 09:49:30 -0500

This new plan is not good for anyone who serves a career! The present plan requires $0 input if one stays to 20 or more. One also begins to draw retired pay the following month after retirement. There are also cost of living adjustments built in and ist starts at 50%. Soldiers can already contribute as much as they wish to TSP (no matching contributions). The new plan reduceretirement by a minimum of 20+/- years as one cannot draw anything until at least age 60 and one must contribute at least 6% from the start to even get anywhere close to the same payout then (again, after surrendering 20 years of retirement pay). A second career usually does not start paying those personnel at the same rate they were being paid when they left service so their standard of living probably goes down. Add to this, the amount in retirement pay depends almost entirely upon how well they managed their TSP.

From the operational side, there is no financial incentive to remain for a career as their "retirement plan" becomes portable with the only real benefit of remaining to be continuing to collect the matching govt money. Not sure that is an incentive... Those for whom this plan is touted to be such a help are already struggling financially, but we now expect them to give up another 6%, or more, of their pay to fund their own retirement plan? Clearly not thought out to the logical conclusion. This is not a good plan for our military.

Response by SPC Robert Jecmen made Dec 21 at 2015 10:13 AM

SPC Robert Jecmen — Mon, 21 Dec 2015 10:13:41 -0500

With the way they keep phasing troops out, this might not be such a bad idea. When they give you the boot, at least you leave with something. Back in the 80's I saw a lot of 19 1/2 year Sgt. forced out due to a few extra lbs and got nothing. I didn't think that was fair either!

Response by SGT Larry Prentice made Dec 21 at 2015 10:16 AM

SGT Larry Prentice — Mon, 21 Dec 2015 10:16:20 -0500

Makes me glad I retired almost five years ago!!!

Response by SFC Bryson Amaral made Dec 21 at 2015 10:30 AM

SFC Bryson Amaral — Mon, 21 Dec 2015 10:30:11 -0500

I've got 12 years in..what does that mean us?

Response by SGT Private RallyPoint Member made Dec 21 at 2015 10:33 AM

SGT Private RallyPoint Member — Mon, 21 Dec 2015 10:33:50 -0500

That is such bullshit...if you give your life to this country lock, stock, and barrel and you fight the wars that your asked to fight then you should be taken care of...service to this country is not like working in a corporation and we should not do this.

Response by SSG Keith Cashion made Dec 21 at 2015 10:39 AM

SSG Keith Cashion — Mon, 21 Dec 2015 10:39:44 -0500

This is funny, I am sorry. You have apparently two SMs, that know nothing about the branches of service in which they serve. CMSgt. Pelletier was correct...the newer service members just need training and guidance on how to understand the new rules. But to answer PO1 Tony Brown's question about who or where the service members would get this training from is simple. Almost every branch of the service has people who are trained to give financial advise and help to service members....oh and it's Free. As an NCO PO1 Tony Brown should know how to assist his Sailors with these issues, by either directing them to Navy Fleet and Family, or if near the AF Bases the Airman and Family Readiness Center or even if near an Army Post, you can use the Army Community Services (ACS). All of these organizations have paid and volunteer staff that are there to assist Soldiers, Sailor, Airmen, Marines and their dependents, free of charge.

PO1 Tony Brown, if you are in a leadership position, you may need to check these things out, so if one of your Sailors needs help, you will be able to help them or guide them in the right direction. That is what a leader does.

SrA Joshua Illinos Harris, you apparently are not happy with what you decided to do in life. To begrudge someone who has dedicated 30 years of their life in service to this country, you decide swear at them. Wow...I guess respect, customs and courtesies was something you slept through in basic. But then again, Respect is taught in the home.

Half Nickel of the day.

Response by SFC Terry Murphy made Dec 21 at 2015 10:40 AM

SFC Terry Murphy — Mon, 21 Dec 2015 10:40:49 -0500

I am split on this. On one hand, I like the monthly check I get after 21 years of service. I always thought that the plan I had signed up for in 1983 was a good one. On the other hand, If I had the new plan and had enough money to buy a moderate home, mortgage free, and still have some money in the bank, I may be still looking a for a second career, but I wouldn't have a mortgage to worry about.
Even with the plan I have, I still have to have a second career, but I know that I have a check in the bank, every month, for the rest of my life.

Response by BG David Fleming III made Dec 21 at 2015 10:52 AM

BG David Fleming III — Mon, 21 Dec 2015 10:52:47 -0500

Your retirement is now linked to the market! Good Luck!!!

Response by SFC Michael Hasbun made Dec 21 at 2015 11:18 AM

SFC Michael Hasbun — Mon, 21 Dec 2015 11:18:12 -0500

I can see this being a great idea. Quite frankly I know quite a few senior NCO's and Officers who have no desire to be doing this anymore, but HAVE to stick around or they get nothing for the time they spent in. The all or nothing system ensures we have plenty of people who are basically "retirement slaves"...

Response by TSgt John Cohrone made Dec 21 at 2015 11:35 AM

TSgt John Cohrone — Mon, 21 Dec 2015 11:35:27 -0500

Just another step forward towards making the perfect business model out of our war machine. The AF has been trying to run themselves like a business for years, imagine that...they are completely screwed now. TSP was laughed at by those that we're near retirement for a good reason. Once they realize they are hommoraging money, it will go back and be adjusted and those that had put in will be burnt.

Response by TSgt Kenneth Ellis made Dec 21 at 2015 11:56 AM

TSgt Kenneth Ellis — Mon, 21 Dec 2015 11:56:30 -0500

Retiring fro the Air Force was the best thing I ever did. But what about the people who do not get promoted or are forced out due to mandatory cuts. And have invested 15 years. We need to do something for them. If you work for a private company you can move your 401k. But if you are in the military and leave before you your 20 you get nothing. I've been retired since 1995 so I don't know if anything else had changed.

Response by SFC Dr. Joseph Finck, BS, MA, DSS made Dec 21 at 2015 12:02 PM

SFC Dr. Joseph Finck, BS, MA, DSS — Mon, 21 Dec 2015 12:02:07 -0500

1SG Private RallyPoint Member I am pleased to be retired based on this turn of events. My question is what will be the long term impact to recruiting and retention? Many persons recognize the immense value of retiring from the military and remain in service to garner those benefits. With a reduction in these benefits, will there be a correlating reduction of enlistments and or retirements? It is much too soon to tell, but my gut tells me, whatever the results, it will not receive the attention it deserves.

Response by SSgt Cjoaquin Brodriguez made Dec 21 at 2015 12:15 PM

SSgt Cjoaquin Brodriguez — Mon, 21 Dec 2015 12:15:10 -0500

I'm not sure of the whole plan and how it works, but what I see happening is the govt. getting rid of the responsibility of having to guarantee the pensions to those who serve and leaving it to the investment market on wall street. I think you know how that will work just ask those people who had their pensions wipe out during a market downturn. Its sad to treat our servicemembers like they do and expect them to willinglingly serve.

Response by LCpl Private RallyPoint Member made Dec 21 at 2015 12:18 PM

LCpl Private RallyPoint Member — Mon, 21 Dec 2015 12:18:09 -0500

I think this is fantastic. As a service member early into my career, one of the things I have observed that I believe is a disservice to the military is the all or nothing approach to retirement. What happens to the Marine who serves honorably for 12, 13 years and then is forced out because of an injury? Sure, they may receive some disability, but they lose their retirement.

Response by SGT Private RallyPoint Member made Dec 21 at 2015 12:27 PM

SGT Private RallyPoint Member — Mon, 21 Dec 2015 12:27:12 -0500

If it ain't broke then don't try and fix it.

Response by SGT John Thomas made Dec 21 at 2015 12:58 PM

SGT John Thomas — Mon, 21 Dec 2015 12:58:49 -0500

I would support a tiered retirement plan where someone who has served at least 10 years can get some percentage at a certain age. I would make it 3 percent of your highest base pay per year of service starting at 10 years of service but you can't start collecting until age 60. If you serve 20 years or more you start collecting the day after you retire regardless of your age.

Response by SCPO Jack East made Dec 21 at 2015 1:04 PM

SCPO Jack East — Mon, 21 Dec 2015 13:04:03 -0500

I am retired from the military and working for the federal government, yes the 20 year retirement program is great, and it should remain in place but there are some that do not get to finish 20 years for what ever reason, the 401k program with the 1 or 4 % match is a great program for those that choose not to complete the 20 program. Yes the training should be in place in all services, senior leadership should know and teach how the programs work and support the well rounded service members. I worked the TSP program when I was on active duty and I get call from the sailors that started and are still in the program. Some stayed in until retirement some did not but that nest egg has grown for the past 15 or so years to a sizable amount for most. We the leaders should explain this in a way they understand and put the funds in a L fund for life, instead of just in the G fund and forget about it for their entire career. Most would be set for a very long time, if they stuck to a plan.

Response by PO1 Glenn Boucher made Dec 21 at 2015 1:35 PM

PO1 Glenn Boucher — Mon, 21 Dec 2015 13:35:00 -0500

I think that this will be a hit or miss type of retirement plan.
Not everyone is a financial whiz and really understands all the rules and regulations for early withdrawl or how to invest for the maximum gain. And with any type of 401(k) I believe that there is a penalty for disbursement before age 59-1/2 years. So if you retire at 20 years and your age 38 your still waiting 21-1/2 years before you can draw anything without penalty.
I just don't know without really sitting an researching a ton of information on this whether its going to be beneficial or a flop.
I want to be very optimistic and think that its going to work out well as our service members give more than our politicians realize for the little reward.

Response by CPT John Vanzandt made Dec 21 at 2015 2:40 PM

CPT John Vanzandt — Mon, 21 Dec 2015 14:40:38 -0500

Not sure I like either system that much! As someone who got RIF'ed with 19 years on the books, I see problems with the 20 or nothing approach; however, I definitely would like to see a 20 and out full retirement remaining.

Response by 1LT Private RallyPoint Member made Dec 21 at 2015 3:47 PM

1LT Private RallyPoint Member — Mon, 21 Dec 2015 15:47:29 -0500

I didn't sign up for the money/benefits...I signed up for the honor of wearing the uniform, that means more than anyone will know or could pay me.

Response by CMSgt Steve Hogan made Dec 21 at 2015 4:03 PM

CMSgt Steve Hogan — Mon, 21 Dec 2015 16:03:08 -0500

Talk with civil service retirees who retired under CSRS and FERS and ask which they'd rather have. The old system, CSRS, will win hands down. I am retired military and civil service (FERS), trust me when I tell you that the government didn't transition to FERS for the benefit of the employee. It was strictly a dollars and cents issue for Uncle Sam.

Response by TSgt Manuel Perez made Dec 21 at 2015 6:18 PM

TSgt Manuel Perez — Mon, 21 Dec 2015 18:18:37 -0500

I am a retired military member going on 15 years, the last time they this this plan military personnel left the armed forces, if they looking for a RIF they are on the right track

Response by SGT Rick Ash made Dec 21 at 2015 8:34 PM

SGT Rick Ash — Mon, 21 Dec 2015 20:34:41 -0500

I think the 2018 changes suck. The 20 year retirement required a huge personal commitment and the monthly payments are only a small payback. For twenty years you also pay tax in most states plus F.I.C.A. If Obama hadn't cleaned out Social Security and Medicare we wouldn't be in this thread now....
Thanks,
Rick

Response by TSgt Maria O'Sullivan made Dec 21 at 2015 8:39 PM

TSgt Maria O'Sullivan — Mon, 21 Dec 2015 20:39:42 -0500

Just Happy I retired under President George W. Bush!!!

Response by SGM Private RallyPoint Member made Dec 21 at 2015 9:07 PM

SGM Private RallyPoint Member — Mon, 21 Dec 2015 21:07:35 -0500

Fortunately I transferred to the Retired Reserve earlier this year. But I think the real question will be how this affects recruiting and retention. Time will tell.

On the other hand, the Army and probably all the services needs to update from the military, which has basically been unchanged since WWII, i.e. when enlisted people had a 6th grade education and NCOs often had no better than 8th grade (my Dad's Army.) For example, I have a BS degree in Computer Science and about 14 years experience with Unix and Linux. I am about as qualified to be a 251A Warrant Officer and anyone currently serving. But that's not open to E-9s, especially E-9's with permanent profiles from 82 parachute jumps and 15 years in the Infantry.

So I'm out, and what job did I get? I'm a contractor, training 251As and my company is getting about 4 times what the Army would be paying me if I were still in uniform. I don't suppose I should complain. Paid off my house 2 years ago, and have a fair amount saved up for retirement. It still seems to me that the Army could have made a better and more cost-effective decision.

Response by PO2 Philip Clarkson made Dec 21 at 2015 9:18 PM

PO2 Philip Clarkson — Mon, 21 Dec 2015 21:18:25 -0500

This administration is turning the military retirement into a 401k. So what will happen when the market crashes our brothers and sister can lose it all. We all put in our blood sweat and tears and everyone that makes it to 20+ years look at that pay as a little relief and I think it's sad that we aren't being treated so poorly.

Response by SFC Charles Rice made Dec 21 at 2015 9:46 PM

SFC Charles Rice — Mon, 21 Dec 2015 21:46:32 -0500

Would this new plan have an effect on the Guard and Reserve retirement plan? Already retired from guard and waiting on 60. Sounds a lot like my civil service retirement plan.

Response by SCPO Private RallyPoint Member made Dec 21 at 2015 10:50 PM

SCPO Private RallyPoint Member — Mon, 21 Dec 2015 22:50:13 -0500

Republican controlled house and senate threw that bill up.

Response by COL Charles Williams made Dec 21 at 2015 11:29 PM

COL Charles Williams — Mon, 21 Dec 2015 23:29:08 -0500

I don't like it. But, the word is the new plan will be better for 20 year (+) retirees, and especially for those who leave before 20.

Response by TSgt Jackie Jones made Dec 22 at 2015 12:02 AM

TSgt Jackie Jones — Tue, 22 Dec 2015 00:02:31 -0500

While I do not like the new idea of the 20 year retirements, the idea that someone who served their time could get something, is acceptable... I served 12 years. Left to raise a family. Started over in a civilian career, from the bottom, with co-workers 14-15 years my junior! They will be better off when they retire than I will be... It's all so complicated and never a simple answer.

Response by 1SG David Lopez made Dec 22 at 2015 12:19 AM

1SG David Lopez — Tue, 22 Dec 2015 00:19:41 -0500

I think that Congress / the Senate / and the President should by law, be forced to the same changes to pay/benefits/retirement as for Servicemen/women. I bet they would think twice about cutting pay/benefits/and retirement plans. Let's voice this to our law makers (aka representatives).

Response by CSM Private RallyPoint Member made Dec 22 at 2015 1:44 AM

CSM Private RallyPoint Member — Tue, 22 Dec 2015 01:44:08 -0500

It's rare that things are changed in the favor of the Soldier... Let's face it, they didn't design this to waste money and widen the budget. Most Seniors lived it themselves and it's still prevalent today where Soldiers simply do not save. When I first joined, we had financial advisors address savings, life insurance, annuities, and a lot of other things I had no clue what were. Oddly enough, I put a few dollars into it, but nothing really worth drawing on anytime soon. I think the new plan is going to be challenging and I'm curious to see how it'll play out with retention. The good news is it appears if you are savvy enough sock some money away and get your education and experience from the military, then this may be the perfect opportunity for NCOs to jump ship and find a better paying job after only 8-12 years...

Response by MSG Private RallyPoint Member made Dec 22 at 2015 5:43 AM

MSG Private RallyPoint Member — Tue, 22 Dec 2015 05:43:22 -0500

Congress put this plan in effect knowing that Soldiers will not use it to it's full potential. Did everyone forget about the REDUX. REDUX preyed on Soldiers that were in financial hardship, most have nothing to show for $30,000 (in combat zone) or $22,500 (after taxes). Congress is not here to help Soldiers and family members. If they are why did they take away free dental for family members, why did they take away free medical from retirement. When I joined a lot was told to me that I would have if I stayed 20 years and served my Country. Congress still has the same retirement.

Ok now lets get on this new retirement plan. Congress is preying on Soldiers again to benefit them again. Soldiers can't manage their money now, and if you think this new retirement plan is going to help. The ones that are making these decisions have never served or if they did, it was for a few years. You can counsel Soldiers all day but they still go out do stupid things. How many times has a Soldier been counseled (mostly verbal) not to drink and drive and they still go out there and get a DUI.

The Army will change in a bad way because of this new retirement. A lot will get out sooner because they will realize that didn't manage their retirement well and decide the real world is better. The Officer side of the house is going to be worst. You can't compare 20 years of service to 20 years working in the real world. Lets take congress away for a year and have their love ones waiting for a phone call and worrying about if they are coming home again.

Response by PO1 Raymond Fuller made Dec 22 at 2015 7:07 AM

PO1 Raymond Fuller — Tue, 22 Dec 2015 07:07:20 -0500

That is b.s. I feel 20 years you have serve you country well. Maybe he needs to sign an executive order that none of them corrupt politicians receive a check for life after they serve their 2 years or so

Response by Barry Davidson made Dec 22 at 2015 7:58 AM

Barry Davidson — Tue, 22 Dec 2015 07:58:57 -0500

I was not allowed to serve, but I was a military brat. My father put in his 20. Retiring as an E5 doesn't make one rich, and the changes to Tricare just about every year doesn't make a retired soldier healthy.

I've been reading through the comments for a little over an hour now, and there are questions I haven't seen asked - or even brought up for that matter. What happens if you do get out before 20? Sounds weird, but hear me out.

In the civilian would there are many companies who have retirement plans. While with that company the contributions are usually manageable. However, if you leave that company before full retirement age you get a letter in the mail a few months later. That letter basically says that you either need to roll it into another account, cash it out, or we'll continue to manage it for a fee. The fees are usually such that it's impractical to leave the money sitting - unless you've got a few hundred-thousand laying around. Even then, without active contributions the interest just pays the "management/service/administrative" fees.

I've seen the federal employee name thrown around a bit here. While most of them make more than enlisted and many officers (I'm talking the boots on the ground here soldiers - not the REMF's.) In order to get full retirement they have to do a minimum of 30 years. Well, what they call full retirement which usually amounts to about 1/3 of their base pay, and you still can't touch the TSP/401k until full retirement age. Depending on where you live at retirement, even 40k a year would be stretching things if you have a family and mortgage. Changes made in the last couple of decades makes retirement before full retirement age a risky proposition if you have a family and kids to get through college. Don't get me started on the ACA and premiums as you all with Tricare know it even more than most.

Another question lightly hinted at in this forum is, "How does this effect the 'up or out' policy the military has been following since before the PC witch hunts of the 90's?" How many are actually classified as critical in grade?

(As for the comments that said something about retirement pay, as stands, has and effect on procurement, etc. I have two words to say - the first one is bull, and I'll give you three guesses as to the second. Sorry, but use it or lose it budgets, multi-billion dollar unneeded aircraft, and tanks the Army doesn't want put the lie to that.)

Sorry to you real soldiers for going on and on here. It's just that I've seen the military screwed over time and again over the years. I've had to watch as base hospitals close, and my father has to look farther and farther afield to get any care for my mother. I could go on, but you all know the realities.

Response by CPO Lenny Orth made Dec 22 at 2015 8:02 AM

CPO Lenny Orth — Tue, 22 Dec 2015 08:02:19 -0500

Eroding compensation is what you can expect for the militaries blind allegiance to the Republican Party. What will be removed next to ensure we can buy more tanks, planes and ships we don't actually need?

Response by MSgt Michael Smith made Dec 22 at 2015 9:12 AM

MSgt Michael Smith — Tue, 22 Dec 2015 09:12:46 -0500

Personally, I think there are good and bad parts of this plan. What it in essence does is put an enormous amount of responsibility on young military members, and I think that is bad. There were many times in my career that I wanted to leave. Facing numerous deployments, bad assignments, and burnout are a few. But that promised retirement kept me going to sail past 20. Now, that is no longer a carrot. You can get out any time and still get something. Personally I think that is dangerous for young people who are not thinking about the potential financial impacts down the road.

Response by MSG Guy Bouthillier made Dec 22 at 2015 10:04 AM

MSG Guy Bouthillier — Tue, 22 Dec 2015 10:04:37 -0500

Let's see your the president for 4-8 years and get retirement for life. I think congess is the same. Spend twenty years in the military and getting deployed for war and you don't get retirement that's a bunch of crock.

Response by LTC Private RallyPoint Member made Dec 22 at 2015 10:50 AM

LTC Private RallyPoint Member — Tue, 22 Dec 2015 10:50:23 -0500

The crux of the issue is that while the new benefits look nice on the surface, and TSP matching is a decent thing, it actually hurts junior officers and enlisted.

There is no way a PFC with three kids is going to be able to put away a significant amount of retirement cash in their early careers. In fact, that would be a fairly tough thing to do for anyone with kids, even on the officer side.

TSP is always an election. You choose the percentage you want. That's great that the government is finally willing to match. They always should have. But what good is matching 1% of $2000 going to do? That's even if a Soldier can even afford that.

This, in my opinion, is one more thing to drive retention down and cut ranks. You serve your twenty, you deserve your salary. It was 50% for my dad who retired in 1990. I think today's active duty deserves no less.

Response by CW3 Michael Hamlin made Dec 22 at 2015 10:59 AM

CW3 Michael Hamlin — Tue, 22 Dec 2015 10:59:03 -0500

We really don't retire, but change status.

Wonder if congress is adopting something like this for themselves??

Response by Cpl Private RallyPoint Member made Dec 22 at 2015 11:13 AM

Cpl Private RallyPoint Member — Tue, 22 Dec 2015 11:13:03 -0500

They should start with the congressional benefits/retirement before they touch military retirement.

Response by Maj Private RallyPoint Member made Dec 22 at 2015 11:40 AM

Maj Private RallyPoint Member — Tue, 22 Dec 2015 11:40:43 -0500

If there is no fixed retirement at 20 years, I can no longer recommend making the military a career. If you want to do one tour to get the GI Bill, that makes sense, but doing 20 years is really no longer viable. Once the military gives you job skills and/or money for education, there is really no reason to stick around. In fact, if you have a valuable job skill, you will be losing money every year you stay in past your initial service. The opportunity cost of a military career is now too high to be feasible.

Response by SSgt Private RallyPoint Member made Dec 22 at 2015 12:08 PM

SSgt Private RallyPoint Member — Tue, 22 Dec 2015 12:08:19 -0500

I think it is about time for the military to catch up with the standards of 2015 and not pre-1974. The Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA) was the law that changed retirement from a defined benefit (DB) to a defined contribution (DC). In short, it benefits the employer. In this case, our government, and eventually to the tax payer (all of us). Granted, that is a whole other conversation.

I get the 20 years of service and writing the "blank check" for our country. I come from a long family history of military service, both grandfathers, my dad, my mom, brothers, cousins, nephews and nieces. We are a military family like everyone else in RP. I get it.

However, the debate remains on what is best for the member OR our government in regards to military retirement. I have not read the new law, so I cannot speak to the details. I have read the CRS report on Retirement Benefits for Members of Congress (July 2015). http://www.senate.gov/CRSReports/crs-publish.cfm?pid=%270E%2C%2APLC8%22%40%20%20%0A

The key to post-2018 military members is education...period. They MUST be aware that the DB days are gone and we (they) are now in a DC world. Your retirement is what you build.

What is getting lost in the discussion is the Federal Employees Retirement System (FERS) of 1987 as been around for nearly 30 years (law was passed in 1986). The FERS is what created the Thrift Savings Plan (TSP) or basically a federal 401k (a DC product, not a DB product). We (military members) have been living under that law and this 2018 change is just now catching up and folks are getting upset?

It get's back to education, not the "Well, this is what the Chief said or the Colonel said" mentality. My dad severed 35 years and retired a CSM. He always told me to respect authority, but to question their methods, including his. His point was to always be looking to improve the process for the greater good.

The entire system needs to be educated now to current and future members. It will be vital that true and accurate information come from the top down and laterally so members can and must educate one another on the new system.

If we are to look out for our wing-man, then this is another part of the process.

MË{9dõw2ÖÁ^kK74-Ûqëjø:@ !!Ý endstream endobj 97 0 obj endobj 98 0 obj endobj 99 0 obj /ColorSpace/Font/ProcSet[/PDF/Text/ImageC/ImageI]/ExtGState endobj 100 0 obj [/Indexed 106 0 R 255 116 0 R] endobj 101 0 obj [/Indexed 106 0 R 255 118 0 R] endobj 102 0 obj endobj 103 0 obj stream hÞtSMoÛ0ëWð(*êÓ:í0Û5CCf(ÆAíAÿý(Éq6Åøé'0 C1FðÖJÝ"ÖÉèAÃØwÙÅÇ{ÝÌG .4^¶ÐHTtkq¿g7{ëûFÓ? x%ðJúÿÃ{þ Ú]ÑÏU»è: ÝµRYåFÁXÈm QEèäjöÐÏtDØt^æ~dºßNè~gd[ eÏ!"{J*ÙûZé¶äKV»h$úÚXÈ...

Response by LCDR Nicholas Milano, MSOM made Dec 22 at 2015 12:08 PM

LCDR Nicholas Milano, MSOM — Tue, 22 Dec 2015 12:08:54 -0500

Funny how Senators and Congressmen get a full retirement (100%) after just six years.

Response by SGT Private RallyPoint Member made Dec 22 at 2015 1:51 PM

SGT Private RallyPoint Member — Tue, 22 Dec 2015 13:51:27 -0500

Basically just setting up another fund for them to pull money out of. Just like social security.

Response by PO1 Rick Duff made Dec 22 at 2015 1:59 PM

PO1 Rick Duff — Tue, 22 Dec 2015 13:59:37 -0500

When a nation turns its back on its warriors, it is subjected to a change in management and official language....

Response by SFC Thomas Howes made Dec 22 at 2015 2:06 PM

SFC Thomas Howes — Tue, 22 Dec 2015 14:06:05 -0500

That is bull shit

Response by MCPO Michael Buechel made Dec 22 at 2015 4:12 PM

MCPO Michael Buechel — Tue, 22 Dec 2015 16:12:02 -0500

Retention will suffer eventually.

Response by CPT Pedro Meza made Dec 22 at 2015 5:20 PM

CPT Pedro Meza — Tue, 22 Dec 2015 17:20:46 -0500

Good question and why the down votes? This has been in the works with the new congress that looked for ways of passing business to their benefactors under the excuse of saving tax money, and Social Security next.

Response by MSgt Private RallyPoint Member made Dec 22 at 2015 5:58 PM

MSgt Private RallyPoint Member — Tue, 22 Dec 2015 17:58:52 -0500

"The new system is expected to give roughly four in five svc members some sort of retirement benefit when they leave the military as opposed to the current system which benefits only one in five". Yeah - the one out of five that STAY IN! They're going to get rid of that just so that those who put 2 years in get "a little something"? Sounds a lot to me like we're watering down what few who are truly committed rightfully earn just so that most who aren't get a free education and a "little something" extra. Sounds a lot like our terrific welfare program. Instead of something majorly impactful, we're going to give everyone something truly mediocre. And while life expectancy increases, you can bet your bottom dollar this isn't going to protect the service member's best interests anymore. Plus, we'll probably have fewer stay in, a weakening tenure - which will equate to weakening experience due to higher turnover and an overall weaker force. Lovely. Brilliant. God Bless THE OLD America.

Response by CPT John M. O'Connor made Dec 22 at 2015 6:12 PM

CPT John M. O'Connor — Tue, 22 Dec 2015 18:12:04 -0500

To me the military world leads the civilian world in a lot of ways. But this is just simply the financial reality. I would like to see more from RallyPoint members on this post.

Response by SSG (ret) William Martin made Dec 22 at 2015 7:36 PM

SSG (ret) William Martin — Tue, 22 Dec 2015 19:36:15 -0500

Whether the new plan is liked or not, the military can not take away your mutual fund or your TSP because you did something that warranted a separation from the service. Think about it, a 19 year service member is kick out of the military but he or she has planned for the past 15 years and invested in the TSP and the mutual fund.

Response by GySgt Moses Lozano made Dec 22 at 2015 8:36 PM

GySgt Moses Lozano — Tue, 22 Dec 2015 20:36:09 -0500

What a shame. Now let's petition the government to do away with the pension plan legislators get for a savings plan also!

Response by Cpl Brooks Wood made Dec 22 at 2015 9:09 PM

Cpl Brooks Wood — Tue, 22 Dec 2015 21:09:14 -0500

The 20 year all or nothing is a pension. You get it for as long as you live. (No matter how long). This new plan is like a 401k. Once you use up the money YOU were able to save, your done.
I hope they will at least continue health/dental benifits. Then again, they can not even take care of our returning men and women.

Response by 2ndLt Mario D made Dec 22 at 2015 10:16 PM

2ndLt Mario D — Tue, 22 Dec 2015 22:16:46 -0500

It forces them to invest leaving them with less take home cash. Also puts them in volatile markets with the little they have. Risk your life for a government 401k?

Response by SSgt Theo Mc made Dec 22 at 2015 10:54 PM

SSgt Theo Mc — Tue, 22 Dec 2015 22:54:46 -0500

Stab in the back by the GOP, most of whom who have never served this country- outside of sitting in office and not doing their jobs... It'll be interesting to see the impact of this and what it really entails...

Response by SCPO John Dedon made Dec 22 at 2015 11:08 PM

SCPO John Dedon — Tue, 22 Dec 2015 23:08:53 -0500

Not sure unless she details but if it's good enough for military every federal employee should be under same plan!

Response by GySgt Private RallyPoint Member made Dec 23 at 2015 12:42 AM

GySgt Private RallyPoint Member — Wed, 23 Dec 2015 00:42:08 -0500

Maybe the idiot politicians in Washington should take a vote to overhaul their own retirement pensions before coming after the military. As long as those greedy bastards are getting paid for life for "serving" a few measly years, they could care less about screwing over their fellow Americans.

Response by PO1 Dre Peterson made Dec 23 at 2015 1:23 AM

PO1 Dre Peterson — Wed, 23 Dec 2015 01:23:13 -0500

Retention is going to suffer greatly due to this change.. so it's going to be interesting to see what our military force looks like after this time.

Response by CPO Private RallyPoint Member made Dec 23 at 2015 1:49 AM

CPO Private RallyPoint Member — Wed, 23 Dec 2015 01:49:20 -0500

What they forgot to mention in the article is that it's not available to draw until you reach "retirement age". So basically the new folks will be giving the government a loan up to and including all of the money they put into it and hope that it's still there when they need it. Paul Ryan can stick this where the sun doesn't shine. I hope to god a conservative gets into office and throws this in the trash where it belongs. People who don't stay twenty should invest in tsp or whatever they deem acceptable as a long term savings. If they're not planning on making the military a career (20 plus years) then they shouldn't expect to get a military retirement. Just another liberal entitlement scam!!!

Response by Sgt Private RallyPoint Member made Dec 23 at 2015 4:52 AM

Sgt Private RallyPoint Member — Wed, 23 Dec 2015 04:52:46 -0500

Even though there's plenty out there who will be afraid of this, it's a good thing. Now instead of getting out at 10 and "wasting" 10 years, you could at least have a small nest egg (that you didn't have to build all by yourself) to show for your time.

Response by SSG Mike Angelo made Dec 23 at 2015 7:34 AM

SSG Mike Angelo — Wed, 23 Dec 2015 07:34:10 -0500

20 year retirement is military tradition, from promises of a different era. Now pragmatic progressiveness has made its way into our DFAS pay system, hence another broken promise.

Response by SFC William Farrell made Dec 23 at 2015 8:00 AM

SFC William Farrell — Wed, 23 Dec 2015 08:00:06 -0500

Apparently this is touchy conversation as I don't think i have seen more down votes than i have here by different people and some more so. This is just the icing on the cake as they have been slowly whittling away at our pensions in one way or another for years.

Response by LCpl Milton Morales made Dec 23 at 2015 8:34 AM

LCpl Milton Morales — Wed, 23 Dec 2015 08:34:39 -0500

New age, New Ideas, give it a chance it might be better than the old system. Nothing last for ever!

Response by SCPO Jason McLaughlin made Dec 23 at 2015 8:57 AM

SCPO Jason McLaughlin — Wed, 23 Dec 2015 08:57:52 -0500

As a small aside, how are they going to guarantee that members have access to their accounts so they can make the adjustments they need. Being deployed is not conducive to internet access. From my experience shipboard internet access is spotty at best, and if you are on one of the smaller ships, it is almost non-existent. What happens when someone loses a large portion of their retirement account because they did not have access to market reports, internet, etc. during a deployment?

Response by SSgt Steven Dellinger made Dec 23 at 2015 9:43 AM

SSgt Steven Dellinger — Wed, 23 Dec 2015 09:43:20 -0500

If this is the way it's going to be then government employees should have to also go 30 years. Not 8 years.

Response by PO2 Wayne Neva made Dec 23 at 2015 10:15 AM

PO2 Wayne Neva — Wed, 23 Dec 2015 10:15:46 -0500

A chance to get into the TSP is great. Not sure how the pension thing will work.

Response by GySgt Private RallyPoint Member made Dec 23 at 2015 12:46 PM

GySgt Private RallyPoint Member — Wed, 23 Dec 2015 12:46:05 -0500

Seems to me like a lot of smoke and mirrors to save money. Yes there is the potential to get more former servicemen some sort of "retirement", Yes retirees will have the potential to get more money after they retire....................unless of course the market tanks.

Response by Cpl Joseph Dowdy made Dec 23 at 2015 2:08 PM

Cpl Joseph Dowdy — Wed, 23 Dec 2015 14:08:12 -0500

Holy crap, why don't they give the troops a choice? I know that Republicans are all about getting rid of Social Security which is almost the only thing that many people have when they retire, but why force this sort of "invest or suck it" policy?

Response by SGT Tiffany Watson made Dec 23 at 2015 2:28 PM

SGT Tiffany Watson — Wed, 23 Dec 2015 14:28:20 -0500

I'd think it is time to reform the congress retirement plan!

Response by SFC Steven Wheeler made Dec 23 at 2015 2:44 PM

SFC Steven Wheeler — Wed, 23 Dec 2015 14:44:09 -0500

So, basically it will be up to the service members to fund their own retirement.

Response by PO1 Steven Ewing made Dec 23 at 2015 2:45 PM

PO1 Steven Ewing — Wed, 23 Dec 2015 14:45:05 -0500

As I understand current Federal law concerning the obligation of past service members after the initial enlistment all who serve were "on the hook" and subject to recall to active duty for 6 years after the date of first enlistment (example: after 4 years active duty, discharged to civilian life a soldier, sailor, airman, marine was "transferred" to the inactive reserve and subject to recall to active duty in case of a national emergency for 2 years after the date of discharge from active duty). Under the current retirement plan soldiers, sailors, airmen, marines "retiring" after 20 years, to what we in the Navy called the Fleet Reserve, were actually being paid "retainer pay" and are subject to recall to active duty for the next 10 years at the "need of the service" or a national emergency may dictate. It is only after 30 years that anyone was considered completely retired.

So with this change will there still be a "Fleet Reserve" or all those senior Officers, WOs, and NCOs just permanently lost if they leave the service after 20 years?

Response by PO1 Joseph Frazier made Dec 23 at 2015 4:52 PM

PO1 Joseph Frazier — Wed, 23 Dec 2015 16:52:16 -0500

I will need to read more on this, but what I understand from this post is instead of just those Retiring after 20 or more years of service getting retirement everyone who has served will get something for their service as long as they contribute to a pension fund. I served 11 years and will NOT get any Retirement from the government or military. If this works, could be good for ALL who come after 2018.

Response by LTC Private RallyPoint Member made Dec 23 at 2015 6:07 PM

LTC Private RallyPoint Member — Wed, 23 Dec 2015 18:07:31 -0500

Make no mistake this is a cost cutting move by the Pentagon. Note: Pentagon had a COA on the table last year to give each retiring Soldier each 1 million and have them walk away with no medical benefits or future pay. HQDA G8 figured out Pentagon would come out ahead. Only 17% Soldiers make it to retirement. If you do you are considered a millionaire because of all the money and benefits due you for the rest of your life.

Response by SFC Christian Garcia made Dec 23 at 2015 6:18 PM

SFC Christian Garcia — Wed, 23 Dec 2015 18:18:12 -0500

So do people who join before 2017 get the old retirement system? I just wasn't clear on that.

Response by SMSgt Corey Zimmermann made Dec 23 at 2015 6:21 PM

SMSgt Corey Zimmermann — Wed, 23 Dec 2015 18:21:01 -0500

If I could offer the following thoughts:
This is a mixed bag.
On the plus side: as has been pointed out, service members completing less than 20 years will now have had the option to contribute to a retirement plan that THEY OWN and which is not under the control of the government. Yes, the investments will fluctuate, and there will almost certainly be another market correction like we experienced in the last decade. HOWEVER, the market will almost certainly recover (and if it doesn't, I hope you've stocked up on MRE's and ammo). The thought of the market tanking when the service member separates is really a moot point - they won't have access to the funds for another 15 years or so unless they're willing to pay a 10% penalty over and above the income tax they'll owe. There is always the chance that the market will dip when they retire sometime after 59 1/2, but this risk is easily alleviated by moving into more conservative investments and by using strategies like "bond laddering" as they get closer to their target retirement date. Also, the need to have immediate access to your accounts (such as while the member is deployed) isn't really valid either. It's generally accepted that moving your money from one investment to another repeatedly to "time the market" is best left to sophisticated investors, and that's what the mutual fund managers get paid for.
All this means that a service member who separates at 10, 15 or 19 years now could have a nestegg to roll over to a civilian IRA and continue to build upon. HOPEFULLY, since the removal of a defined pension will in effect be reducing the total compensation package to service member, we can look forward to a corresponding increase in base pay. (Got your fingers crossed?) As was also previously pointed out the TSP currently matches to member's contributions. Although I haven't studied a comparison of the potential reward of an average member's contribution, with an average return of 6% (the S&P 500's average from 1928 to 2014 was roughly 10%) to the departing pension plan, I think a smart member could come out way ahead on the new deal.

On the minus (and this is potentially a big one): it will obviously be on the service member to make the decision to forego the new car and invest in their future. It's unfortunate, but I think this will mirror the civilian sector for our younger folks. A very small minority of Americans start worrying about their retirements in their 20's, and a USnews article I read said that the median savings in the late 20's is only $5,000. However, if they ARE smart about it, there are already financial advisors available to help them make their decisions.
Another point here is that there is typically a serious state of flux for service members who are entering the civilian workforce. We can all agree that military service is a character builder, but there isn't much call for Infantry or Aircraft Armaments (etc) on the outside. The current pension plan is indispensable to bridge that gap in income while the 20-year retiring member transitions to their second career at age 38 or so. That being said, an infantryman separating at 15 years doesn't get shinola now, does he?

One last note: Another item that has been pointed out is that the carrot of a pension at 20 years will be removed and retention will suffer. This could be a good thing, since the government will now need to find new incentives to retain members. I could have rose colored glasses on, but this might be a win/win for everybody.

Sorry, this apparently got a little long-winded. :)

Response by GySgt John Crane made Dec 23 at 2015 7:06 PM

GySgt John Crane — Wed, 23 Dec 2015 19:06:15 -0500

WTF??? but we have money for Muslims to invade our Country through the refugee program?

Response by SSgt Robert Catanzano made Dec 23 at 2015 7:20 PM

SSgt Robert Catanzano — Wed, 23 Dec 2015 19:20:27 -0500

Why is it every time the government wants to save money it is on the backs of the military? They should look at their own retirement plan and that of the president and other senior government positions. Either that or the next time they need boots on the ground, let them join us. They seem to give no thought to the time we give and how we leave our families with no idea of what we are going through. Well that is how I feel, lets see how you all feel.

Response by LTC Stephen Carty made Dec 23 at 2015 7:31 PM

LTC Stephen Carty — Wed, 23 Dec 2015 19:31:22 -0500

I am s LYTLE disappointed but If it is as competitive as our private sector with a generous matching contribution, it could be significant. Also soldiers could borrow against it if needed.

Response by Capt Private RallyPoint Member made Dec 23 at 2015 7:40 PM

Capt Private RallyPoint Member — Wed, 23 Dec 2015 19:40:31 -0500

We stand together on our soil and across the globe, we need to stand together once more against this hack-job law. Politicians have forgotten they represent the citizens.

Military retirement should be untouchable. Politicians shouldn't get a lifetime retirement after a single election period. Don't forget the power we have in our present and former ranks...

Response by CW5 Private RallyPoint Member made Dec 23 at 2015 7:42 PM

CW5 Private RallyPoint Member — Wed, 23 Dec 2015 19:42:56 -0500

I say something's gotta give, and this is one of the military benefits that's "giving." Thankfully they will grandfather folks. New troops will have to decide if it's worth it to make the military a career.

Response by LCDR Private RallyPoint Member made Dec 23 at 2015 8:41 PM

LCDR Private RallyPoint Member — Wed, 23 Dec 2015 20:41:37 -0500

I don't know the details of the plan, but it sounds like it might be an improvement. I have always wondered why the military is the only retirement program in which you are zero percent vested until 20 years. Almost every other company with a retirement plan has some investment by the company at 5 or so years.

Response by Darryl Johnson made Dec 23 at 2015 9:45 PM

Darryl Johnson — Wed, 23 Dec 2015 21:45:27 -0500

Government at all levels is learning that the traditional pension plan is unsustainable. With life expectancies reaching into the 70s, budgets at the federal, state, and local level can't continue paying benefits to retirees for 30-40 years after just 20 years of service. I'm a state government employee in Michigan, and the state did away with the traditional pension plan 17 or 18 years ago. Moving to a savings plan has benefits for the retiree. You can contribute and get employer matching contributions, and then leave employment fully vested, long before serving 20 years. Also, the money is yours so you can leave it to your spouse and children. The benefit to the government is that it knows its costs going in: it makes the matching contribution, and then any growth depends upon growth in the financial markets. An example of the long-term consequences of pensions can be seen in Detroit. They have $3.5 billion dollars in unfunded pension liabilities, for a city of about 730,000 people. Within their retirement system, 39% of participants are employees paying into the system, and 61% are people drawing their retirement out.

Response by PO2 Michael Henry made Dec 23 at 2015 9:46 PM

PO2 Michael Henry — Wed, 23 Dec 2015 21:46:17 -0500

Better than nothing, however what happens to the 5th person in 5.

Response by SCPO Charles Thomas "Tom" Canterbury made Dec 23 at 2015 10:28 PM

SCPO Charles Thomas "Tom" Canterbury — Wed, 23 Dec 2015 22:28:19 -0500

While I don't like the changes, I can see how it would be nice for someone who decides after six years of service that the military life isn't for them to have a small something to roll over into a civilian retirement plan. Having seen folks get kicked out for high-year tenure or other things who were so close to the 20 year mark I can say it would make it better for those who didn't do the 20 years but in doing your country's bidding for 20+ years I think they should pay you something every month for the rest of your life. With the current population as it is, it would be unsustainable though for future generations and the interest is already accruing on the debts our country hasn't paid yet. That's why I'm pushing myself so hard in retirement because I fear that they will later find some means to avoid paying what they owe us and believe nothing to be a "sure thing" or "safe haven." Just my thoughts on the situation.

Response by GySgt Roger Rearick made Dec 23 at 2015 10:37 PM

GySgt Roger Rearick — Wed, 23 Dec 2015 22:37:34 -0500

I retired after 21yrs with 40% disability. After being in war and four decorated conflicts, loosing my family because of the time away the retirement still isn't enough to be self sustaining. Other civil and goverment agency's add disability benefits in addition to retirement instead of remove and replace being tax deferred. Veterans have lost benefits in medical, dental and vision once ago promised. I wonder why veterans that served their country making great sacrifices for 20-30yrs of their life can't get the same retirement package amounts and benefits that congress and house representatives do. Or Take from rich government officials to give to needing veterans, the mind set obummer tries to validate with the rest of the country.

Response by Sgt Eric Christensen made Dec 24 at 2015 1:27 AM

Sgt Eric Christensen — Thu, 24 Dec 2015 01:27:55 -0500

Just a heads up too. When I did a little more digging into my TSP I found out that I would not be able to start pulling it for retirement until I was at least 70 1/2 years old without being fined up to 30%. Just food for thought. You can transfer it into a different IRA without a fine though. In my opinion the TSP is crap!

Response by PO1 Private RallyPoint Member made Dec 24 at 2015 4:21 AM

PO1 Private RallyPoint Member — Thu, 24 Dec 2015 04:21:44 -0500

In my opinion, the following links provide valuable information that applies to the topic at hand. I wish someone would have handed me a copy of the last link when I was in my early twenties.

https://www.tsp.gov/PDF/formspubs/tspbk08.pdf
https://www.bogleheads.org/wiki/Military_finances
https://www.bogleheads.org/wiki/Thrift_Savings_Plan
http://www.forbes.com/sites/johnwasik/2014/05/07/the-simplest-wealth-plan-ever/

ObtpØ`*ÒKIý4Éª4\n(jåùÜâHwyÅtMËmÏÉ*NËÑÞù¿éØlvlÞ~|ÁûÌ}È;èò'pZ5?ÚMõý*?vúqòÇïý=¿j~ûU*ãÙ2tàálàaOïµB\ïuÛv«! ÂJ4Cf8péêOD/:d»§ÛºSÝFÛnmæäI~ueó ßÑ¿ïü+À "t endstream endobj 534 0 obj stream hÞìZm· þ+ú^KK@ NjÄñZäÃÚ·µÜ»u ÿû4«yÑÎÌÞùìÆB7ºFÉç!)#µ0EátÄ«RE'XQJ( V-Ûh%|ÐÑ(8lVðøÇ`ßÁácU2mµ^VðNÐ+VØ

Response by LTC Donald Canaday made Dec 24 at 2015 4:28 AM

LTC Donald Canaday — Thu, 24 Dec 2015 04:28:34 -0500

Glad I was fortunate enough to get a 20 year pension when I retired in 2014. However, it is good to know that soldiers who serve less than twenty, which is most of them, will be able to leave with something. Now the challenge is to educate them on the basics of investing. I don't think this is something the military does very well. My recommendation is for everyone to visit a financial adviser.

Response by CW2 Ernest Krutzsch made Dec 24 at 2015 6:13 AM

CW2 Ernest Krutzsch — Thu, 24 Dec 2015 06:13:29 -0500

When I joined they told me I would have free medical for life if I stayed for 20 years, I now pay for Tricare, not much, but not free. Times change, and the new enlistees will know the rules, they need to decide if that is what they want to do. I also believe that if there is a decline in career soldiers based on this, it will once again be revised

Response by PO2 Stacy Barnette made Dec 24 at 2015 7:54 AM

PO2 Stacy Barnette — Thu, 24 Dec 2015 07:54:41 -0500

So it will be a forced tsp retirement plan instead of a guaranteed military plan. I have officially changed my mind about Obama from give him a chance to...an unpleasant term.

Response by 1SG Private RallyPoint Member made Dec 24 at 2015 8:46 AM

1SG Private RallyPoint Member — Thu, 24 Dec 2015 08:46:55 -0500

I see the future generations not being able to retain gifted leaders in the NCO corps due to these changes. I think our elected leaders fail to realize why we stay and serve 20 plus on the enlisted side and why we sacrifice to stay in, if I was not able to draw a retirement after 20 I would never stayed past 6 years.

Response by CPT Private RallyPoint Member made Dec 24 at 2015 8:49 AM

CPT Private RallyPoint Member — Thu, 24 Dec 2015 08:49:56 -0500

This was one of the dumbest decisions ever. The savings, IF ANY, are not significant enough. It certainly wasn't about simplicity. The only thing I would've changed is delaying retiree benefits until age 60 - 2 years for each year spent in combat. Why? This would enable us to retain high speed Soldiers past the 20-year mark. Why would you stay in and "work for half the money" when you can get out at 38 with a retirement check for the rest of your life? If you're 38 and don't have that safety net, you would think twice before getting out and starting over in the civilian sector. The current system is a big selling point and I fully expect this change to affect recruiting in the future, especially when the economy is good.

Response by SFC Thomas Paxitzis made Dec 24 at 2015 10:16 AM

SFC Thomas Paxitzis — Thu, 24 Dec 2015 10:16:35 -0500

Well there goes the neighborhood, a major blow to our military. Really our country is going to be severely weaken by this more dumb!!

Response by TSgt Scott Anderson made Dec 24 at 2015 12:21 PM

TSgt Scott Anderson — Thu, 24 Dec 2015 12:21:36 -0500

and what about officers........... are they that special that they get the 20 yr retirement?

Response by MSgt Robert Wiebel made Dec 24 at 2015 1:04 PM

MSgt Robert Wiebel — Thu, 24 Dec 2015 13:04:45 -0500

Without the 20 year all or nothing retirement, the force structure will shrink.

Response by PO2 Charles Moser made Dec 24 at 2015 1:20 PM

PO2 Charles Moser — Thu, 24 Dec 2015 13:20:57 -0500

those who don't serve don't know the great personal sacrifice that the men and women who serve make for our nation... They want to take away a military members retirement after serving 20 years, but every member of the Congress or Senate gets a retirement after only 4 years???? Total bullshit... Let's make sure these people don't get re-elected and we change the laws in this country.

Response by CW2 Private RallyPoint Member made Dec 24 at 2015 1:23 PM

CW2 Private RallyPoint Member — Thu, 24 Dec 2015 13:23:05 -0500

Shitty, I see a slight retention problem. Why stay in for 20 years or more now and constantly deploy/go tdy/ be separated from your family without the retirement.

Response by MAJ Ken Landgren made Dec 24 at 2015 3:44 PM

MAJ Ken Landgren — Thu, 24 Dec 2015 15:44:53 -0500

The Defense Department said service members enrolled in the revised TSP would initially receive matching contributions of 1 percent of his or her basic pay. They would be fully vested after two years of service and eligible for additional matching contributions of up to 5 percent after four years of service. The maximum annual contribution is $1500/month. I will provide an analysis of its worth upon the age of 59 1/2 later. One has to crunch the numbers to see the limitations and benefits of this program.

The funds 10 years average rate of returns are G 3.19%, F 4.89%, C 7.72%, S 9.44%, I 4.58%.

Some assumptions recruit is 18 and retires at 38. He/she contributes full amount of $1500/month and stops adding money to the TSP at 38. 7.72% will be used. The military matches 5% of the investment This is a traditional IRA and is subject to tax upon withdrawal. From the age of 38-60, there will be no more contributions.

At 38 the value of the fund is $74,360
At 60 the value of the fund is $381,820

I want to note the C, S, I funds lost almost 40% in 2008.

Response by SFC Private RallyPoint Member made Dec 24 at 2015 4:31 PM

SFC Private RallyPoint Member — Thu, 24 Dec 2015 16:31:03 -0500

I think it sounds good now, but as a retention NCO, I see most NCOs that are in the time frame of 10-14 year that the only reason reenlist is to stay for the 20 year retirement. I think in the long run it is going to hurt our NCO Corps by a lot of those people with experience are going to get out earlier than they are currently doing.

Response by SFC William Adamek made Dec 24 at 2015 4:53 PM

SFC William Adamek — Thu, 24 Dec 2015 16:53:26 -0500

So when are they going to do the same thing with the monies that the house, congress and presidential staff members get upon their completions of service.

Response by MAJ Ken Landgren made Dec 24 at 2015 5:06 PM

MAJ Ken Landgren — Thu, 24 Dec 2015 17:06:02 -0500

Why are folks saying TSP will be the only retirement at 20? That is news to me.

Response by LCDR Steve Didio made Dec 24 at 2015 5:15 PM

LCDR Steve Didio — Thu, 24 Dec 2015 17:15:46 -0500

Don't kid yourself, these changes are not about making the future retirement system more "valuable" to those who it will apply to. This is the 4th iteration of military retirement plans, each has sought to "save the government money", predictably at the expense of the beneficiaries. These changes have been cleverly packaged to keep the troops from revolting. But our Government is not very good at forecasting future cost savings or impacts to retention, morale, etc. (see REDUX as a prime example). My money says that after a decade or so of the new plan, the predicted savings will not materialize, and their will be another Blue Ribbon Panel or Commission formed to foist Iteration number 5 on the next generation of warfighters.

Response by Sgt Jerami Ballard made Dec 25 at 2015 5:17 AM

Sgt Jerami Ballard — Fri, 25 Dec 2015 05:17:31 -0500

The DoD should set up the TSP on behalf of the servicemember if this new plan is the standard. You'd be surprised at how many servicemembers don't even know the TSP exists, let alone the hoops they have to jump through to get it set up and managed. I'm also curious what this means for those who did contribute to the TSP only to see it effectively useless upon separation thanks to the downsizing as most private employers do not support the TSP.

Response by SGT Larry Taylor made Dec 25 at 2015 3:53 PM

SGT Larry Taylor — Fri, 25 Dec 2015 15:53:05 -0500

We all need to contact our hometown congressman and demand they do the same with their own retirement. All politicians can serve 4 or 6 years and receive a check the rest of their life. Time to change that Now. If all military personnel and their families bombard the congressman it can work. Pay two is vote or any of them that doesn't agree.

Response by 1SG Private RallyPoint Member made Dec 25 at 2015 6:17 PM

1SG Private RallyPoint Member — Fri, 25 Dec 2015 18:17:57 -0500

I can tell you I'm not a fan of this revision, as this congress and POTUS continue to send money and enable those who do not work the cut directly from DoD expenses, now to play the devils advocate we do take up more than half of the total GDP. Obama mentioned that someone who serves for 20 years is still more than able to work towards another retirement, my answer is, well if its so damn easy and attractive why docent everyone do it. They don't. Its a calling of service for decades, as selfish as people are now its one of the last true professional of selflessness. To me this is just another step into bringing back the draft.
I wish I had the email of the PhD. who came up with this program, it was written in an Army Times article about 2 years ago. I can tell you I researched this person and she was the one advising the President on what "our" retirement should be. I can tell you she has never served a day in her life, she has no clue to what military service is, ore the sacrifice people make. I emailed her asking her what qualifies her for making these recommendations, I'm still waiting on a response two years later.

Response by MAJ Ken Landgren made Dec 25 at 2015 8:45 PM

MAJ Ken Landgren — Fri, 25 Dec 2015 20:45:00 -0500

The onus of contributing to the TSP primarily falls upon the SM as the government matches 5% of the contributions. Most of the young folks will not come close to contributing a maximum of $1500/month. The earlier you start contributing the greater the significant positive impact to TSP. It is crystal clear. At 20 you get 40% of the base pay, but you cant touch your TSP until one is 59 1/2 years old. One can have close to a million dollars at 59 1/2 but there might be tax implications and the erosion of value due to inflation.

Response by SPC Private RallyPoint Member made Dec 25 at 2015 10:49 PM

SPC Private RallyPoint Member — Fri, 25 Dec 2015 22:49:02 -0500

To All,
I Begin by stating this is for all but not for one paticular service member. However, I understand why as an educated service member it's an all or nothing, giving those with education the leg up. The Army has lost it's team atmosphere and far to many NCO's have become a fungus, they do not build teams, family, they decide who will get rank by who they like and not actually by Army policy. They have ruined Army! Does this mean all of course not but still over %75 is by far to many, %1 is to many. The Army must make the leaders of today get a degree to lead, age also is a huge factor as well, the proper training of policy, understanding the Army Regs, ucmj policy, not with threats but actually learn it. Mentoring the junior enlisted is non-existed in today's Army. %75 are out for them selves, because of one simple statement " their grown, they can learn it themselves" NCO's truly do not know their own creed, Or could resite it. Besides the world's enemy are growing in knowledge and education we must keep up, rebuild the greatest team on earth. And go forth and re-grow even stronger than ever.

Response by SFC Michael Hair made Dec 25 at 2015 10:55 PM

SFC Michael Hair — Fri, 25 Dec 2015 22:55:42 -0500

Doesn't surprise me at all. Our civilian leadership have always found ways to cut the payout for servicemen and women. They want an all volunteer force but don't really want to pay for it in the long run. People are living longer and they don't really want to have to pay you for 30 years

Response by LTC Private RallyPoint Member made Dec 25 at 2015 11:57 PM

LTC Private RallyPoint Member — Fri, 25 Dec 2015 23:57:55 -0500

I am curious how this will affect the number of people who get off active duty and look at reserves or guard. Well little more to gain as I got mine....see how the number drops.

Response by SSG Private RallyPoint Member made Dec 26 at 2015 1:56 AM

SSG Private RallyPoint Member — Sat, 26 Dec 2015 01:56:48 -0500

I would rather see an entire overhaul of how money is budgeted and spent for DoD before considering changing pay and pensions to save the tax payers money.

Seriously eliminate the environment of waste, fraud, and abuse and if I need to sacrifice personal finances for my country just ask. But this will fix nothing in the greater scheme of things.

Response by 1SG Ryan Sutton made Dec 26 at 2015 6:57 AM

1SG Ryan Sutton — Sat, 26 Dec 2015 06:57:28 -0500

I believe this new system will forever damage the United States military. Soldiers and leaders will not be as motivated. I truly believe that. I also truly believe that is the intention.

Response by SSG Private RallyPoint Member made Dec 26 at 2015 1:12 PM

SSG Private RallyPoint Member — Sat, 26 Dec 2015 13:12:44 -0500

As long as the new troopers know what they are getting into I think it's ok.....but to this current generation of Soldiers or newly retired that just went through the majority of their career while our nation was at war, they need to quit toying with us and QMPing is out after over a decade of sacrifice

Response by CPT T. Scott Haddix made Dec 26 at 2015 1:36 PM

CPT T. Scott Haddix — Sat, 26 Dec 2015 13:36:09 -0500

And they thought it was tough to re-enlistments before.

Response by SGT Private RallyPoint Member made Dec 26 at 2015 7:27 PM

SGT Private RallyPoint Member — Sat, 26 Dec 2015 19:27:27 -0500

I didn't see a problem with the old retirement plan as most jobs reaquire 20 years for retirement benefits i served 13 years before being medically discharged

Response by SSG Robert Rosser made Dec 26 at 2015 9:26 PM

SSG Robert Rosser — Sat, 26 Dec 2015 21:26:24 -0500

Don't be fool by the Army new retirement plan. It is true that 90 percent of Congress have never served in the military and have no clue of what it's all about. The Army's new retirement plan will only ensure that fewer soldiers will make 20 years or more, guaranteeing a 50 percent base pay retirement annuity a thing of the past. The 20-year retirement system will now be converted into a 1/3 base pay annuity, not the 1/2 base pay that career soldiers have enjoyed since 1875. And with the New Economy (New Economy is the economy President Clinton created to send American jobs overseas), soldiers leaving military service will not have a civilian job to go to. It is Hillary Clinton's dream to go further than her husband by creating robots to replace the remaining workforce. Let's face it, America cannot grow by ObamaCare alone.

Response by SFC Benjamin Harrison made Dec 26 at 2015 9:46 PM

SFC Benjamin Harrison — Sat, 26 Dec 2015 21:46:31 -0500

While I can understand the political influence to ensure that every player on the team gets a prize, this new system may derail tenure in the service. I for one would have left after my first term knowing that there is no light at the end of the tunnel.

Response by SrA Vernon Cox made Dec 26 at 2015 9:50 PM

SrA Vernon Cox — Sat, 26 Dec 2015 21:50:44 -0500

Inexcusable. While it's OK to include some troops in a retirement system (which pays out of personal coffers), the 20 year all or nothing should still remain as an added incentive. All retirement investment would be in similarity to the Armed Forces life insurance program, something you can continue with when your out. After all, not everyone sets a 20 year goal and/or life happens to change expectations.
I'd foresee the same problem with the investment program that we have now with Social Security. "Dipping into the till for other reasons". We've had enough of that garbage. The extra educational benefit is a nice touch though.

Response by SGT Private RallyPoint Member made Dec 26 at 2015 9:54 PM

SGT Private RallyPoint Member — Sat, 26 Dec 2015 21:54:16 -0500

I'v been in the NG for 6yrs till this July then signing an active duty contract and am planning on doing 20+ years. With me signing an active contract before the start of 2018 does that mean i will be totally under the old plan or part old part new?

Response by SGT Private RallyPoint Member made Dec 26 at 2015 11:00 PM

SGT Private RallyPoint Member — Sat, 26 Dec 2015 23:00:57 -0500

Here is a link as to how it works in greater detail as of OCT15.
http://www.militarytimes.com/story/military/2015/10/07/ndaa-retirement-plan-detailed/73141086/

Military retirement overhaul: Congress is on board — so what comes next?

Congress has settled on plans for a major overhaul of military retirement. Now the question is if it'll happen.

Response by COL Jon Thompson made Dec 26 at 2015 11:11 PM

COL Jon Thompson — Sat, 26 Dec 2015 23:11:26 -0500

Considering that most enlisted do not serve 20 years, it will give them something to build on when they leave service. When I left active duty as a captain with almost 11 years, I didn't have anything to show for it. I was able to go into the reserve a couple of years later but for two years, I thought I had wasted 11 years of my life.

Response by SPC Rodney Hall made Dec 27 at 2015 1:40 AM

SPC Rodney Hall — Sun, 27 Dec 2015 01:40:39 -0500

If Trump is elected President, he's already stated that he is going to reverse all of Otyrany's executive orders. Trump is for the Military so I'm not worried about this for our future Brothers and Sisters.

Response by PO1 Private RallyPoint Member made Dec 27 at 2015 6:42 AM

PO1 Private RallyPoint Member — Sun, 27 Dec 2015 06:42:21 -0500

they might as well revive the draft. i sense retention and enlistment is going to suffer. in turn, in order to meet quotas, we should get ready for a lower quality of service member.

Response by 1stSgt Timothy La Sage made Dec 27 at 2015 10:36 AM

1stSgt Timothy La Sage — Sun, 27 Dec 2015 10:36:54 -0500

If we are the 1% why go after our pension in order to decrease the deficit. Will this apply to Congress as well and others with federal pensions? Unsat.

Response by PO1 Private RallyPoint Member made Dec 27 at 2015 12:45 PM

PO1 Private RallyPoint Member — Sun, 27 Dec 2015 12:45:18 -0500

I will take a different approach to this. If you can retire well before 20 years now I wonder if it will motivate the dead weight to just leave with what little they do. Working with the goat rope that is the "only here for the pension" crowd is exhausting.

In theory, I am a 6 year AT1, that means I can quite literally do nothing for 14 more years as long as I maintain a promotable evaluation, don't drink and drive, and don't fraternize. After which, the taxpayers hand me a pension that will pay me hundreds of thousands of dollars?

Put the individual in charge of their finances and hold them accountable. I would much rather have a contributing Roth at Vanguard than TSP. I recently took EVERYTHING out of TSP and currently putting it into a "house fund". So wait, I give TSP 5500/year and lose 2000? But wait AT1, the fees are so low!!!

Response by CPT Private RallyPoint Member made Dec 27 at 2015 1:43 PM

CPT Private RallyPoint Member — Sun, 27 Dec 2015 13:43:04 -0500

Military doesn't need all 20 year Vets. Needs some, needs more 4 and 8 year folks... So it's only fair they get a proportion, adjusted slightly down, for a pension. No other job makes you work 20 years before giving your retirement, the military shouldn't either. Millineals will probably enjoy this as well!

Response by LCDR Rabbah Rona Matlow made Dec 27 at 2015 7:42 PM

LCDR Rabbah Rona Matlow — Sun, 27 Dec 2015 19:42:51 -0500

This is one of the biggest mistakes our "so-called leaders" have ever made re the military...

Response by CPO John Best made Dec 27 at 2015 7:46 PM

CPO John Best — Sun, 27 Dec 2015 19:46:16 -0500

I believe this will go the way of the " redux". Most who complete 20 years need this retirement. The lousy pay and ardous duty takes a toll on you. VA has its head up its a$$ so no one can count on that. First and second term re enlistments will drop below acceptable standards and the program will be scrapped.

Response by MSgt Linden Bowman made Dec 27 at 2015 10:02 PM

MSgt Linden Bowman — Sun, 27 Dec 2015 22:02:50 -0500

Progressives finally got what they wanted. Gut the DoD, so they can have more to give away.

Response by CPO Private RallyPoint Member made Dec 28 at 2015 12:05 AM

CPO Private RallyPoint Member — Mon, 28 Dec 2015 00:05:03 -0500

Smells like crap to me so if it smells like crap probably going to be crap

Response by Capt Tom Brown made Dec 28 at 2015 9:30 AM

Capt Tom Brown — Mon, 28 Dec 2015 09:30:49 -0500

The new retirement plan is the best thing to come along for troops in a very long time. The gvt could no longer afford such a lavish retirement after only 20 yrs of working unlike no private sector firm could afford. This one benefits everyone, including those servicemembers who choose to not stay for even 20. The new plan is also better than 90% of what are offered by private firms except those in the area of fortune 500.

Response by SFC Private RallyPoint Member made Dec 28 at 2015 9:58 AM

SFC Private RallyPoint Member — Mon, 28 Dec 2015 09:58:18 -0500

i think it will boost the economy but might in a way hurt the military but i don't see it as a huge problem, with today's youth and culture im sure they wont even know the difference. as old-timers know what its all about. It just looks like another way to get rid off the old school buddy system.

Response by PV2 Jeremy Elmore made Dec 28 at 2015 10:51 AM

PV2 Jeremy Elmore — Mon, 28 Dec 2015 10:51:57 -0500

Still not sure that I'm understanding this but it doesn't look to be a good thing for lower enlisted. Maybe I need to read it again.

Response by 1SG Jimmy Owens made Dec 28 at 2015 4:02 PM

1SG Jimmy Owens — Mon, 28 Dec 2015 16:02:09 -0500

To many variables, to much tied to market for future, retirement should be a known set amount based on tenure and rank .... Sounds like Gov't is getting cheap on services they expect but do not want to pay for ...... . . . . . . ...... . . . . . . ...!

Response by LTC David Brown made Dec 28 at 2015 4:05 PM

LTC David Brown — Mon, 28 Dec 2015 16:05:39 -0500

I have seen many military people retire fairly well broken up, bad knees, bad backs, aggravating wounds that cause long term pain etc. The government isn't asking you to sit at a desk and play war games all day. Military life takes a toll on many. Their options are limited because of what they did in the military!

Response by COL Timothy S. made Dec 28 at 2015 6:06 PM

COL Timothy S. — Mon, 28 Dec 2015 18:06:21 -0500

I'm a firm believer in lead by example. I wondet how much could be saved if similar measures were attached to the Presidency, and service in either House of the Legislature BEFORE removing the a key incentive to serve in any of the military branches where one's life is the down payment?

Response by SPC Christian Xavier made Dec 28 at 2015 7:07 PM

SPC Christian Xavier — Mon, 28 Dec 2015 19:07:36 -0500

This isn't as bad as I thought it would be. It might be nice to have people be able to choose between the two plans, but overall I do think this will help more people.

Response by CDR Private RallyPoint Member made Dec 28 at 2015 7:38 PM

CDR Private RallyPoint Member — Mon, 28 Dec 2015 19:38:07 -0500

What length of service is required to get TRICARE for life? Will this still require 20 years of service?

Response by MSgt Jim Wolverton made Dec 28 at 2015 8:42 PM

MSgt Jim Wolverton — Mon, 28 Dec 2015 20:42:44 -0500

Glad I retired when I did!

Response by SFC Bobby Thompson made Dec 28 at 2015 8:54 PM

SFC Bobby Thompson — Mon, 28 Dec 2015 20:54:56 -0500

I think that politicians have finally ruined the United States Military; they wanted a hollo military and now they are going to have it. Some politician thinks that after 20 years a service member does not deserve to retire. I hate to tell them, but if you served 20 years with honor and fought for your country, you deserve that pension. Hell some of us will have shortened life because of our service , so we might never see anything.

It started with letting in any body that has a warm body regardless of their confusion of gender, then we open all combat positions to females service members, now they want to take away the 20 year retirement. It seems that all these decision are being made without asking service members. I think letting in transgender and opening all the combat positions to women was a precursor to taking away the 20 year pension. This way there is a bigger pool of candidates recruiters will be able to pull from if it gets hard to recruit men. Eventually the United States might have to start the draft again.

Response by Jackie Buckner made Dec 28 at 2015 11:18 PM

Jackie Buckner — Mon, 28 Dec 2015 23:18:05 -0500

So my question is what did they TAKE AWAY from those 20+ year service members currently serving???

Response by SPC Private RallyPoint Member made Dec 28 at 2015 11:29 PM

SPC Private RallyPoint Member — Mon, 28 Dec 2015 23:29:13 -0500

I for one am sad about this. Those who serve with honor and dedication should be taken care of after a life of service and sacrifice. However; we find ourselves in a country that wants nothing to do with us after we are done. They just want us to go away. Sad...... Very, very sad.

Response by Sgt Todd Miller made Dec 29 at 2015 1:55 AM

Sgt Todd Miller — Tue, 29 Dec 2015 01:55:54 -0500

SOUNDS LIKE BULLSHIT TO ME

Response by SFC Private RallyPoint Member made Dec 29 at 2015 10:20 AM

SFC Private RallyPoint Member — Tue, 29 Dec 2015 10:20:27 -0500

Makes me appreciate my 26 years in the army even more! I was able to do what I enjoyed doing and experience things most people outside the military never get to experience while all along knowing I would have my retirement in hand at twenty years. Been blessed!

Response by SSG Private RallyPoint Member made Dec 29 at 2015 10:41 AM

SSG Private RallyPoint Member — Tue, 29 Dec 2015 10:41:42 -0500

As a Guard member who has to wait till I see 60 to see retirement of any kind.. I'm loathe to see it go. There is a definite plus for guys to stick around 20 years for a little check. We don't make the money on a monthly basis to put into a TSP to help towards retirement.

Response by 1SG Timothy Trewin made Dec 29 at 2015 11:52 AM

1SG Timothy Trewin — Tue, 29 Dec 2015 11:52:19 -0500

I am very jealous of this plan to be honest. While the pension percentage is lower by 10% you get the added benefit of a 401K style retirement. If the SM contributes the max (which any wise financial advisor will strongly recommend), with the government match, they can get 11% towards their retirement. Allowed to grow over 20 years and that is a very sizeable nest egg to go along with a pension. This is a very nice retirement plan but I believe that the DoD needs to provide mandatory financial training to all people coming in as well as those who are currently serving but qualify to switch over. Many may not see the value of this or the value in maxing out their contributions early in their career and could miss out on long term benefits later on (think compounded interest). Also if it saves the DoD money long term it is another benefit as it will prevent them from having to make cuts elsewhere that might be worse for personnel (although this is another can of worms).

Response by Capt Private RallyPoint Member made Dec 29 at 2015 1:05 PM

Capt Private RallyPoint Member — Tue, 29 Dec 2015 13:05:32 -0500

I've been in six years this June, and I'm not banking on any sort of retirement should I make it to 20 years or more. Being thrifty now so that I'm less stressed when I'm older.

Response by MSG Private RallyPoint Member made Dec 29 at 2015 1:23 PM

MSG Private RallyPoint Member — Tue, 29 Dec 2015 13:23:36 -0500

I am sitting at 26 yrs myself and I actually think this a good thing. This is basically setting up a 401k and from what I've seen with the numbers you will actually make more in retirement. In addition if you take into account that a majority of people who enlist don't make it to retirement so with the old plan they have nothing even if they did 5,10,15 years. The new plan allows them to take it with them. And let's be real how many of you know someone that has said well I'm at 10 I might as well stay in till 20 now? Are those the highly motivated I love my job kind of people we want sticking around?

Response by MAJ Ken Landgren made Dec 29 at 2015 3:06 PM

MAJ Ken Landgren — Tue, 29 Dec 2015 15:06:06 -0500

We need to do some number crunching to make comparisons.

Response by LTC John Wilson made Dec 29 at 2015 4:12 PM

LTC John Wilson — Tue, 29 Dec 2015 16:12:29 -0500

I have mixed thoughts on that one. What about the Medical coverage for these troops?

Response by 1SG Private RallyPoint Member made Dec 29 at 2015 4:28 PM

1SG Private RallyPoint Member — Tue, 29 Dec 2015 16:28:59 -0500

Ever tried to contribute to a retirement plan while raising kids on specialist or below pay? Exactly, matching funds isn't a good deal to a soldier who doesn't have two dimes to rub together at the end of the month.

Response by SFC Andrew Ormiston made Dec 29 at 2015 6:01 PM

SFC Andrew Ormiston — Tue, 29 Dec 2015 18:01:37 -0500

Will they be in the Retired Reserve and subject to recall past the 8 yr. RSO?

Response by PO3 Brad Phlipot made Dec 29 at 2015 7:20 PM

PO3 Brad Phlipot — Tue, 29 Dec 2015 19:20:56 -0500

I foresee the all volunteer force shrinking and a mandatory term of service being implemented. Draft. JMO.

Response by SFC Ken Edman made Dec 29 at 2015 8:03 PM

SFC Ken Edman — Tue, 29 Dec 2015 20:03:59 -0500

What I want to know is, why do we as soldiers have to retire at 20 years, Congress doesn't ever have to retire, they get to stay until they are a 100 years old and then get a retirement that we can only dream of

Response by CW4 Shem Rivera made Dec 29 at 2015 9:34 PM

CW4 Shem Rivera — Tue, 29 Dec 2015 21:34:27 -0500

This is not good. I'm happy I retired after 28 years under the old system. This will breed an even lower number of career Soldiers to guide our future warriors in combat.

Response by SFC Scott Lucas made Dec 29 at 2015 10:06 PM

SFC Scott Lucas — Tue, 29 Dec 2015 22:06:40 -0500

As long as Washington holds up to their end of the barging and matches a good percent of the personal contributions to the TSP that are made from service members, this could be a good program. They would have to do a 5% match if they are not going to put aside money for any other form of retirement and I don't see them doing that. Young service members will definitely have to have some good training on how this will work for them.

Response by PO3 Stephanie Stephan made Dec 29 at 2015 10:53 PM

PO3 Stephanie Stephan — Tue, 29 Dec 2015 22:53:12 -0500

This is extremely sad to see...if you served your twenty you deserve to get more than a tsp or risk losing half of it in investing along the way....

Response by LTC Fritz Little made Dec 29 at 2015 11:11 PM

LTC Fritz Little — Tue, 29 Dec 2015 23:11:50 -0500

It will be interesting to see the impact of this in 10 years as those under this new system are faced with the choice of whether or not to make the military a career past that point. It is possible that we will end up decimating the NCO Corps, and lose many of our best officers as they face the realities of staff life for the next 5-6 years before they become competitive for another command opportunity. I don't think we can predict if this will be a significant issue, but the reality exists that many career soldiers made that decision based, in part, on the impact that leaving mid career would have on their future retirement. It concerns me that those who made the decision to make this change either did not fully weigh this as potential unintended consequence, or did not have an appreciation of how retirement serves as a motivator to retain some of our best leaders.

Response by SSgt Private RallyPoint Member made Dec 30 at 2015 12:16 AM

SSgt Private RallyPoint Member — Wed, 30 Dec 2015 00:16:11 -0500

I am still planning on making this lifestyle a career. This nation makes no sense to me anymore. "The people" want ground troops to battle ISIS, "The people" want closed borders, the people want lower taxes better wages lower cost of living, yet Washington Delivers the exact opposite. Just about the entire country "supports the troops" however when federal budgets need to be cut, they tear into the one organization that wins this nations battles. This new retirement plan does not support the troops and I hope that our new president whoever that is will fix this. And please stop saying "Why doesn't Congress cut their retirement?" We all know this will never happen because up there on Capitol Hill they will always look out for number 1 and then claim they are doing good for the good of the people

Response by PO2 Private RallyPoint Member made Dec 30 at 2015 3:13 AM

PO2 Private RallyPoint Member — Wed, 30 Dec 2015 03:13:33 -0500

Since it starts in 2018 does that mean us currently active will be grandfathered in and still have the 20 year plan?

Response by SSG Private RallyPoint Member made Dec 30 at 2015 4:16 AM

SSG Private RallyPoint Member — Wed, 30 Dec 2015 04:16:58 -0500

Then they better serve something that will takes its place and compensate.

Response by MSgt Chris Chambre made Dec 30 at 2015 6:31 AM

MSgt Chris Chambre — Wed, 30 Dec 2015 06:31:49 -0500

My advice to new recruits, Its not worth the sacrifice anymore. They have made Tricare difficult to use and ditched the only real retention tool, the 20 yr retirment. No child of mine will follow my footsteps.

Response by MSG Shawn Richardson made Dec 30 at 2015 6:44 AM

MSG Shawn Richardson — Wed, 30 Dec 2015 06:44:11 -0500

Not ok. Just another way for the liberals to take away from those who make the ultimate sacrifice everyday. Sad. -MSG (Ret)

Response by COL James Pittman made Dec 30 at 2015 9:03 AM

COL James Pittman — Wed, 30 Dec 2015 09:03:10 -0500

When the military gets the same retirement benefits as Congress and the President, I'll support change. The current system has served this country for decades and is the primary reason why many join to begin with. First it was the GI Bill, then medical and dental, and now pensions. If this nation isn't careful it will break the military to the point of no repair.

Response by SSgt Private RallyPoint Member made Dec 30 at 2015 10:59 AM

SSgt Private RallyPoint Member — Wed, 30 Dec 2015 10:59:32 -0500

After 18 good years and being forced out due to fit tests I won't receive any pay from the government. 2 years to go until retirement. This could have benefited me.

Response by SSG(P) Private RallyPoint Member made Dec 30 at 2015 11:04 AM

SSG(P) Private RallyPoint Member — Wed, 30 Dec 2015 11:04:38 -0500

Unnerving if you ask me... The more years I put in the less likely I will see a product worth while in the end. Unbeleavable the shit we edure in and out and not get the proper respect.

Response by Maj Ron Johnson made Dec 30 at 2015 11:05 AM

Maj Ron Johnson — Wed, 30 Dec 2015 11:05:56 -0500

Time to get rid of the morons in this administration that do not appreciate the military.

Response by PO2 Chris Wright made Dec 30 at 2015 11:07 AM

PO2 Chris Wright — Wed, 30 Dec 2015 11:07:33 -0500

Financial education has long been a difficult issue with the military. In attempting to protect soldiers, sailors, and airmen from being taken advantage of, commands have denied them access to material that would give them a true understanding of how retirement plans work and the nature of investing on their own. Ignorance is not a solution. If they are going down this new path, real education is going to be a must, but how are service members supposed to get it if the people who are able to train aren’t allowed on base?

Response by MAJ Patrick Hairston CISSP, AWS Certified Cloud Architect made Dec 30 at 2015 11:08 AM

MAJ Patrick Hairston CISSP, AWS Certified Cloud Architect — Wed, 30 Dec 2015 11:08:26 -0500

I guarantee someone is going to ask 30 years from now, "Why cant we recruit the best and brightest anymore"? If they do, someone repost this article...

Response by MSG Private RallyPoint Member made Dec 30 at 2015 11:10 AM

MSG Private RallyPoint Member — Wed, 30 Dec 2015 11:10:43 -0500

This is a joke after 35 years and the damage the army has done to my body I need the retirement. Let congress and the senate give up 6 figure for life retirement for serving one term

Response by PO1 Private RallyPoint Member made Dec 30 at 2015 11:16 AM

PO1 Private RallyPoint Member — Wed, 30 Dec 2015 11:16:44 -0500

There goes our millitary what a dumb ass

Response by SGT Private RallyPoint Member made Dec 30 at 2015 11:17 AM

SGT Private RallyPoint Member — Wed, 30 Dec 2015 11:17:15 -0500

This is going to make the National Guard and Reserve Retirement System an absolute joke. This appears to literally take away the financial incentive to transfer from active duty into the reserves by putting us on a 401k type program. Furthermore, to think they want to do this, while increasing our drill training time per year. Good luck with retention.

Response by SFC Thomas Punjack made Dec 30 at 2015 11:24 AM

SFC Thomas Punjack — Wed, 30 Dec 2015 11:24:26 -0500

I think it will hurt retention of seasoned soldiers and cause a loss of knowledge that can only be gained from experience.

Response by SGT Private RallyPoint Member made Dec 30 at 2015 11:29 AM

SGT Private RallyPoint Member — Wed, 30 Dec 2015 11:29:59 -0500

The country is broke. This is exactly why they want to offer this plan.

Response by SSG Private RallyPoint Member made Dec 30 at 2015 11:41 AM

SSG Private RallyPoint Member — Wed, 30 Dec 2015 11:41:46 -0500

Newly enlisted. Are the rest of us grandfathered or is that a typo

Response by CW3 Michael Schroer made Dec 30 at 2015 11:59 AM

CW3 Michael Schroer — Wed, 30 Dec 2015 11:59:08 -0500

The question I have for those that will fall under the new system is "When will they be able to start collecting on their retirement?" As it stands now, those of us that have retired at/after 20 years start receiving our retirement pay. However, will these new soldiers now have to wait until they're 62 or 65 before they can start to receive their retirement pay? I'm pretty sure I know the answer to this question, but the young PVT who has just entered into the service may not. Also, how many of these young E-1's that are barely making ends meet are going to sign up for this system? While this may look good to mid-career soldiers and officers, it's going to be a rough road for the new soldiers who won't have the ability to participate in this program.

Response by LtCol Private RallyPoint Member made Dec 30 at 2015 12:37 PM

LtCol Private RallyPoint Member — Wed, 30 Dec 2015 12:37:19 -0500

Saw this coming as defined benefit retirement programs are simply unsustainable. The private sector figured this out a long time ago.

Response by SSgt Private RallyPoint Member made Dec 30 at 2015 12:57 PM

SSgt Private RallyPoint Member — Wed, 30 Dec 2015 12:57:54 -0500

Welp there goes the neighborhood

Response by SFC John Rider made Dec 30 at 2015 1:06 PM

SFC John Rider — Wed, 30 Dec 2015 13:06:39 -0500

Another way to stick it to the service members, for change why don't you stick it to Congress and leave the military out of it. It's bad enough that they want to cut the military again, next thing you know there will no one to fight for freedom, it's going to be everyone one for themselves.

Response by SMSgt Private RallyPoint Member made Dec 30 at 2015 1:56 PM

SMSgt Private RallyPoint Member — Wed, 30 Dec 2015 13:56:51 -0500

Retention rates for those serving 14-20 year point is gonna take a hit...then they will have to offer bonuses to keep those in critical fields...

Response by Maj Mike Sciales made Dec 30 at 2015 2:22 PM

Maj Mike Sciales — Wed, 30 Dec 2015 14:22:41 -0500

This was the direct (and unintended) outcome of the increased emphasis on health and welfare. Mandatory P.T., smoking cessation, low alcohol consumption, healthy eating, weight monitoring all worked to make a very healthy population who live much longer then expected. When I enlisted in 1971 the average enlisted guy retired and lasted 18 months then died. The average officer lasted 36 months then died. 50% + COLA was a great deal. (I get it now) Then they started sliding it back to 40% and looking at the way other countries do it. Finally, they saw the longevity rate going up and the numbers dictated this move. It's not a bad thing. TSP accounts are excellent and always make a much better return than anything private. The new system will let you collect the time and be able to transfer it new system - portability. The old plan was literally 20 or nothing and I've known guys kicked at 19.5 years. Now, you start off doing something you love, but maybe you are getting too old to enjoy it, well, you transfer to another agency and a new job. Seamless. I think it will be a good thing.

Response by SMSgt Patrick Holena made Dec 30 at 2015 2:29 PM

SMSgt Patrick Holena — Wed, 30 Dec 2015 14:29:06 -0500

I wonder why this is good for the military but when proposed for Social Security it is a bad program...if the markets do not do well you could basically end up with a very limited retirement fund. Thankfully I am already retired and collecting from the Check of the Month Club!

Response by SFC Private RallyPoint Member made Dec 30 at 2015 2:30 PM

SFC Private RallyPoint Member — Wed, 30 Dec 2015 14:30:10 -0500

Change sometimes you have to get used to it who knows it might work out for the better but then you have to have some benefits to make someone wants to be there does even when you love something that still have to be something in it for you

Response by SFC Private RallyPoint Member made Dec 30 at 2015 2:33 PM

SFC Private RallyPoint Member — Wed, 30 Dec 2015 14:33:10 -0500

The major reason a lot of people stay in is for the retirement you get after 20. With this they need to do away with indefinite re-ups. No need to stay in for a crappy retirement

Response by SSgt Gary Guinn made Dec 30 at 2015 2:41 PM

SSgt Gary Guinn — Wed, 30 Dec 2015 14:41:01 -0500

I served 13 years and they gave me 36,000 bucks as a payout to leave which the Bastards taxed. I tried to go back on Active Duty after 911 and they said I had to go back to Basic because I had gone six months beyond the deadline. What a bunch of Bitches these people are. Still Loving My America. Take our Country Back.

Response by MAJ James Woods made Dec 30 at 2015 3:01 PM

MAJ James Woods — Wed, 30 Dec 2015 15:01:23 -0500

It sucks. Less than 1% of American military age citizens ever serve and even far fewer than that ever retires at 20+ years. Yet military retirement is seen as an unnecessary Federal expense that should be curtailed/reformed in order to fund other programs. It is unfortunate and highly disappointing. Every time I search Congressional retirement plans, I see conflicting information; but one trend remains in place, Congress will not mess with their retirement/benefit plans.

Response by CW2 Private RallyPoint Member made Dec 30 at 2015 3:09 PM

CW2 Private RallyPoint Member — Wed, 30 Dec 2015 15:09:57 -0500

Sounds to me like the Active force is getting the crappy Reserve/National Guard retirement plan shoved down their throats. Pretty soon we will just have a Reserve/National Guard force have only full time training/development cadre to train up the part time force. This will help the poorly funded military stretch its minimal dollars. Just hope the OPTEMPO does not escalate as the young volunteer force will walk away and readiness will spiral downward even further!

Response by SSG Private RallyPoint Member made Dec 30 at 2015 3:11 PM

SSG Private RallyPoint Member — Wed, 30 Dec 2015 15:11:09 -0500

So under this new plan there is "an opportunity for government matches to personal contributions". My question is were are they going to get the money for these matching contributions. Will it come out of future Defense Spending Bills? What other benefits will they have to cut. Over the past several years I have watched as budget cuts have strained our military and existing benefits have been cut or restricted. What is the cost of this new plan and how will it affect the military going forward? I have seen far to many times over my career politicians and bureaucrats listen to the good idea fairies with not so great results, and then later have to say oops I guess we didn't think that one through. Only time will tell and all we can do is brace for impact and hope that it's not another oops moment.

Response by MAJ Ken Landgren made Dec 30 at 2015 3:25 PM

MAJ Ken Landgren — Wed, 30 Dec 2015 15:25:35 -0500

So what is the consensus, I don't feeling like reading 433 posts.

Response by TSgt Private RallyPoint Member made Dec 30 at 2015 3:49 PM

TSgt Private RallyPoint Member — Wed, 30 Dec 2015 15:49:56 -0500

I'm sure glad I'm not one of them. They are really getting screwed over.

Response by SGT Troy Green made Dec 30 at 2015 5:07 PM

SGT Troy Green — Wed, 30 Dec 2015 17:07:15 -0500

I like it

Response by CPT(P) Private RallyPoint Member made Dec 30 at 2015 5:33 PM

CPT(P) Private RallyPoint Member — Wed, 30 Dec 2015 17:33:22 -0500

There are advantages and disadvantages to both retirement plans. Under the old retirement plan, a Soldier needed 20 years of service in order to draw retirement. The disadvantage was that if a Soldier had less than 20 years, the Soldier would ETS without any type of financial net after service. Under the new retirement plan, the Soldier would ETS or retire with the amount contributed into the retirement plan as well as supplement that pension with a matching contribution program similar to deferred compensation plans utilized by most public service employees. The disadvantage is that Soldiers must become financially savvy enough to monitor and manage their pension funds. Regardless, this change definitely marks an end to the coveted defined pension plans that took care of hundreds of thousands of Veterans and their families, and helped to build middle class America after the end of WWII. In the end, it is bittersweet for us "old timers."

Response by SSgt Jackie Swogger made Dec 30 at 2015 5:39 PM

SSgt Jackie Swogger — Wed, 30 Dec 2015 17:39:27 -0500

BS! If you don't do 20, you don't deserve anything!

Response by PO1 Gerald Sutton made Dec 30 at 2015 5:47 PM

PO1 Gerald Sutton — Wed, 30 Dec 2015 17:47:29 -0500

This is what the gop wants to do to social security.

Response by MSgt Private RallyPoint Member made Dec 30 at 2015 6:01 PM

MSgt Private RallyPoint Member — Wed, 30 Dec 2015 18:01:44 -0500

Remember if you enlisted before 2018 you are safe after 06 and before 18 you can pick. Before 06 then don't worry

Response by SSG Michael Thornton made Dec 30 at 2015 6:36 PM

SSG Michael Thornton — Wed, 30 Dec 2015 18:36:43 -0500

Not a bad plan if you are smart 18 year old and put in a good amount and they match it give you a little cushion when u get out and get adjusted. But how many 18 year olds will do that.

Response by LCpl Dennis Harold made Dec 30 at 2015 6:43 PM

LCpl Dennis Harold — Wed, 30 Dec 2015 18:43:28 -0500

I've said this all along. Always got shot down by Naysayers.

Response by LTC Private RallyPoint Member made Dec 30 at 2015 7:57 PM

LTC Private RallyPoint Member — Wed, 30 Dec 2015 19:57:14 -0500

I understand the need to restructure the current plan and see pros and cons. My biggest concern aside from the TSP contributions is the other benefits. At what point in a career will a SM qualify for medical benefits and/or PX etc... Or does this open the door for the VA to dissolve and force the SM into the civilian health exchanges that aren't familiar with the unique medical requirements of SM's?

Response by SSG Private RallyPoint Member made Dec 30 at 2015 7:57 PM

SSG Private RallyPoint Member — Wed, 30 Dec 2015 19:57:47 -0500

The retirement should be a reward for 20 years of service. And they should be given the option of the TSP.

Response by SSG Jefferi Felton made Dec 30 at 2015 8:07 PM

SSG Jefferi Felton — Wed, 30 Dec 2015 20:07:32 -0500

They want your service but they want to shortchange them

Response by CMSgt Michael Belanger made Dec 30 at 2015 8:20 PM

CMSgt Michael Belanger — Wed, 30 Dec 2015 20:20:33 -0500

The writing has been in the wall on this for a long time. The good thing about this plan is those that serve less than 20 can get a pension if they do it right. Good financial planning will be critical from the day you enter the service. Defined benefit retirement plans are history, I hope our future servicemen and women get the advice they need and save for their future.

Response by Capt John Ownby made Dec 30 at 2015 8:25 PM

Capt John Ownby — Wed, 30 Dec 2015 20:25:14 -0500

It is easy for those who have chosen to stay to support the cliff vesting but most don't chose to stay for 20 years. As the military is a purely hierarchical system there is not a great need for more than a few to stay past the middle of their career as they will not all be eligible for promotion to E-9 or O-6+. I believe that this new retirement system will ultimately improve the retention of personnel as those most committed will stay and others will leave without losing all of the retirement they rightfully deserve. In fact, in time I believe it will probably enhance the strength of the guard and reserve forces as these are where retention is far more critical than active duty.

Response by MSgt Randel West made Dec 30 at 2015 8:58 PM

MSgt Randel West — Wed, 30 Dec 2015 20:58:26 -0500

So Obama takes away benefits from men and women who have faithfully served this nation . We are so appreciated. GI's are a burden to the budget and Muslim refugees from countries we are fighting are not. Can someone please tell me what the hell happened to America

Response by GySgt Greg Messer made Dec 30 at 2015 9:47 PM

GySgt Greg Messer — Wed, 30 Dec 2015 21:47:23 -0500

SUCKS like OBAMA x

Response by LCpl Dan McTiernan made Dec 30 at 2015 9:52 PM

LCpl Dan McTiernan — Wed, 30 Dec 2015 21:52:34 -0500

If I read this correctly, those enlisting prior to 2018 will remain on the existing plan and those enlisting in 2018 will be on the new plan. Using the same criteria as today, new enlistees will have 20 plus years to learn and develop a financial plan to secure their future. That will require education and is a significant transition timeframe with many who work for 30 years. in private industry I was transitioned to a similar plan and I am now retired living off of my investments and my decisions. It can and will work. Additionally, accepting the statements that the current system benefits one in five and the new system benefits four in five, the potential for greater benefit exists. Now if one musters out and takes their retirement out and buys a swimming pool, well all bets would be off for a comfortable retirement. The potential is there.

Response by SFC Pete Meyer made Dec 30 at 2015 10:08 PM

SFC Pete Meyer — Wed, 30 Dec 2015 22:08:51 -0500

The money they pay the military, you are going to be putting a lot in to this as a E1- E4.. How will this effect people joining?

Response by SGT Private RallyPoint Member made Dec 30 at 2015 10:15 PM

SGT Private RallyPoint Member — Wed, 30 Dec 2015 22:15:22 -0500

So do the soldiers that entered the service before 2018 still will get the 20 year retirement plan ?

Response by MSgt Private RallyPoint Member made Dec 30 at 2015 10:24 PM

MSgt Private RallyPoint Member — Wed, 30 Dec 2015 22:24:06 -0500

I think this is CRAP!!!! Recruiting will decrease. People can go down to the government office once a month and get a check having never lifted a finger in this world to contribute to the government. Why doesn't the government take their money and set up a plan for them? Say like 99 percent of it and say that after 50 years you might get it back? Let's see how many complain then! In other words, get a job and contribute!!!

Response by SSG Private RallyPoint Member made Dec 30 at 2015 10:39 PM

SSG Private RallyPoint Member — Wed, 30 Dec 2015 22:39:57 -0500

I think this will be better because if you save 17% of your income over 20 years in your own pension plan it's going to add up to a hell of a lot more than half of your base pay which is about 2000 for most people retiring under the current plan

Response by SMSgt Kim Shirley made Dec 30 at 2015 11:02 PM

SMSgt Kim Shirley — Wed, 30 Dec 2015 23:02:27 -0500

I served 28 years and fell under a different retirement. Hope there will be huge education for all new personnel that join. What I don't understand is the military sacrifices so much to get retirement they deserve yet folks on the Hill, one could serve one term and receive a retirement better than the military.

Response by SPC Private RallyPoint Member made Dec 30 at 2015 11:13 PM

SPC Private RallyPoint Member — Wed, 30 Dec 2015 23:13:23 -0500

It saddens me that this is going to take place. Nothing was wrong with the old system. But thats what happens when you have a room full of bureaucrats with nothing else to do. They make the worst of anything that was designed for the good of someone else.

Response by PO2 Matthew O'Connell made Dec 31 at 2015 12:19 AM

PO2 Matthew O'Connell — Thu, 31 Dec 2015 00:19:12 -0500

This is BS. You serve your country, your country should serve you back.

Response by SSG(P) Private RallyPoint Member made Dec 31 at 2015 12:34 AM

SSG(P) Private RallyPoint Member — Thu, 31 Dec 2015 00:34:29 -0500

A SSG (E6) at 20 years makes about 1,500/month after taxes. If he or she lives for 40 more years, it's about 720,000. If a new recruit puts 100 in the tsp per month for 20 years it equals 24000. If the govt matches, it's 48000. This could semi happen if soldiers aren't educated. I put money in the g-fund I belief because I wasn't educated and it might have made me $100 in 3 years. The point is leaders need to receive the education and then drill it into their subordinates. Hopefully the new system will have positive effects then, I am skeptical though. Now as far as the disrespect in the forum, I thought the social media class, I thought we all received was pointless. I may have been correct, those of us that know about professionalism didn't need it and those that lack professionalism don't give a darn. Get educated, you can get jacked up for disrespectful social media posts just like being face to face. Having a friendly debate and agreeing to disagree is one thing. Being completely disrespectful is another. We are a "profession of arms" (army). Act like it.

Response by PFC Jeremy Wetzel made Dec 31 at 2015 1:13 AM

PFC Jeremy Wetzel — Thu, 31 Dec 2015 01:13:47 -0500

This is very bad. If you're light infantry, special forces or any other highly physical job in the military then you know that your 20 years is like you've done 40+ years by the time you're done.
I did 4 years...in peacetime back in the late 80s...as a 11b, there are some mornings that I can barely move because of pain.
Motrin is definitely our friend.
Nothing but respect for those that grind through 20 years of it...too bad our Government doesn't feel that way.

Response by SSG Jonathan Harris made Dec 31 at 2015 1:38 AM

SSG Jonathan Harris — Thu, 31 Dec 2015 01:38:00 -0500

WTF!!!!!!!!!!

Response by COL Private RallyPoint Member made Dec 31 at 2015 1:48 AM

COL Private RallyPoint Member — Thu, 31 Dec 2015 01:48:56 -0500

As many members have already said, it will be incumbent upon the service member to take responsibility for his/her own retirement. They will have to become very savvy about financial matters. The one advantage of the traditional retirement system was that it allowed the individual to invest in separate retirement options (IRA, Roth IRA, 401K, etc) while also having the non-contributory 20 year retirement. This allowed them to increase their retirement wealth while also having a level of protection against a market crash. Under the new system, that set-up is eliminated. The blended pension/investment system also divests the Federal Government of the responsibility of FULLY funding the retirement of its Soldiers. As someone who is under the old system, I will be gone by the time it is implemented so I really don't have a dog in this fight but I am interested in seeing how it plays out.

Response by SSgt Mark Martinez made Dec 31 at 2015 4:44 AM

SSgt Mark Martinez — Thu, 31 Dec 2015 04:44:34 -0500

This sounds like a defined contribution plan; kinda like a 401K. It's a really good deal for everyone. This plan will not tie a person in. Say you did 10-14 years and are facing another deployment. The current system would tie you to staying for another 6-10 years because if you get out you would get nothing.
I can say from experience. I was planning on doing 20. Two combat deployments changed my mind. I felt I had don my part for our country. I left after 10 years with little savings and no pension.

Response by SGT Anthony Rossi made Dec 31 at 2015 5:00 AM

SGT Anthony Rossi — Thu, 31 Dec 2015 05:00:27 -0500

The world around us is changing. I don't know of any other profession that you can retire from after only twenty years. Besides the fact that it makes no sense to retire someone and then train and replace him or her while the present soldier is still able to serve. It's just not economically intelligent.

Response by Capt Private RallyPoint Member made Dec 31 at 2015 7:50 AM

Capt Private RallyPoint Member — Thu, 31 Dec 2015 07:50:18 -0500

If I am not mistaken under this blended plan you still receive a pension like the 20 yr retirement of today but at a lower rate. To note that it is also supposed to be coupled with the matching contributions to the TSP type of retirement. So really if you start young its not a bad plan.

Response by CW5 John Wilson made Dec 31 at 2015 8:27 AM

CW5 John Wilson — Thu, 31 Dec 2015 08:27:40 -0500

I see some benefits for the non retiring situations. BUT, in the end, no matter how good it sounds, its a watered-down benefit and its always the hard working and retiring Soldier/Sailor/Marine/Airman that gets screwed. Remember REDUX?

Response by LCDR Kim Bynum made Dec 31 at 2015 9:14 AM

LCDR Kim Bynum — Thu, 31 Dec 2015 09:14:48 -0500

Who in the hell is going to serve a full 20 or deployments, combat, crazy ass working hours without the benefits at the end? The only people I knew that did the full 20 were in it for benefits at the end. I see this killing long term retention.

Response by SSG Private RallyPoint Member made Dec 31 at 2015 9:50 AM

SSG Private RallyPoint Member — Thu, 31 Dec 2015 09:50:37 -0500

Good bye Army! It's time to rely now on fishing & farming.

Response by CPT Private RallyPoint Member made Dec 31 at 2015 10:23 AM

CPT Private RallyPoint Member — Thu, 31 Dec 2015 10:23:44 -0500

One of things we were getting right is about to go away! The new system willl not inspire the same loyalty IMO!

Response by MSG Private RallyPoint Member made Dec 31 at 2015 11:04 AM

MSG Private RallyPoint Member — Thu, 31 Dec 2015 11:04:48 -0500

Well, if that's the case, nobody should serve past 10 or 15 yrs depending on your retirement plans. 20yrs is a long time to serve for nothing

Response by Sgt Dan Deleon made Dec 31 at 2015 11:23 AM

Sgt Dan Deleon — Thu, 31 Dec 2015 11:23:18 -0500

That system is more like what private companies are going to. I work for a major American company. When I went to work for them they had a traditional retirement plan in place. My plan has since been replaced with one that looks more like an additional 401K plan. I don't have to contribute to this new plan but it's basically a parallel 401K style retirement plan. Now I've got one plan that I contribute to and one that I don't. Sounds like new troops will have a version of a 401K plan. Welcome to the new world....

Response by SSG Private RallyPoint Member made Dec 31 at 2015 11:27 AM

SSG Private RallyPoint Member — Thu, 31 Dec 2015 11:27:40 -0500

Better start teaching Finances to young Soldiers. Finance Corps has to step up their game! Maybe some Dave Ramsey could be a starting point with 1 day a week, 9 week course of Financial Peace University (FPU)...check it out at DaveRamsey.com Chaplain Corps uses this to help Soldiers with financial struggles. Dave Ramsey Solutions even has military consultants and outreach with special pricing on FPU packages.

Response by LCDR Doug Nordman made Dec 31 at 2015 11:40 AM

LCDR Doug Nordman — Thu, 31 Dec 2015 11:40:19 -0500

There's a lot of misunderstanding (and a little hysteria) in the media.
DoD has put out two one-page graphic summaries that compare the existing and blended retirement systems. I've included both graphics in an analysis post, and the changes in the graphics (from v1.0 to v2.0) are an interesting insight into DoD's attitude.
The blended retirement system is saving DoD a lot of money, and it's shifting the burden of saving for financial independence even more on to servicemembers' shoulders. However most of the testimony to the MCRMC asked for this, and we got exactly what we asked for. Statistically, the 83% who expect to separate without a pension outvoted the 17% who think they're going to stay long enough for the pension. The new system might lower retention, but bonuses (and automation) will probably hold the line. You other woolly mammoths may remember that it took 13 years to detect that the 1986 retirement plan was killing retention, but that plan (REDUX) was a lot worse than the blended retirement system.
I'll suggest that if you're joining the military for the pension, then you're joining for the wrong reason. I discuss that more in the post.
By the way, I'm not just a dinosaur retiree harrumphing about today's military. This blended retirement system still has a personal effect. As soon as the legislation was signed, my active-duty daughter was asking me about her choice.
http://the-military-guide.com/2015/12/17/should-you-choose-the-military-blended-retirement-system/
I'm still seeking a calculator or a spreadsheet that servicemembers could use to help decide which system to choose. If you're developing one (let alone a smartphone app!) then I'd love to be a beta tester.

Should You Choose The Military's Blended Retirement System? - Military Guide

We’ll see dozens of articles and calculators during 2016-17, but here’s the quick answer for most of today’s servicemembers: If you think you’re staying on active duty for at least 20 years, then stick with the current High Three retirement. If you’re pretty sure that you’re leaving active duty before 20 years then take …

Response by 1SG Gregory Griffin made Dec 31 at 2015 12:11 PM

1SG Gregory Griffin — Thu, 31 Dec 2015 12:11:11 -0500

It is not based on the 3 highest years. I have been working for the Government since my retirement in 2008, and I have done a lot of research on this. It is based on your 3 highest consecutive years, and it is 1.1% multiplied by the amount of your 3 highest consecutive years combined, and then averaged, multiplied by the number of years. So, if you make $100,000 a year and you retire at 25 years, it would be 0.011 (x) 100,000 (x) 25 = $27,500 a year. If you're smart, you will also put money into TSP. 5% gets you a 5% match. That can actually exceed your retirement amount if you put in 10-15%.

Response by SSG Ken Wilson made Dec 31 at 2015 1:04 PM

SSG Ken Wilson — Thu, 31 Dec 2015 13:04:50 -0500

This should have been done long ago, however mismanagement by fund managers need to be watched closely!

Response by MAJ Private RallyPoint Member made Dec 31 at 2015 1:29 PM

MAJ Private RallyPoint Member — Thu, 31 Dec 2015 13:29:49 -0500

Good Afternoon,

First, in the interest of full disclosure, I retire from the US Army on New Year’s Day 2017 and I will pick up a very comfortable retirement check IMO every month. I would not toss that money back willingly. As far as time invested vs. return, the DoD retirement system is one of the best in the world IMO for those that invest in it.

That being said, I think that the 20-year retirement system should be scrapped.

It’s not because it’s less expensive, but rather because if troops can walk away anytime then we will reduce the toxic leadership issue. One of the fundamental flaws the DoD has is that innovation and fat-cutting are frowned upon because we don’t want to give up our tenure.

After I said that I’d like to go ANYWHERE but the National Capital Region (NCR), I got sent to the NCR three times. If we had the stock-market based system, I could have said SEE YA and left. But once you hit that magic 10-year mark, it’s 20 years or nothing. If I walked away from the toxic leader I worked for, my family and I would have been left with nothing effectively.

And I thought about leaving at just under 18 years in the US Army. The leader was that bad.

If we get rid of the 20-year retirement then the force will become younger because the older folks like me won’t stick around well past our sell-by date. We will have left the service and joined industry or created a business. Then we could start hiring those who leave the US Army….

If you think back to prior wars, we had a US Army that didn’t stick around for 20 years usually. We had a churn of younger troops coming in all the time.

If we move away from the 20-year retirement, then people like me who endured a toxic leader could say SEE YA and walk away. After the 10-year mark there really isn’t a choice because it’s either get to 20 years in or get nothing. Some of us end up being yes-men rather than saying no to things that won’t work.

Ever seen an insane program in the Army that was put in by some Good Idea Fairy? Somebody senior didn’t get effective feedback. Either they had yes-men (OK, yes-people) or they were a toxic leader who wouldn’t accept anything other than 100% agreement on al items.

If we could walk away it would help the US Army IMO. In my field most of us are over 20 years due to our prior enlistment, and when we all put in for retirement en-mass it means something. Year groups 1996 to 2002 will be at 28% strength next year (01JAN17) when I retire. And the National Council on Radiation Protection (NCRP) thinks th

We need to be a 21st century force ready to fight a 21st century war. We have a Napoleonic rank structure and format that was designed for Napoleon to win battles (but not the wars). We have an 18th century structure that thinks it’s ready to fight in the 21st century.

What would the US Army be like if it was run like Google, and the troops could leave at will and be hired at will? That might be a fun topic!

OK, I prattled on a bit here. But you get my train of thought. We need troops that are willing to say no to bad concepts and bad commanders. And right now we don’t have that system due to the retirement system in place.

Have a Happy New Year! And be SAFE about it!

MAJ Aaron Miaullis

PS: I will still enjoy that retirement check every month….even as I complain about the system…. There is plenty of room in the Society of Hypocrites Intent on Teamwork (SHIT) if you’d like to join us! And yes, on 31DEC16 I will be drunk-posting my final email to our field…and it will be epic (and safe for work…sort of...).

Response by CSM Private RallyPoint Member made Dec 31 at 2015 1:31 PM

CSM Private RallyPoint Member — Thu, 31 Dec 2015 13:31:08 -0500

The single most sought after benefit for career service memebers being changed and/ or outright removed? I'd like to see the details of this plan in depth before I pass judgment on the good, bad, and ugly. I can beyond a reasonable doubt assure you this; this new retirement plan will be in their interest and not in our favor.

Response by CSM Private RallyPoint Member made Dec 31 at 2015 1:35 PM

CSM Private RallyPoint Member — Thu, 31 Dec 2015 13:35:53 -0500

Good for the goose, good for the gander right? Let's start working on a "massive overhaul" of the retirement plans of career Congressmen and Senators. Lolz.

Response by CPL(P) Private RallyPoint Member made Dec 31 at 2015 1:44 PM

CPL(P) Private RallyPoint Member — Thu, 31 Dec 2015 13:44:37 -0500

I think this is a huge slap in the face of any new recruit. It will cripple our future numbers. New enlisted members won't stay. We'll end up paying more in bonus and desperate recruiting numbers. Hell, it might be precursor to a forced draft.

Response by SGT Private RallyPoint Member made Dec 31 at 2015 2:14 PM

SGT Private RallyPoint Member — Thu, 31 Dec 2015 14:14:59 -0500

Time to put it to the litmus test. Lets see how many Congressmen sign up for it. WAIT, that's right, they have their own version that far exceeds this BS!

Short answer: if you won't use a product you developed, why pass it off onto others who do your dirty work?

Response by CPO Private RallyPoint Member made Dec 31 at 2015 4:59 PM

CPO Private RallyPoint Member — Thu, 31 Dec 2015 16:59:48 -0500

They still get a pension after 20 it is at 40 percent vice 50.

Response by SPC Nancy Bowers made Dec 31 at 2015 5:33 PM

SPC Nancy Bowers — Thu, 31 Dec 2015 17:33:44 -0500

Sounds like the government civilian plan...

Response by PO1 Raymond Fuller made Dec 31 at 2015 5:36 PM

PO1 Raymond Fuller — Thu, 31 Dec 2015 17:36:54 -0500

It's b.s. Bet retention will suck also why don't they do the same for the White House people and congress as well

Response by SGT Dan Nations made Dec 31 at 2015 6:13 PM

SGT Dan Nations — Thu, 31 Dec 2015 18:13:50 -0500

Very happy to see this. There are several million veterans that served their country for less than 20 years and never got any type of retirement benefits. No 401k, no savings plan, nothing. Now they will be able to start on their retirement savings and if they want to get out after 4, 8, or even 15 years they can have a great start on their retirement savings. This is a good thing, not a bad thing.

Response by MSgt Jeff Greene made Dec 31 at 2015 6:14 PM

MSgt Jeff Greene — Thu, 31 Dec 2015 18:14:36 -0500

Another way to trim the force. Smart military personnel will contribute to TSP because it is the smart way to go. Other than that, if the services are not willing to keep the traditional retirement plan, they should allow people to stay 30 years. If more commanders, command chiefs, 1st Sgts and supervisors did their job, they would weed out the non-performers and slackers and we wouldn't have these people reaching retirement.

Response by SFC Private RallyPoint Member made Dec 31 at 2015 6:15 PM

SFC Private RallyPoint Member — Thu, 31 Dec 2015 18:15:05 -0500

That's great that other government employees use a tsp match system but last time I checked civilian government employees aren't running operations in foreign countries with the possibility of dying in service to their country. And that aside, the physical and mental demands are not comparable nor is their salaries considering a GS12 in Virginia makes roughly what a Major in the Army makes. I think we are comparing apples and oranges. When they start out other government employees out at pay comlarable to their military "counterpart" then we can compare retirement systems. Im glad I have the high 3 and only have a few years to go before I retire from active duty.

Response by SPC M F made Dec 31 at 2015 6:27 PM

SPC M F — Thu, 31 Dec 2015 18:27:59 -0500

Response by CPL John Tossona made Dec 31 at 2015 7:12 PM

CPL John Tossona — Thu, 31 Dec 2015 19:12:19 -0500

If it's anything like civilian plans, you can't start collecting till 62. If congress passes a plan that is towards us, they should receive the same plan. Bet they'd think twice before passing it.

Response by LCpl Dan Steele made Dec 31 at 2015 7:36 PM

LCpl Dan Steele — Thu, 31 Dec 2015 19:36:10 -0500

No one is gonna want to stay in for 20 years now. Obama is killing the military slowly

Response by 1SG Dale Perronteau made Dec 31 at 2015 8:54 PM

1SG Dale Perronteau — Thu, 31 Dec 2015 20:54:15 -0500

I don't think this is a good plan for the soldiers as they don't get paid enough for what they have to give up and the hardships they will live until retirement. The missed family events the deployments to hostle countries the high possibility of never coming home alive,etc.... The soldiers fight the battles that politicians start. If politicians want to cut money start with them. No retirement for them and that is the president down to Mayor. Put into law that in order to hold any elected office they must have served for a minimum of 3 years as a soldier or servicemen. This might ensure that politicians don't screw over the serviemen as they would have learned how hard it is to serve and live on a base pay for a family.

Response by Lt Col Private RallyPoint Member made Dec 31 at 2015 9:05 PM

Lt Col Private RallyPoint Member — Thu, 31 Dec 2015 21:05:52 -0500

I think we're going to have a serious retention problem around the 10 year mark if people can walk away with some retirement benefits, and roll them into a new employer's 401(k). It's essentially the same retirement plan as most civilian companies...I don't see how we're going to get most folks to stay to 20 years under this plan.

Response by SGT Matthew Amedure made Dec 31 at 2015 10:20 PM

SGT Matthew Amedure — Thu, 31 Dec 2015 22:20:06 -0500

Our military is going to go to hell! We'll see how many experienced soldiers we have after all the seniors leave. They'll rethink this in the years to come. I see a revision for sure.

Response by SGT John Desthers made Dec 31 at 2015 11:28 PM

SGT John Desthers — Thu, 31 Dec 2015 23:28:14 -0500

Can't wait to see the quality of personal this new plan will bring in. RLTW!!!!!

Response by SSG Dennis Saryerwinnie made Jan 1 at 2016 12:25 AM

SSG Dennis Saryerwinnie — Fri, 01 Jan 2016 00:25:55 -0500

When I was in the Navy '75-'79, The retirement plan was changed to mean if you put in 20 years you wouldn't get your check until you reached retirement age about 62 years old back then. We had so many Officers and Chief Petty officers leave the Navy that they lost a lot of knowledge. That was changed. Hopefully this latest endeavor for our Government to save a few bucks on the service of our Military men and women will be brought to light and also be changed.

Response by SPC Private RallyPoint Member made Jan 1 at 2016 5:05 AM

SPC Private RallyPoint Member — Fri, 01 Jan 2016 05:05:00 -0500

Forgive me if I'm wrong but I understand that this only goes for the civilian side of the house? If so, how can on go from the military to a civilian federal job and retire at 20 years? Also, would this system only benefit those effected by it when they turn 65?

Response by SFC Private RallyPoint Member made Jan 1 at 2016 8:01 AM

SFC Private RallyPoint Member — Fri, 01 Jan 2016 08:01:20 -0500

Good luck getting quality troops to make a career of it. If we treat the military like any other job.. Then you've just compared yourselves to McDonalds... Why should anyone endure, they just removed one of the biggest reason.

Response by SSgt Matt McCue made Jan 1 at 2016 8:05 AM

SSgt Matt McCue — Fri, 01 Jan 2016 08:05:41 -0500

For years the pols have been trying to find a way to gut what some have termed an overly generous military retirement system. BS there is not a career that exist that is more deserving of our gratitude and financial commitment than military service, our men and women in uniform and their families are ask to make extreme sacrifice for the sake of our way of life and I am embarrassed as an American that these sacrifices are taken for granted and the self important politicians could do this. God bless our troops thank you for your sacrifice

Response by SGT Private RallyPoint Member made Jan 1 at 2016 8:16 AM

SGT Private RallyPoint Member — Fri, 01 Jan 2016 08:16:54 -0500

That's a bunch of crap. They should have to put in at least 20 to get something like the ones before them had to.

Response by CW4 Angel C. made Jan 1 at 2016 9:43 AM

CW4 Angel C. — Fri, 01 Jan 2016 09:43:15 -0500

From my understanding it mostly benefits those that don't do 20. So I'm curious to see how much this retirement will motivate servicemen and women to do over 20. Well maybe Congress should also revamp the 50% spousal entitlement which in my opinion is the biggest slap in the face and straight up robbery of the American Soldier!!!

Response by MSG Pat Colby made Jan 1 at 2016 10:14 AM

MSG Pat Colby — Fri, 01 Jan 2016 10:14:15 -0500

What no one is addressing is the fact that a Military Pension is not a pay off for services rendered. It's more like a retainer. All Retirees are subject to recall if the shit hits the fan.

With this new retirement system, you're going to see a LOT more people leaving at the 12-16 year marks. That's going to hurt readiness.

Response by SSG Private RallyPoint Member made Jan 1 at 2016 11:03 AM

SSG Private RallyPoint Member — Fri, 01 Jan 2016 11:03:37 -0500

As I see it, it's a benefit to the soldier at the cost of the institution. If someone joins the military and gets into an MOS with civilian marketable skills, and can chop off the last third of their career and get started on earning civilian money instead of giving back to the military as an instructor, platoon sergeant, or senior leader, what's the upside for that soldier to stay in longer?

Also, as if there aren't enough people out there drawing a check from Uncle Sam, they're going to go from 20% of service members to 80%? Forget about whether it's right or good or smart, that's a huge increase in overhead, with increased potential for mismanagement, let alone outright fraud.

Response by SFC Bobby Thompson made Jan 1 at 2016 11:56 AM

SFC Bobby Thompson — Fri, 01 Jan 2016 11:56:51 -0500

It would have been great if John McCain or Lindsey Graham had stood-up for the military and said no. It just lets you know how much the Senate and folks in Washington are out of touch with the people they are supposed to be serving(military personnel). You just cant compare the military with a typical 9 to 5 job and just shove a 401K plan down their throat. It really seems like the Government is trying to get rid of the career military men, who for years and generations have served our country and made the military a career. I guess they just want people to served a short 4 to 8 year term.

Response by MSgt Private RallyPoint Member made Jan 1 at 2016 12:11 PM

MSgt Private RallyPoint Member — Fri, 01 Jan 2016 12:11:40 -0500

Ever since the TSP was brought online for active duty military and the DOD didn't match didn't seem like the best approach-wouldn't got more participant's people investing if it was matched. If a 20 year retirement is not longer offered a continous employment plan needs to be guareenteed for veteran's.

Response by TSgt Ray Rock made Jan 1 at 2016 12:27 PM

TSgt Ray Rock — Fri, 01 Jan 2016 12:27:13 -0500

I like the idea of an employer match with TSP, however, that should have been done in addition to the current retirement system, not in place of part of it.

Response by COL Private RallyPoint Member made Jan 1 at 2016 12:29 PM

COL Private RallyPoint Member — Fri, 01 Jan 2016 12:29:14 -0500

Financial education is lacking for most in our country. As a result, too many fail to understand anything about concepts like an emergency fund (savings), long term planning (insurance), retirement (pensions, IRA, 401K, etc.) or the cost of marriage/divorce. If, our service members had any understanding of finance, then planning for the future would be reduced. But, we are a fighting force, not a social organization. So, beyond the basic personal finance briefing and mentorship we provide to our members, we have to trust them to understand the constraints and opportunities our new retirement system brings.

As to my preference on pensions systems, I have advocated for 15 years that there should be one pension system (AC and RC), based on the RC retirement, in addition to the elimination of the 20 year cliff retirement option and a vesting period. My logic is, that if the RC pension is adequate for an 'Operational Reserve' where members must place their full-time (401K, IRA providing) career at risk to serve on active duty a minimum of 6 years in a 20 year career for the possibility of a retirement at age 60, then it should be adequate for the AC. Everyone (AC and RC) would receive their military pension no earlier than age 50 (after 10 years of active duty and a total of 20 years of service) but no later than age 60.

As a result, everyone would have to plan for the years between the end of their military career and their first pension check (employment, disability, savings, etc.). If we can eliminate the 'up or out' promotion system and base retention on the needs of the service, this may mean that some people stay longer (RC and AC). It may also mean that as people 'vest' in their military 401K, they begin to plan their path to retirement. For those who choose or are forced to leave the service, that plan would have to include employment beyond/after military service, savings, and living below your means. For those who stay, it may be the process of finding out how to serve until age 50 or how to transition from the military to equatable employment in the public or private sector.

As for divorce and having children, given our current Family Court system and the Former Spouse Act, I recommend that every service member contemplating marriage consider marriage as a long term financial investment/risk. Too often military members are financially ruined by divorce and the requirement to provide lifelong financial support to a former spouse in addition to 20 years of child support and alimony. Under current law, a 10 year marriage can cost a service member half of the retirement benefits acquired during the marriage (401K, IRA, savings, etc.) as well as half of the service member's final military retirement pay. This rarely sounds like a great return on investment. So, maybe this requires greater consideration beyond "I'm in love and want to get married" to somewhere around, "I'm in love and want to risk 50-70% of my total lifetime income on this relationship."

Response by PO1 Randy Palermo made Jan 1 at 2016 12:33 PM

PO1 Randy Palermo — Fri, 01 Jan 2016 12:33:39 -0500

Why will people enlist ???? The retirement aspect was a big draw

Response by SSG Private RallyPoint Member made Jan 1 at 2016 12:53 PM

SSG Private RallyPoint Member — Fri, 01 Jan 2016 12:53:50 -0500

45 days and counting till I final out on retirement leave. I'm glad for the retirement plan I have

Response by SSG Carlos AcostaCastro made Jan 1 at 2016 1:42 PM

SSG Carlos AcostaCastro — Fri, 01 Jan 2016 13:42:28 -0500

Is the Army becoming a private Corporation, if so all the sacrifices done during your service won't count for anything, you will see everybody going on sick call everyday to get Disabilities from the VA

Response by LT Private RallyPoint Member made Jan 1 at 2016 1:46 PM

LT Private RallyPoint Member — Fri, 01 Jan 2016 13:46:19 -0500

Not clear here. In plain English - those who serve 20 starting with 2018 - do they get the retirement pay?
TSP - involuntary contributions by the member - does the govt match 1 for 1?
If not - what's the point?

Response by MSgt Richard Parke made Jan 1 at 2016 1:47 PM

MSgt Richard Parke — Fri, 01 Jan 2016 13:47:25 -0500

Looks to me to be another source of revenue for the assclowns in DC raid. If they can raid Social Security, why not this. I don't even feel like my traditional retirement is safe from these theiving bastards

Response by Sgt Burtan Lafleur made Jan 1 at 2016 2:04 PM

Sgt Burtan Lafleur — Fri, 01 Jan 2016 14:04:31 -0500

And what are they going to do for the 20,000 of us they cut before 15 years so they didn't have to pay retirement? Fucking politicians.

Response by LCpl Steve Smith made Jan 1 at 2016 3:31 PM

LCpl Steve Smith — Fri, 01 Jan 2016 15:31:56 -0500

Ya know, You never hear about Congress cutting out or ending any of their life time benefits. it's disheartening and frustrating, that they say "We Need to Take care of our Vets" then do more taking away of the things they promised. Not that that's any big surprise though. The Big Green Weenie is always working.

Response by Capt Tom Brown made Jan 1 at 2016 3:40 PM

Capt Tom Brown — Fri, 01 Jan 2016 15:40:52 -0500

10 yrs.

Response by SPC Private RallyPoint Member made Jan 1 at 2016 4:24 PM

SPC Private RallyPoint Member — Fri, 01 Jan 2016 16:24:47 -0500

Time for me to get out

Response by SMSgt Corey Zimmermann made Jan 1 at 2016 5:22 PM

SMSgt Corey Zimmermann — Fri, 01 Jan 2016 17:22:35 -0500

I haven't seen anybody identify that the removal of a guaranteed pension is basically a reduction of the total compensation package for military members. If they now expect a troop to contribute 5% to his own retirement, are they going to increase base pay accordingly?

Response by SSG Private RallyPoint Member made Jan 1 at 2016 6:21 PM

SSG Private RallyPoint Member — Fri, 01 Jan 2016 18:21:52 -0500

I contribute 15% of my pay to the traditional TSP. The government will only match up to 5%. This is a horrible deal because all you are really getting is no more thsn 5% and no less than 1% from the government.
They have paraded this around as if now you can take something with you if you decide to leave the force. Truth is since TSP has been a part of the Military, you could have always have taken what you contributed.
We have been played.

I have been contributing to the TSP since 2002. So if I had ever decided to leave what I put in would be mine to take.

~SSG Christopher Crawley

Response by SGT Paul Tomayko made Jan 1 at 2016 8:54 PM

SGT Paul Tomayko — Fri, 01 Jan 2016 20:54:11 -0500

This isn't right...

Response by CPL Private RallyPoint Member made Jan 1 at 2016 10:09 PM

CPL Private RallyPoint Member — Fri, 01 Jan 2016 22:09:24 -0500

It looks like people may have received poor info. Read the bill (search feature helps in .PDF), the pension still exists. The new plan just brought it down to 2 times years served from 2.5. So if you stay in for 20 you get 40% base pay. On top of that they make automatic 1% pay into TSP for everyone. If you want to do more they will match contributions up to 5%.

This means people who stay in for 0-14 years don't get screwed for retirement. They can still have an IRA/TSP account.

I think it is a good deal for military. It allows people who want to invest their own money a higher return and people to have a diversified portfolio. I already upped my TSP contribution because of this.

Response by PO2 Private RallyPoint Member made Jan 1 at 2016 11:15 PM

PO2 Private RallyPoint Member — Fri, 01 Jan 2016 23:15:58 -0500

Before I start, I am a cook and not a financial genius...with that said, lets begin...

There are 2 sides of this argument 1) Money 2) Responsibility

1) MONEY
The new Blended plan pays out between $107,000 - $350,000 (this varies with whatever is contributed to your TSP + 26 years of service) more than the traditional plan. The drawback is "Blended" takes away 20% of your overall retirement which means you drop from 50% retirement to 40% retirement (The calculation is 40/50=.8 or 80% which means you lost 20%). Cant touch the TSP without incurring full taxes + 10% early widthdrawl penalty until the IRS published retirement age (will change before you retire). Do they both even out? It depends on your financial knowledge...

2) RESPONSIBILITY
A) Personal responsibility
Is the individual responsible enough to live within their paygrade? Do they budget correctly to live an amazing life? Do they pay bills first then go out and spend their cash or is it the opposite? Do they actively save? Do they understand tax, tax advantages and how it works? Does the individual know how 401K/TSP plans work, what the funds are, how the stock market changes prices and how to read world news? Does the individual actively seek information about these topics? The answers to these questions are very important to answering the "Blended" or "Traditional" question.

B) Military responsibility
Is this knowledge available to access at base facilities? Do the services actively hold classes to teach financial knowledge? If not, will they offer these classes when they implement this new "Blended" plan? Will these classes be mandatory?

This section is "RULES OF THE GAME": Much like monopoly, there are rules for this game. What are they?

How much is TOTAL PAY?
How much is BASE PAY?
How much are ALLOWANCES?
What are the tax benefits?
How much do I pay in taxes each year?
What are my tax shelters and how do I use them?
What is my monthly budget? Heres how I tell people to plan
-TSP first: This is the money you will be living on when you retire. It is also a tax shelter.
-Rent/Mortgage
-Utilities
-Phone/Cable/Internet
-Food (Grocerys: Eat in only)
-3 month emergency fund: Cause it would suck if you didnt have this when you need it.
-Transportation: Car, Insurance, maintenance, gas
-Fun money: Always have fun, but dont have fun at the expense of your future.

Here is all my rationale for the "RULES"...Base pay is taxed, allowances arent which means you have an instant tax advantage without even trying. What is available for tax shelters? YOUR TSP!!!!!! The TSP is broken into main 2 parts, Traditional and Roth. Traditional is taxed when you retire. Roth is taxed when you put it in so there is no taxes at retirement. I choose traditional for 2 reasons, taxes and TAXES. Because Traditional is Pre-Tax contributions, it lowers your taxable income instantly. My second reason is it gives me extra money to earn interest with. If you put enough money into the Traditional TSP, you will have to pay 0% tax at the end of the year. ASK ME HOW I KNOW!!!!! With ROTH you dont get the tax benefits AT ALL. Choose wisely!

Budgeting. This is a tough one. Everyone is different and everyones thinking is different. I choose to preach about savings first cause you can always have fun. When youre 70 you cant always work, but you will become an INSTANT burden on your children. They have their own families to take care of also. Think about this fact when you buy your children everything they ever wanted was more important than ensuring your own financial stability. Just gently remind them that you bought them an easy bake oven when they were 5. Use the MASLOW'S HIERARCHY of NEEDS to guide you on this one, NEED vs WANT. (IE, Need: Pay for roof over head, pay for water, electricity and gas, pay for retirement....Want: New tv, stripclubs, beer)

In closing, its not the Government's responsibility to organize and maintain your life. Its your own. Its only the Governments job to make sure you get your pay at the end of the month no matter what the pay or how they pay you. Take some of your own time to learn about your own finance and habits. The earlier you learn this stuff the more dividends it will pay in the long run.

Response by Sgt Monroe Seigle made Jan 1 at 2016 11:21 PM

Sgt Monroe Seigle — Fri, 01 Jan 2016 23:21:26 -0500

I don't understand this. What's changing? Does one have to serve longer to get the retirement? What are the benefits to the new plan? Someone explain this so a Marine can understand.

Response by PO1 Paul Guevara made Jan 1 at 2016 11:25 PM

PO1 Paul Guevara — Fri, 01 Jan 2016 23:25:19 -0500

I started active duty and retired reservist. I was on the TSP program and it looked great, until 2006-08 recession and unemployment boom.
I was out of full time work and not able to pay child support, making me a deadbeat dad. I had saved my TSP and another 401k until child support services decided that they did not see my need to retire and took both my TSP and 401K.
Totally my problem and not making excuses, but since these things are not completely safe from getting taken away from you, how many will be affected?
More importantly, after the same situation happens to somebody else how easy would it be to retain that person?

Response by Aleta Schaefer made Jan 1 at 2016 11:56 PM

Aleta Schaefer — Fri, 01 Jan 2016 23:56:58 -0500

Sounds like the Postal Service was the test ground for this plan. That's what they did to us. I think th guys who keep us save and risk their lives deserve better than this bullshit.

Response by PO2 David Bergmann made Jan 2 at 2016 12:02 AM

PO2 David Bergmann — Sat, 02 Jan 2016 00:02:07 -0500

To all of us that have been retired from the miltary, I my self have been retired from the Navy 19+ year . This,will not effect me but for those getting ready to retire in 2018 I feel for those who will be. This has to be a very hard pill to swallow

Response by Sgt Kim Proctor made Jan 2 at 2016 12:18 AM

Sgt Kim Proctor — Sat, 02 Jan 2016 00:18:07 -0500

Why fix it if it ain't broke

Response by SFC Private RallyPoint Member made Jan 2 at 2016 1:06 AM

SFC Private RallyPoint Member — Sat, 02 Jan 2016 01:06:09 -0500

Even most major corporations will still give retirement and 401K after 20 plus years. As if the force isn't young and inexperienced enough. Another way to run off anyone who knows what the hell their doing.

Response by SrA Private RallyPoint Member made Jan 2 at 2016 1:15 AM

SrA Private RallyPoint Member — Sat, 02 Jan 2016 01:15:47 -0500

I am in currently. And us currently serving have a choice of 2 options that are beneficial for different reasons. If one already knows they'll stay for 20 years then they can stick to the old plan but remember only about 17% actually retire. Everyone else gets out one way or another. The new plan is geared towards the majority. So they can invest into a 401k and be able to transfer it or add to it from another job once they get out. It's not a get out with nothing mind set anymore. While I get u still do 20 and get a pension, but if done smartly one can retire with a lot more money than what the old plan would give them.

Response by LTC Charles T Dalbec made Jan 2 at 2016 1:19 AM

LTC Charles T Dalbec — Sat, 02 Jan 2016 01:19:21 -0500

More liberal Democratic moves to take away benefits from those who serve. Same would bevdonevtp Veterans if they had their ways

Response by PO1 Edward Reuther made Jan 2 at 2016 1:41 AM

PO1 Edward Reuther — Sat, 02 Jan 2016 01:41:04 -0500

Seems to me if you can't put in the time you don't deserve the benefits.

Response by PO2 William Pople made Jan 2 at 2016 3:40 AM

PO2 William Pople — Sat, 02 Jan 2016 03:40:56 -0500

This is simply ridiculous. The guaranteed paycheck for retiring is the major reason people say as long as they do. There have been retention issues frequently over the years even with that incentive. Looking for a job to start over so late in the game is hard enough, let alone having a very specific skill set that doesn't easily transfer to the civilian world. The pension is not free money it is a benefit that is figured into your pay, your pay is less than market rate for the security that you wouldn't need to worry about gambling your future in the stock market against people that know way more about playing the game than you do. For members that are deployed to places without internet access regularly to keep up with their portfolios like you would need to are relying the skill and generosity of some stranger to manage for them. Now they just have you saving your own money without raising your pay, which you could have done before. The contribution they give you is a fraction of what you would make with a pension and the justification is that you can make more through the stock market. That has proven reliable just ask all the guys looking to retire close to the recent recession that lost everything. Ridiculous.

Response by Cpl Rock DeAugustine made Jan 2 at 2016 3:49 AM

Cpl Rock DeAugustine — Sat, 02 Jan 2016 03:49:38 -0500

It was a great plan while it lasted and one of the few vestiges of a social democratic system in America. Thank god we have capitalism riding high so we can ensure no pensions for anyone except politicians.

Response by SFC Nelson Lovejoy made Jan 2 at 2016 6:31 AM

SFC Nelson Lovejoy — Sat, 02 Jan 2016 06:31:07 -0500

it will not be for the benefit of the soldier, believe me!! if this administration is involved, it will hurt the soldier!!

Response by SGT Private RallyPoint Member made Jan 2 at 2016 8:28 AM

SGT Private RallyPoint Member — Sat, 02 Jan 2016 08:28:30 -0500

I think that if they are going to do this type of retirement for the service member then they should be doing the same for the politicians as well as the POTUS no more life long check.or security details.

Response by CPT Philip Blackstone made Jan 2 at 2016 9:34 AM

CPT Philip Blackstone — Sat, 02 Jan 2016 09:34:09 -0500

I cannot speak for the specifics of the plan, but I believe this concept is a great thing for the forces. I got out after 5 years. The main reason was that I didn't see myself as a 20 year guy, I would have stayed to 10, but I knew that I would have no employer retirement to take with me. So the 20 yr or nothing policy inspired me to either get out after my initial obligation or stay to 20, anything in between would have meant I contributed to the system, but got nothing back.
Another problem I have not seen addressed is soldiers who have ROAD (retired on active duty). I saw more than a couple senior guys who knew they weren't going to make the next career step so they settled in doing just enough to not get in trouble as they spent the last years required to get them to 20. Give these guys a way out; so they can get what they earned and the force is left with people who want to be there.

Response by SFC Bobby Thompson made Jan 2 at 2016 10:33 AM

SFC Bobby Thompson — Sat, 02 Jan 2016 10:33:33 -0500

The next thing that they are going to try and improve / quasi take for retirees is TRICARE.

Response by MSgt Jim Wolverton made Jan 2 at 2016 12:05 PM

MSgt Jim Wolverton — Sat, 02 Jan 2016 12:05:21 -0500

I believe we will see less people making a true career of the military arm continuity will suffer as a result.

Response by CPT Jason Torpy made Jan 2 at 2016 12:06 PM

CPT Jason Torpy — Sat, 02 Jan 2016 12:06:30 -0500

still skeptical whether this will go through, but I'm all for it. 20-years and pay forever is dumb in the civilian world and it's dumb for the military, financially speaking. It's FAR more justified for the military where people really do sacrifice their bodies even if they live through it. But a robust retirement plan doesn't have to be a paycheck-for-not-working pension system. Employee matching (TSP) with rules for vesting (how long you have to wait before you can take the matched investments with you) and graduated scales (a higher percentage contributed later in career) as well as high numbers (like 50% salary match not just 5%) would all leave a robust retirement plan but never have the DoD paying someone who doesn't work there anymore.
http://www.militarytimes.com/story/military/2015/10/07/ndaa-retirement-plan-detailed/73141086/

Military retirement overhaul: Congress is on board — so what comes next?

Congress has settled on plans for a major overhaul of military retirement. Now the question is if it'll happen.

Response by CPO Bernie Burawski made Jan 2 at 2016 12:47 PM

CPO Bernie Burawski — Sat, 02 Jan 2016 12:47:11 -0500

This does not sound right to me. For the amount of sacrifice service members endure during a career of at least 20 years, this retirement plan falls short of even coming close to adequate compensation.

Response by TSgt Jennifer Disch made Jan 2 at 2016 1:16 PM

TSgt Jennifer Disch — Sat, 02 Jan 2016 13:16:04 -0500

Either way you have to work to get any retirement benefits.

Response by CW4 Private RallyPoint Member made Jan 2 at 2016 1:16 PM

CW4 Private RallyPoint Member — Sat, 02 Jan 2016 13:16:57 -0500

I have read a good deal of responses. Let's be clear; history is abundantly clear on this issue; whenever the Government makes changes to Federal and military annuitants, it's ALWAYS a reduction for the person and a gain for Corporations and the Agencies. Under the guise that it would benefit those that do not stay for 20, here's the sad reality of how much Federal employees under 35 have in their TSP. Excerpt from article http://www.fedsmith.com/2012/10/04/
“…how much do federal employees have socked away in their Thrift Savings Plan accounts?...Those under 35 have $11,993”... That's a fact as of 2012 directly from The Thrift Savings Board. Facts are so persistent...
Just like, or arguably more so than Federal employees, what young SM can afford or be disciplined enough to save much more than the 5% to capture matching funds? Be realistic in your calculations! This is a huge Wall Street win ->
HUGE. All I can say its a sad situation...let your Congressman hear from you. You must speak up!!! This is an abomination to military SM's.

2012 October 04 : FedSmith.com

FedSmith.com is a digital news service for current and former federal employees.

Response by MSgt Phillip Ketchum made Jan 2 at 2016 3:49 PM

MSgt Phillip Ketchum — Sat, 02 Jan 2016 15:49:57 -0500

I can see how this would benefit more, however what about the other benefits that go with a retirement after 20 years; such as use of the commissary, base exchange and clinics. I do not think all retirees should have these benefits. It will only tax these establishments more. Not to mention all of the bases that will have to do the ID cards.

Response by TSgt Private RallyPoint Member made Jan 2 at 2016 5:18 PM

TSgt Private RallyPoint Member — Sat, 02 Jan 2016 17:18:17 -0500

I got out of active duty 8 years ago and currently an ART.... This is still a little disgruntling to take in. What's going to happen with medical retirement? That 1 in 5 number is garbage. I initially entered active service in 2003 and we have tsp, correct me if I'm wrong, but it's transferable to a 401k. Really all this system will benefit is people who promote the fastest. It's kind of a shock to the System, I'm all over the place. The military is changing, the work force is changing. Veterans will all need to continue service as a civilian to earn a decent retirement. The problem is a lot of people's bodies are pretty beat up after 15-25 years of service. There is also a law they introduced a while back that the 59 year old age is reduced for every 90 days of active service after 2009, not sure exactly how many years are reduced, but active member may still see retirement benefits by the age of 50, which is a reasonable age to retire. It's new, it will make sense and people will work out numbers... Time will tell

Response by PO3 Al Coholic made Jan 2 at 2016 5:46 PM

PO3 Al Coholic — Sat, 02 Jan 2016 17:46:09 -0500

This "blended" retirement plan significantly reduces the pension of "working aged retirees" (between 40-59.5). I could not recommend the military as a career to young people entering service once this is enacted.

Response by CDR Private RallyPoint Member made Jan 2 at 2016 8:41 PM

CDR Private RallyPoint Member — Sat, 02 Jan 2016 20:41:22 -0500

I wonder if other government agencies with military-like retirement systems, such as Foreign Service and Federal Law Enforcement, have been similarly targeted? I also find it funny that the same admirals and generals who advocated for this change, managed just a few short years ago, to change the retirement system for them to get 100% at 40 years service. They certainly got theirs didn't they....

Response by TSgt Steven Summerlin made Jan 2 at 2016 8:49 PM

TSgt Steven Summerlin — Sat, 02 Jan 2016 20:49:22 -0500

Having been medically separated due to service related injuries after 16 years, I would have loved to have seen this program in effect. The government is stepping up with this change and taking the decision on whether to retire or separate damaged troops out of the hands of the DoD. No longer will they be able to break a person physically and then decide to hand them a severance check as the escort them off the installation.

Response by SFC Richard Pineda made Jan 2 at 2016 9:47 PM

SFC Richard Pineda — Sat, 02 Jan 2016 21:47:26 -0500

Also wondering how this will affect recruitment but glad to see that someone who does less than 20 years will still get some form of retirement.

Response by LT Steve Wilson made Jan 2 at 2016 9:58 PM

LT Steve Wilson — Sat, 02 Jan 2016 21:58:54 -0500

I see this as a double-edged sword. True, it will provide a cushion for those that do not serve the full 20 years, but I believe it will decimate the experience in the ranks. Without that 20yr/50% carrot what is the motivation for experienced Armed Forces members to remain in the service? I believe too many will take their technical and leadership experience and apply it to the civilian sector where long-term unaccompanied deployments are rare and compensation is higher overall.
What I find interesting is that a system that has worked well since the mid-1880’s is now being revamped when a servicemember’s value to the civilian sector is greater than ever. The technical skills of the average soldier/sailor/airman are leagues beyond those of the millennials they would compete against in the private sector.
As a retired Vet, I guarantee if the proposed plan were in place when I had the opportunity to separate after my first enlistment, I would have taken my experience in electronic systems and never looked back. Yes, I was patriotic, but I wasn’t stupid.
Since I did serve in a blended program while an Engineer with the Dept of Navy, I received something similar to this plan. After 8 yrs, I left with a full 401k balance less than I make in a single month. I feel that many servicemembers will do the same thing I did and contribute next to nothing to the program, further weakening the payout.

Response by SPC Brian Hanson made Jan 2 at 2016 10:25 PM

SPC Brian Hanson — Sat, 02 Jan 2016 22:25:15 -0500

So the Armed Forces don't merit a time based pension, but firemen, police, teachers, judges, union government workers, corrections officers all get a pension after 20 or 25 years of service regardless of how the stock market does, or how many times life kicks their well thought out financial plans in the balls. I can only assume that this "improvement" was lobbied for by the very same wall street jerk offs that nearly bankrupted our country in 2008. This should prove to be a retention killer.

Response by SSG Ray Armstrong made Jan 2 at 2016 10:32 PM

SSG Ray Armstrong — Sat, 02 Jan 2016 22:32:44 -0500

Them MF in Congress don't give a dam if a veteran feed his family after he or she Retire. But you can bet your ass that they are going to get paid.

Response by Libby Massiah made Jan 2 at 2016 11:10 PM

Libby Massiah — Sat, 02 Jan 2016 23:10:34 -0500

This is a good thing. My bf list his hearing in Iraq. He was not allowed to retire after 15 years. .. he left with nothing but limited disability. This would have really helped.

Response by Cpl Bill Livingston made Jan 2 at 2016 11:49 PM

Cpl Bill Livingston — Sat, 02 Jan 2016 23:49:00 -0500

I wonder if it would pass congress if THEY were on the same plan?

Response by SSG Private RallyPoint Member made Jan 2 at 2016 11:49 PM

SSG Private RallyPoint Member — Sat, 02 Jan 2016 23:49:47 -0500

I have spent 10 years in... I recently came up on QMP. I want to serve for a full 20... I am already halfway there. But I cannot. Well, I guess that the last 10 years of my life, my 20s, meant nothing to the Army. I get nothing except an ArCom and a DD214... Great... those things wont support my family. If there was some sort of plan in place where I got something for compensation, that would have been great... But with the 20 year plan, I get nothing. Maybe this new plan will prevent this from happening to anyone else.

Response by SPC Kevin McGrath made Jan 3 at 2016 7:13 AM

SPC Kevin McGrath — Sun, 03 Jan 2016 07:13:48 -0500

I had the misfortune of Serving between GI Bills, when they tried this with the Education Benefits. For every dollar I contributed, they contributed two.

That program didn't last, hopefully this will not survive either.

Response by MSgt Gregory Crew made Jan 3 at 2016 8:18 AM

MSgt Gregory Crew — Sun, 03 Jan 2016 08:18:46 -0500

How is this different than any other company or Corp. In our country. The real point will be for leadership to drive the point home for their young troops to save a little now and benefit later. Only time will tell if this is a good option or not. If educated those troops who leave the service early will have something rather than a kick in the butt and nothing to show for their service but a watered down GI Bill.

Response by Sgt Matt Owens made Jan 3 at 2016 9:02 AM

Sgt Matt Owens — Sun, 03 Jan 2016 09:02:37 -0500

It's basically the same concept as when Federal retirement changed from the old civil service pension to FERS. You can still get roughly the same retirement, but you are now responsible for funding 1/3 of it yourself. So in essence, they cut retirement benefits by 30-40%.

Response by SSgt Lynda Bloomberg made Jan 3 at 2016 11:27 AM

SSgt Lynda Bloomberg — Sun, 03 Jan 2016 11:27:55 -0500

Sounds like the same retirement plan Federal workers get. FERS.

Response by MAJ David Kline made Jan 3 at 2016 12:35 PM

MAJ David Kline — Sun, 03 Jan 2016 12:35:40 -0500

The Service member suffers here. Their pay will not be increased to cover the TSP deduction. The services suffer too. Retention in highly technical MOSs is already difficult, this will make it easier and more appealing for SMs to jump ship. In addition, there is no incentive to make a career out of the military. In fact, I see this system encouraging SMs not to make a career out of the military.

Response by CW4 Private RallyPoint Member made Jan 3 at 2016 1:16 PM

CW4 Private RallyPoint Member — Sun, 03 Jan 2016 13:16:08 -0500

Up vote on the article, down vote on the president for the changes to the retirement system. America will lose much of it's senior military talent under the all volunteer force without the traditional pension plan. I stayed in for it and I'm thankful that I did.

Response by SGT Douglas Goodell made Jan 3 at 2016 2:12 PM

SGT Douglas Goodell — Sun, 03 Jan 2016 14:12:26 -0500

This is rediculous the same should be for congressman and senators who may only serve four years and collect a fat check the rest of their lives for doing nothing. People won't stay in the military as long anymore cause there's nothing to really look forward to

Response by SFC Jason Richards made Jan 3 at 2016 3:34 PM

SFC Jason Richards — Sun, 03 Jan 2016 15:34:55 -0500

So a President can screw up the whole nation for just four years and get a full pension. That law needs amending too.

Response by MSG Private RallyPoint Member made Jan 3 at 2016 3:53 PM

MSG Private RallyPoint Member — Sun, 03 Jan 2016 15:53:49 -0500

I have read a lot of these post and see both sides. With over 26 years and getting ready to retire, I am proud and grateful for my retirement plan. Flip side, I see this as a opportunity to set ALL Soldiers up for success as they exit the service, whether or not they have 10 or over 20 years of service. As far as retention, we all have to admit that a greater number of our Soldiers are here for the pay, medical, and retirement benefits. Retention numbers may drop, but we will retain those that truely understand what being a Soldier and Serving our Great Nation is all about.

Response by SSG Private RallyPoint Member made Jan 3 at 2016 3:54 PM

SSG Private RallyPoint Member — Sun, 03 Jan 2016 15:54:57 -0500

Still not sure how people could vote for a liberal now!!!

Response by SGT Johnny Owens made Jan 3 at 2016 5:34 PM

SGT Johnny Owens — Sun, 03 Jan 2016 17:34:12 -0500

This will benefit soldiers that choose not to make the military a career, and if it is properly managed this can be lucrative. In order for if to benefit career soldiers,it must be accompanied by a hefty pay increase. How will this affect soldiers that are separated prematurely due to injury, disability, or disease?

Response by MSgt Robert Green made Jan 3 at 2016 5:48 PM

MSgt Robert Green — Sun, 03 Jan 2016 17:48:15 -0500

All members of congress should be in the very same category.

Response by SSG Private RallyPoint Member made Jan 3 at 2016 5:59 PM

SSG Private RallyPoint Member — Sun, 03 Jan 2016 17:59:24 -0500

It is sad after so many years of out troops being in combat that our elected officials can only look to take away benefits from our brave men and women. I agree with what others have said and that is the benefit that senators , congress people , and the president get when they get out. It is disgraceful that these elected officials are so shallow

Response by SMSgt Private RallyPoint Member made Jan 3 at 2016 7:21 PM

SMSgt Private RallyPoint Member — Sun, 03 Jan 2016 19:21:48 -0500

I worry about the effect on retention. As someone that will be grandfathered into the old pension plan I hope that our young troops are more informed on how to make the new system work in their favor.

Response by SGT Mark Seymour made Jan 3 at 2016 7:34 PM

SGT Mark Seymour — Sun, 03 Jan 2016 19:34:55 -0500

Sad sign of the times.

Response by SGT(P) Private RallyPoint Member made Jan 3 at 2016 10:12 PM

SGT(P) Private RallyPoint Member — Sun, 03 Jan 2016 22:12:30 -0500

It will certainly be interesting to see what will end up being the new norm. Currently I have no idea how to react to this change.

Response by Capt Private RallyPoint Member made Jan 3 at 2016 10:54 PM

Capt Private RallyPoint Member — Sun, 03 Jan 2016 22:54:55 -0500

I prefer for the government to honor this year's promises with this year's money. The government puts money into the TSP today and that provides all new service members an opportunity to get some retirement benefit. Americans love military members and want to "take care of them". We require a fiscally responsible way of taking care of all service members. This new retirement program goes a long way to providing it.

Response by PO2 Jeffery Marcussen Sr made Jan 3 at 2016 11:11 PM

PO2 Jeffery Marcussen Sr — Sun, 03 Jan 2016 23:11:20 -0500

this would have been a great thing for me i put in 12 years was going for 20. but my parents health was failing and i was needed at home. so for all that time i have nothing to show for it except my uniforms medals and memories.
(edit) question were they not talking about making retirement minimum 30 years at one point i seem to recall there were talks of it while i was still in what happened to that?

Response by CW4 Larry Curtis made Jan 4 at 2016 3:21 AM

CW4 Larry Curtis — Mon, 04 Jan 2016 03:21:45 -0500

I think this has been in the works in some form or another for several years and it is finally coming to fruition. I retired at 20 and that was a major shock to the system, but what I have been receiving has been a nice supplement to other income. I think it's going to be even harder 20 years down the road once this new system starts kicking-in. It will definitely be top priority to teach the younger ones how to manage their investments for their futures.

Response by CPT Private RallyPoint Member made Jan 4 at 2016 3:59 AM

CPT Private RallyPoint Member — Mon, 04 Jan 2016 03:59:01 -0500

I don't know what leap of logic everyone seems to be taking when they compare the pay and benefits packages they have to that of members of Congress. We aren't elected by millions of people and we don't have to campaign to not get fired from our jobs every 2-6 years. Does everyone also want an office in the Capitol building? Secret Service protection? Campaign financing? Military pay and benefits should be set at the point where enough qualified citizens are incentivized to volunteer to serve. The military isn't exactly hurting for personnel right now. All that being said, if you dust off the old arithmetic book, you might realize that the new retirement system is the same or better than the old one and actually gives servicemembers the ability to implement their investment preferences based on their risk tolerance and how long they want to serve.

Response by PO3 KristenChris Guardiola made Jan 4 at 2016 6:01 AM

PO3 KristenChris Guardiola — Mon, 04 Jan 2016 06:01:24 -0500

It's time to reform Congress's retirement plans!!

Response by PO2 Michael Carson made Jan 4 at 2016 7:50 AM

PO2 Michael Carson — Mon, 04 Jan 2016 07:50:01 -0500

The 20 years and retirement for life benefit is extremely costly to the American people. The benefit is outdated. Plus, those that don't do 20 receive nothing toward retirement, which is horrible. I was in for 4 years and didn't have the benefit of a 401k and government matches.

I'd be in favor of increasing it to 30 years for retirement for life with a defined benefit (401k) option available to all military personnel.

Response by Sgt David Correll made Jan 4 at 2016 8:27 AM

Sgt David Correll — Mon, 04 Jan 2016 08:27:25 -0500

The current retirement system is an expensive joke. For someone to retire at the age of 37 or 38 and receive a lifetime monthly check is absurd and prohibitively expensive

Response by SSG Keith Bodiford (Ret) made Jan 4 at 2016 8:55 AM

SSG Keith Bodiford (Ret) — Mon, 04 Jan 2016 08:55:41 -0500

I am glad for the retirement I am getting. However, this new plan lines up more along current corporate retirements.

Response by MSG Private RallyPoint Member made Jan 4 at 2016 9:39 AM

MSG Private RallyPoint Member — Mon, 04 Jan 2016 09:39:30 -0500

This can be a tremendous benefit to those serving,,,however,,,,there is one huge major problem. How many eighteen year olds have the faintest clue regarding money management, or what "retirement" means. Your asking a kid just out of high school to make a decision that will affect him/her forty some years down the road when actually this kid couldn't figure out a menu for a week.
I can see finance adding counselors and mandatory sessions for every soldier after completing AIT and being assigned to a permanent duty station.

Response by CW3 Private RallyPoint Member made Jan 4 at 2016 11:28 AM

CW3 Private RallyPoint Member — Mon, 04 Jan 2016 11:28:22 -0500

As a former active duty service member and now a current federal employee seems like this might not be that bad of an idea I dunno. Also will help troops plan for post retirement a little better.

Response by SFC Private RallyPoint Member made Jan 4 at 2016 12:30 PM

SFC Private RallyPoint Member — Mon, 04 Jan 2016 12:30:48 -0500

I have a -9% portfolio in TSP. I switched my funds and investment plan a couple of times and I am still losing money. I called TSP and asked to speak to a fincial manager. They told me there is no personnel to speak with. At the end of the conversation I was told to go read and good luck. How can I save for the future if the fund managers are doing a crappie job and no fincial managers are available to assist? It's a rigged system.

Response by SSG James Courtney made Jan 4 at 2016 1:53 PM

SSG James Courtney — Mon, 04 Jan 2016 13:53:54 -0500

They should keep the 20 yr plan to increase career soldiers, and TSP if they don't serve the full 20. The 20 yr was an incentive, now its being taken away; therefore, I think retention will suffer at catastrophic levels, and might be a set-up for everyone to serve 2 yrs later on down the road (Selective Service System should ring a bell). We need to vote everyone out who voted in favor, and have them throw the 20 yr deal back in there!

Response by Red Arc Her made Jan 4 at 2016 5:59 PM

Red Arc Her — Mon, 04 Jan 2016 17:59:34 -0500

Great news, they should have included so sort of back benefit pay for those who are currently in the system, but don't plan on becoming lifer's. Example current E-7 that's got eight years on service but doesn't plan on going to 20. They're not going to receive any retirement benefits. shouldn't they get some funds.
I''m happy that there will be a min savings amount. I hope E-7 and up really help the privates take full advantage of the matching funds benefit. That's like earning 100% in the first year.

Response by Capt Private RallyPoint Member made Jan 4 at 2016 7:11 PM

Capt Private RallyPoint Member — Mon, 04 Jan 2016 19:11:56 -0500

Honestly, this is the way most other U.S. corporations operate, and how many of our allies support their service members' retirement. It's not a bad move if it is implemented correctly. It will be interesting to see how it plays out.

Response by SPC Steve Bright made Jan 4 at 2016 7:26 PM

SPC Steve Bright — Mon, 04 Jan 2016 19:26:34 -0500

I have a very unique perspective on this due to my background - took military leave from wall street and enlisted in the army at 40; my dad retired after 32 years as an officer in the Air Force. The first problem I have is with the TSP which is outdated and lacks diversification. Granted the fees are very low, but low fees does not equal the best returns nor does it mean there can not be some greater diversification (emerging markets, commodities, mid cap growth, mid cap value, lc growth/value etc). The fixed income side of the options is horrible as well - no options for short-term, mid-term, or asset class -- high yield vs. investment grade corporates. The TSP lacks fiduciary responsibility as it is done now and I am surprised it has not faced some lawsuits over it.

Second, the education of most individuals -- even those from good colleges -- is lacking when it comes to investments. Reading the WSJ or some online blog does not educate individuals enough to manage their own investments. Many individuals put money into fixed income securities thinking, fixed income is safe. Well, not when rates rise - a fixed income fund can easily loose as much as an equity portfolio and take a lot longer to gain the money back. But that's not what has been sold to John Q. Public. Instead, John Q Public believes that they are low risk and will do fine. A need is required to be filled here that allows individuals to make good choices.

Third is who is it that will teach these items to the military? This is not easily done and most of the individuals are likely to be some salesman that has only marginally more experience. And a vested interest in getting the person to sign-up with him/her. Tied to this is that fact that the enlisted and younger officers, those with the greater need of help, are unlikely to be able to hire a professional that can educate the person and help establish a good portfolio. A good professional will often require $100k min while the more high-end will often require $1M to $10M+.

Fourth, what does an individual do when they deploy? Seriously. Going to worry about your investments as well?

Yes, the returns offer a greater POSSIBILITY but that might come at a much higher cost. With the system redesigned, so should be the TSP,education, AND the delivery of the benefits.

Response by 1SG David Niles made Jan 4 at 2016 7:28 PM

1SG David Niles — Mon, 04 Jan 2016 19:28:03 -0500

Nor one entity has ever changed a retirement plan for the betterment of the employees. If I am wrong then put the example here

Response by SPC Steve Bright made Jan 4 at 2016 7:50 PM

SPC Steve Bright — Mon, 04 Jan 2016 19:50:02 -0500

I also wanted to add the math for everyone. This is really basic, but I have a very strong background in this stuff so here is how it plays out:

Let's assume that a person were to get $3500/mo in retirement or $42k a year. Fair figure to use for enlisted and officer. Now, we assume that person went in at 18 and worked 20 years under the old system and lives until 75. So, from 38 to 75 the individual gets their $42k a year plus a 2% increase every year. He/She dies at 75.
Now discount the cashflows back at a reasonable market rate of say 8% and the PV of the sum needed to generate the retirement cashflows is $670k. In other words, an individual invests $670k today and makes 8% per year for 38 years then he/she can draw out $42000/year (plus 2% more each year for inflation) this would equate to the same retirement package.
Now that you know the basics of what is needed in year 20 ($670k), how much is required to be put away each year to arrive at that figure given a return of say 11% per year over the 20 years? In other words, how much must GI Joe/Jane put away each year assuming he/she makes 11% each year?
In case you have not gotten that far the amount is $10,443 PER YEAR. I fail to see how a soldier, with limited knowledge and education, will be able to save $10k per year especially just starting out. If the solder receives $3k in contributions, he/she will still have a shortfall of $7k relative to the "old" plan.
I have NOT seen the partial pension that will be received so this does not factor that amount into the equation but should give everyone an idea.
If I were to assume that the pension is 1/2 of the original amount (1/2 of $42k a year) and all else equal, then the amount required to be put away be roughly $5200 per year (before the government contribution).

Response by MSgt Wesley Dip made Jan 4 at 2016 8:12 PM

MSgt Wesley Dip — Mon, 04 Jan 2016 20:12:52 -0500

That's BS our Veterans retirement should be more important that paying for so called entitlement programs or funding for refugees

Response by GySgt Carl Munford made Jan 4 at 2016 8:15 PM

GySgt Carl Munford — Mon, 04 Jan 2016 20:15:32 -0500

Starting in 2018, our fine Men and Women in Uniform will be forced to rely on a plan that is very close to the plans many U S Citizens relied on up to 2008 when the Economy Tanked. We all see how that worked out for them.

Response by CPO Sean Arnold made Jan 4 at 2016 9:31 PM

CPO Sean Arnold — Mon, 04 Jan 2016 21:31:00 -0500

This is just wrong

Response by SSG Carlos Gutierrez made Jan 4 at 2016 10:34 PM

SSG Carlos Gutierrez — Mon, 04 Jan 2016 22:34:36 -0500

Thats not fare to us a have. 5 year active. 1 reserve and one national guard and not even a cup off coffee t
Did a get

Response by CW4 Private RallyPoint Member made Jan 4 at 2016 10:39 PM

CW4 Private RallyPoint Member — Mon, 04 Jan 2016 22:39:58 -0500

I'm curious how many people will stay 20+ years after this becomes the new system. I doubt anyone with talent will stay past initial obligations.

Response by PO2 Joshua Wilburn made Jan 4 at 2016 11:05 PM

PO2 Joshua Wilburn — Mon, 04 Jan 2016 23:05:50 -0500

If the Senate can get lifetime retirement after just one term then retirement should be automatic upon honorable discharge for those that protect the nation!

Response by SFC Private RallyPoint Member made Jan 4 at 2016 11:45 PM

SFC Private RallyPoint Member — Mon, 04 Jan 2016 23:45:29 -0500

Sprint, railroad, Ford Motor Company, a thousand other companies give a monthly check after a certain amount of years served, why not the military? Its a career just like all those others are.

Response by PO1 Michael Scandinaro made Jan 5 at 2016 4:26 AM

PO1 Michael Scandinaro — Tue, 05 Jan 2016 04:26:39 -0500

Yet, if you serve just 4 years in Congress you still get a full pension! This is BULL.

Response by SFC Private RallyPoint Member made Jan 5 at 2016 5:36 AM

SFC Private RallyPoint Member — Tue, 05 Jan 2016 05:36:54 -0500

I am not sure if this is a good thing or not. However, like everything else in the military there must be change and I'm sure that the new recruits of tomorrow will adapt to this new system and find some benfit to it. I for one am glad that I am on the end of my 22 years of active service. It will be interesting to see how it works out for the younger war fighters of tomorrow.

Response by MAJ Private RallyPoint Member made Jan 5 at 2016 10:54 AM

MAJ Private RallyPoint Member — Tue, 05 Jan 2016 10:54:11 -0500

We need a reference to an official source describing the change, or else this discussion is an exercise in conjecture and an invitation to misunderstanding.

Response by MAJ Ken Landgren made Jan 5 at 2016 1:11 PM

MAJ Ken Landgren — Tue, 05 Jan 2016 13:11:50 -0500

DFAS really should provide a calculation tool in order for SMs to use to compare funds and compare with the old retirement system for proper analysis.

Response by SSG Private RallyPoint Member made Jan 5 at 2016 1:44 PM

SSG Private RallyPoint Member — Tue, 05 Jan 2016 13:44:05 -0500

Who is going to want to stay long term ? After they are fully vested! At I heard 10 years

Response by SSG (ret) William Martin made Jan 5 at 2016 3:14 PM

SSG (ret) William Martin — Tue, 05 Jan 2016 15:14:39 -0500

What is the purpose of canceling the retirement system? Does it save money for the government? Will the President cancel his life time pension after serving 4 to 8 years? Why does he get a pension after serving 4 to 8 years? The senators also get a sham wow deal too. I already know people have animosity towards the military retirement system.

Response by LCDR Scott Stroman made Jan 5 at 2016 5:24 PM

LCDR Scott Stroman — Tue, 05 Jan 2016 17:24:45 -0500

It's a bad idea to remove the 20 year option. One of the most valuable benefits that a young person gets when enlisting or obtaining a commission is the ability to work hard and succeed for 20 years and then retire to phase into the civilian work force. Take this away and you also take away a lot of young folks who are too smart to gamble on what the market will do to their military IRA. Sure, they will face similar risks in the "world", but they will be able to change jobs as desired and have a portable retirement account. Anybody who has been awake during the last 15 years has seen the economy deliver a double -edged shellacking to housing prices and retirement accounts.

Response by LTC Private RallyPoint Member made Jan 5 at 2016 5:48 PM

LTC Private RallyPoint Member — Tue, 05 Jan 2016 17:48:31 -0500

I think this is a great idea. There will still be an annuity, just 20% less. A Soldier who takes advantage of this system will have the fantastic TSP funds to use (one of the best, lowest cost funds) plus a 5% match! It will be difficult to tell of course of the 20% reduction will be offset by the accumulation in the TSP, but for everyone else who does not go all 20 years, this is a great deal!

Response by MSG Private RallyPoint Member made Jan 5 at 2016 5:59 PM

MSG Private RallyPoint Member — Tue, 05 Jan 2016 17:59:01 -0500

This may be a good plan for a SM that wants to do 3 or 6 years or so but I fail to see how this system will get people to stay for the long haul.

Response by CPL Private RallyPoint Member made Jan 5 at 2016 7:07 PM

CPL Private RallyPoint Member — Tue, 05 Jan 2016 19:07:35 -0500

Will it be grandfathered in if we've been in for awhile?

Response by Trish Hansford-Polk made Jan 5 at 2016 8:32 PM

Trish Hansford-Polk — Tue, 05 Jan 2016 20:32:40 -0500

Smh

Response by SGT Private RallyPoint Member made Jan 5 at 2016 8:43 PM

SGT Private RallyPoint Member — Tue, 05 Jan 2016 20:43:56 -0500

Obama is destroying this country and the military. I bet he will take his salary the rest of his life after only 8 yrs.
GOD I can't wait for Trump 2016

Response by SFC A.M. Drake made Jan 5 at 2016 8:58 PM

SFC A.M. Drake — Tue, 05 Jan 2016 20:58:54 -0500

Here is my 2 cents. Why would anyone give 20 down votes to MSG Rader for posting information that is relevant to us all in one form or the other?

Response by PFC Private RallyPoint Member made Jan 5 at 2016 9:22 PM

PFC Private RallyPoint Member — Tue, 05 Jan 2016 21:22:11 -0500

Of course Obama would take away a retirement plan for our Soldiers. Thats crap and you know it.

Response by MSgt Gloria Vance made Jan 5 at 2016 11:35 PM

MSgt Gloria Vance — Tue, 05 Jan 2016 23:35:08 -0500

This again, goes along with Obama's plan to weaken the United States. This is the dumbest plan ever conceived. About every 10 years, the Stock Market tanks and we lose money ($5k the first,$11k the second). Understanding the way a TSP works and the different fees associated with it can and will eat into your investment. If the match is $ for $, GREAT, that may help. You play Russian roulette when you base your retirement income on the Stock Market. Being unable to draw retirement until 60, is a detriment. The associated fine with early disbursement eats into that money too ( which is usually 20%). So for every $10K, you are taxed $2K. There are still some states that DONT tax military retirement $$. Now, ALL that $$ will be taxed. Why hasn't Congress adopted this plan for their retirement? Because of all the above and they don't PLAY GAMES WITH THEIR RETIREMENT ! This gain underscores how little Obama thinks of his military!!! When has he shed a tear at a military death??? Never!!!

Response by SGT Darin Greaves made Jan 6 at 2016 1:26 AM

SGT Darin Greaves — Wed, 06 Jan 2016 01:26:34 -0500

I think that the point of this is to cut retention down as low as they can so they don't have to fit the bill for soldiers who survive combat and stay the full 20. But at least they get top notch medical and retirement.

Response by SFC Charles Pearce made Jan 6 at 2016 2:25 AM

SFC Charles Pearce — Wed, 06 Jan 2016 02:25:51 -0500

I bet they will have a hard time with attrition and recruiting.

Response by SSgt Private RallyPoint Member made Jan 6 at 2016 8:11 AM

SSgt Private RallyPoint Member — Wed, 06 Jan 2016 08:11:57 -0500

When you ask a person to give thier all and make them pay for thier own retirement that is just plan stupid. Not one of asked why or what for when we went off to fight in a war or spent years away from family and friends. You can mix the two and have a great system the people that don't do 20 years get something to walk out with to start new and the ones that say get more on the way out. You can not replay a veteran with any amount of money but get real.

Response by PO1 Bryan Bise made Jan 6 at 2016 9:35 AM

PO1 Bryan Bise — Wed, 06 Jan 2016 09:35:18 -0500

I don't believe that the traditional way only benefits 1 out of 5 people, and the new way is going to be better. I did my 20yrs and I get my retirement. The old way would benefit more people, if they stay in and do the whole twenty years.
It's ridiculous what the government has done. They just created another way to screw people out of something they deserve, because they earned it.

Response by Brittany Binz made Jan 6 at 2016 10:31 AM

Brittany Binz — Wed, 06 Jan 2016 10:31:45 -0500

So sad .. They should cut their own retirement plans. They have plenty to share with others and help thrift plans . The soldiers dedicate their life to get that money and they DESERVE every penny plus some . Don't take away but add to that money .

Response by PO1 Ron Clark made Jan 6 at 2016 11:40 AM

PO1 Ron Clark — Wed, 06 Jan 2016 11:40:34 -0500

Being a retired reservist after 27 years of total service (10 active 17 reserve(Good years), under 60 years old an still waiting on my check, I applaud this new concept! I just hope the politicians, dont double down on the service members when no one is looking and the military keeps a sort of watchdog for the current members so that when you look in that fish bowl and see 20 fish, there is really 20 fish and not just reflections of 20 fish!

Response by SPC Steven Sciotto made Jan 6 at 2016 2:03 PM

SPC Steven Sciotto — Wed, 06 Jan 2016 14:03:16 -0500

End result: fewer 'lifers' and more benefits for those whose military career was/will be cut 'short'...if it's the 'popularity contest' that officer candidate school has become, then women will become the majority gender in the military...and just the sight of all those tough-looking lesbians in crisp uniforms is sure to intimidate the Iranians and North Koreans...

Response by SSG Private RallyPoint Member made Jan 6 at 2016 2:08 PM

SSG Private RallyPoint Member — Wed, 06 Jan 2016 14:08:31 -0500

Not surprising... Our pocket book is one of the first that gets tapped... our VA benefits are effected as well from moves like this...but gov't employees on a higher echelon get their raises Senators Congress upper level GS and so on....too much lying going on too much misuse of statistics that just aren't the reality

Response by LTC Private RallyPoint Member made Jan 6 at 2016 2:57 PM

LTC Private RallyPoint Member — Wed, 06 Jan 2016 14:57:46 -0500

What a shame. I would hate to be under that system. I did 27 years and love the retirement benefits!

Response by LTC Private RallyPoint Member made Jan 6 at 2016 3:00 PM

LTC Private RallyPoint Member — Wed, 06 Jan 2016 15:00:51 -0500

What a shame. I would not like to be under that system. After 27 years I love the benefits of the current system. Now there must be a huge command emphasis on educating the Soldiers on the importance of saving (TSP, IRA, mutual funds ect...). I pray this happens and the young Soldiers understand the importance...

Response by Cpl Bill Sandlin made Jan 6 at 2016 4:24 PM

Cpl Bill Sandlin — Wed, 06 Jan 2016 16:24:18 -0500

Presidents and all Politician should be required to go by the same plan.

Response by Jerry Leary made Jan 6 at 2016 7:23 PM

Jerry Leary — Wed, 06 Jan 2016 19:23:37 -0500

Very sad

Response by MAJ Chris Diez made Jan 6 at 2016 7:34 PM

MAJ Chris Diez — Wed, 06 Jan 2016 19:34:40 -0500

I looked at the new plan and would take it all day and twice on Sunday vice the traditional plan. It also gets them thinking about long term investing.

Response by MSG Private RallyPoint Member made Jan 6 at 2016 10:10 PM

MSG Private RallyPoint Member — Wed, 06 Jan 2016 22:10:05 -0500

Much better, the 20 year system only benefits very few, and it's pretty much just an incentive for poorly performing Soldiers to "ride it out". The other great thing is that those 10 or 15 year guys who make the choice to leave won't have to leave with nothing just because they didn't invest on their own. I also hate these comments about how bad it is for young Soldiers who won't be educated on how to manage their funds. Most civilians starting out with their 401ks don't know either. Point your people in the right direction for education, and stop acting like your private fresh out of ait is a stupid baby, these are grown men and women.

Response by SPC Matthew Birnbach made Jan 7 at 2016 12:19 AM

SPC Matthew Birnbach — Thu, 07 Jan 2016 00:19:10 -0500

This will benefit the slew of 4bangers that serve a term and leave. It could potentially be hugely beneficial to lifers if they pump their money into it and it might save the government a lot of money. I may not be Obama's biggest fan, but this might actually be a good deal for everyone. I'd like to see the numbers though. Do they match? What's the 20 year benefit versus the old system?

Response by Maj Frank Wolf made Jan 7 at 2016 5:53 AM

Maj Frank Wolf — Thu, 07 Jan 2016 05:53:36 -0500

This sux. Our elected officials have yet to cut their benefits. This great country will suffer because of this. There is no reason for experience to hang around. The guard and reserves will suffer as well.

Response by PO1 Dave Bosen made Jan 7 at 2016 12:48 PM

PO1 Dave Bosen — Thu, 07 Jan 2016 12:48:00 -0500

While I fully support the 20-year full-retirement plan that is currently in place and I respect everyone who has earned that benefit, I can't help but wish that something like this was in place when I served. I put in over 13 years before being medically discharged in 1998 due to an accident that was no fault of my own and now I can't even so much as use the commissary. I did receive a disability severance and I will eventually see a disability check from the VA (10% rating), but I have always felt like I earned more than that for serving honorably for as long as I did. I really wanted to finish at least 20 (or more) and I was crushed when I was told that there was no way that I could stay in.

Response by SSG Wally Lawver made Jan 7 at 2016 12:56 PM

SSG Wally Lawver — Thu, 07 Jan 2016 12:56:45 -0500

I like my current situation, retired w/20 years active duty. This new plan would of hurt a guy like me. when younger I would of had to been held at gun point to "save" , "invest" money for my future...I dont remember having ANY left as a youn Lcpl with a wife and kids I could of "invested"

Response by Sgt David Hutchinson made Jan 7 at 2016 2:56 PM

Sgt David Hutchinson — Thu, 07 Jan 2016 14:56:08 -0500

This is just going to lead to the recruiters life getting harder...

Response by SGT Keith Sydnor made Jan 7 at 2016 3:06 PM

SGT Keith Sydnor — Thu, 07 Jan 2016 15:06:41 -0500

Without the retirement incentive recruiting efforts will drop. The government will have to go back to the draft, and I hope they didn't add on a clause to leave out politicians children as well.

Response by MSgt Stephan Hall made Jan 7 at 2016 4:21 PM

MSgt Stephan Hall — Thu, 07 Jan 2016 16:21:11 -0500

If I just this correctly if you don't put in you don't get a dime.

Response by LTC Private RallyPoint Member made Jan 7 at 2016 6:58 PM

LTC Private RallyPoint Member — Thu, 07 Jan 2016 18:58:54 -0500

After working with recruiting and retention program over the last decade one thing I've learned is that what motivates this 43yo guy with 26yrs of service does not necessarily motivate the 17-24 demographic. So while I don't support the the new plans for my career, the fact is it's not meant to appeal to this old soldier. If the studies show it appeals to the younger generations, then go for it. But if the decision is driven by cost reductions, then it's simply cutting off our noses to spite our faces

Response by CPO Private RallyPoint Member made Jan 7 at 2016 7:28 PM

CPO Private RallyPoint Member — Thu, 07 Jan 2016 19:28:49 -0500

"...opportunity for government matches to personal contributions", my ass! TSP has been dangling that carrot-on-a-stick and insulting us since its inception. I was at the Admiral's Call where it was clearly pointed out how the inability to build equity in a home and no 401K were the major long-term financial disadvantages to a military career. So, instead of a REAL 401K with matching funds, Active Duty just got folded into the TSP, treated no better than civil-service employees, except that the "agency" (the Navy) *MAY* be able to "authorize" matching funds for certain "critical" jobs or positions. YEAH, RIGHT... Since then we've had 9/11, two major campaigns in two different countries and NOBODY's service, sacrifice or personal risk has ever been deemed "critical" or valuable enough to receive matching funds for contributions to TSP (and this was way before the current Administration undermined 401K's in the private sector. Just because they've ruined everything for everybody else doesn't mean you're now getting a "good deal" or being treated right). Lies, cop-outs, lip-service and half-measures, instead addressing issues DIRECTLY, with actual solutions - but what can we hope for, when the public continues to elect criminals?

Response by CSM Patrick Durr made Jan 8 at 2016 12:11 AM

CSM Patrick Durr — Fri, 08 Jan 2016 00:11:56 -0500

It was a great system while it lasted. I'm quite surprised it lasted as long as it did. No other corporation in America affords such a gracious pension program. Even though I knew I would be getting a 32 year pension, I still contributed to the TSP, max'd it out while deployed, and also contributed to a 401K. I'm glad I and many others had the system we had,...but I'm OK with the proposed system coming.

Response by SGT Thomas Gorgas made Jan 8 at 2016 3:42 AM

SGT Thomas Gorgas — Fri, 08 Jan 2016 03:42:43 -0500

did like 31 years under the old system, and will be getting my checks soon, but I agree with most folks, this is stupid idea. Why fix it if it ain't broke? I don't know many younger enlisted that will willingly sock money away in the TSP. You'll eventually have to make this mandatory, mark my words.

Response by MAJ Patrick Hairston CISSP, AWS Certified Cloud Architect made Jan 8 at 2016 7:28 AM

MAJ Patrick Hairston CISSP, AWS Certified Cloud Architect — Fri, 08 Jan 2016 07:28:26 -0500

It's starting to be, the only reason to join the military is to get the G.I. Bill benefits. My daughter just joined the Air Force and had full intentions on staying 20 because she saw the life we lived while I was active. But now, she is thinking about just coming home and going to college, and I don't disagree with her...

Response by MAJ Steve Richardson made Jan 8 at 2016 10:07 AM

MAJ Steve Richardson — Fri, 08 Jan 2016 10:07:35 -0500

MSG Rader, is this enlisted troops as you indicate in your heading or all military (officer, warrant officer and enlisted)?

Response by MAJ Private RallyPoint Member made Jan 8 at 2016 3:40 PM

MAJ Private RallyPoint Member — Fri, 08 Jan 2016 15:40:08 -0500

For military personnel who are in the system will not (and should not) like this change. However, for our future members, they won't even care. But, keeping good people in will be even more difficult than now. I believe in many cases: Good people will gain knowledge through training/education, picked up valuable experience, work hard, finish their contract, and leave the army/AF/Navy/Marine. Not as good people will stay because they are not sure they could make it in the commercial world, and find a way to survive in the military. All four services will probably have to spend a lot of money on bonuses/incentives to keep some of the good Soldiers/Marines/Airmen/Seamen. Then again, I could be totally wrong and Soldiers will stay to get that matching 4% on $2000 salary.

Response by CPT Private RallyPoint Member made Jan 8 at 2016 3:52 PM

CPT Private RallyPoint Member — Fri, 08 Jan 2016 15:52:36 -0500

And the pentagon complains about personnel cost.....wait til this hits

Response by SFC Patricia Bear made Jan 8 at 2016 8:41 PM

SFC Patricia Bear — Fri, 08 Jan 2016 20:41:55 -0500

Definitely a huge mistake. A retirement check is better than contribution to tsp. Most lower enlisted can't afford to put money into a tsp......not enough to equal 2100 a month after taxes if you retire as an E7. Plus you get that retirement check at age of your retirement and don't have to wait til 60 something to use tsp without getting penalized. I see the retention rate going drastically downhill. Nobody is going to put up with the stress...long work hours.....or risk their life for no retirement check.

Response by Diane Dutch made Jan 9 at 2016 6:29 AM

Diane Dutch — Sat, 09 Jan 2016 06:29:31 -0500

The Best overhaul of the Military Retirement System so far*

Response by SSgt Gene Black made Jan 9 at 2016 9:26 AM

SSgt Gene Black — Sat, 09 Jan 2016 09:26:44 -0500

I served for 10 years and it would have been nice to have had something like this, since I received nothing after 10 years of honorable service except good memories. Although I suspect the reasons for this are less about benefitting the troops and more about the feds putting more money in their pocketbook.

Response by LtCol James Western made Jan 9 at 2016 5:09 PM

LtCol James Western — Sat, 09 Jan 2016 17:09:58 -0500

Good luck keeping people!

Response by SGT Vernon Cole made Jan 9 at 2016 7:28 PM

SGT Vernon Cole — Sat, 09 Jan 2016 19:28:15 -0500

It's good by to those that will want to make the military a career

Response by GySgt Private RallyPoint Member made Jan 11 at 2016 5:28 PM

GySgt Private RallyPoint Member — Mon, 11 Jan 2016 17:28:56 -0500

say good bye to career professionals. and folks who train the people who train the troops. fewer lifers translates to more dead soldiers. I fail to see how a military pension for a service member is breaking the system when Congress and the president get the same kind of retirement benefit except without serving honorably, and they get 100 percent of their pay for life. and it is wayyyyyy more than any military person. we are cutting benefits from the wrong people.

Response by SGT Bryce Bivens made Jan 11 at 2016 6:08 PM

SGT Bryce Bivens — Mon, 11 Jan 2016 18:08:27 -0500

Well there goes good leadership out the window......who is gonna want to stay to get ..whatever it is at the end

Response by CPO Christopher Longaker made Jan 11 at 2016 8:21 PM

CPO Christopher Longaker — Mon, 11 Jan 2016 20:21:12 -0500

Don't worry. The next time they need a large Military it will be back. It happened when the Iraq and Afgan wars started. They gave those who came in under the Redux plat the option to go with the 20 year high 3 plan. They never learn that to keep the finest fighting force you have to take care of the senior Enlisted leadership that keeps it that way.

Response by Cpl Roger Wild made Jan 11 at 2016 11:22 PM

Cpl Roger Wild — Mon, 11 Jan 2016 23:22:21 -0500

Govt funds in tsp suck...good luck retiring on that

Response by MSgt Christopher Schoen made Jan 21 at 2016 12:32 PM

MSgt Christopher Schoen — Thu, 21 Jan 2016 12:32:15 -0500

Bleh. Retired after 21 years...done with all the screwing around and uniform changes. The new retirement plan will kill retention for the "mid-career" guys...the guys at 10-15 years TIS. Our prime timers! They will have less reason to continue on to 20 and have a chip on their shoulder, "well so-and-so just offered me a GS-10 position...I am done."

Response by SSG Brian MacBain made Jan 21 at 2016 3:59 PM

SSG Brian MacBain — Thu, 21 Jan 2016 15:59:52 -0500

The bottom line to all this is -----That SUCKS!!!

Response by SFC Private RallyPoint Member made Jan 25 at 2016 4:36 PM

SFC Private RallyPoint Member — Mon, 25 Jan 2016 16:36:47 -0500

No administration in history has had this much hatred for the troops than this one.

Response by SSG Private RallyPoint Member made Feb 2 at 2016 6:19 PM

SSG Private RallyPoint Member — Tue, 02 Feb 2016 18:19:31 -0500

How is it going to work for Guardsmen? Reservists?

Response by MSgt Marvin Kinderknecht made Feb 4 at 2016 5:26 PM

MSgt Marvin Kinderknecht — Thu, 04 Feb 2016 17:26:50 -0500

The guys/girls are getting screwed big time. It sounds good. you put in $200.00 and Uncle Sam matches it. Everything rolls along and you have mucho money in the bank. Then the bottom drops out and you have half of what you had. It is an INVESTMENT folks and that is all it is. I retired at 39 and now am 82. Would I still have any money left? I doubt it. I dam sure would not get a cost of living. I don't know what affect this law has on medical. Either way, the troops need to be or get, money savy real quick.

Response by SSgt Gene Black made Feb 4 at 2016 10:09 PM

SSgt Gene Black — Thu, 04 Feb 2016 22:09:39 -0500

Will this come with an accompanying pay raise, so troops can AFFORD to put away some money? I know that when I was in from 1987-1997 there was not much left from a paycheck after payday. This type of plan may work well for civilian government workers, but their pay has been steadily increased over the years to where it is more beneficial to work for the government in many occupations than it is in the general population. Without additional pay, this opportunity to invest is meaningless.

Response by SSG Rob Schwandt made Feb 9 at 2016 12:56 PM

SSG Rob Schwandt — Tue, 09 Feb 2016 12:56:40 -0500

I believe it is 1% of base pay for the first four years, and after that you can increase up to 5% of base pay and be matched by the Government up to 5%. So basically a private making 12,000 a year they would receive 1% a whopping 120 dollars a year toward retirement. How much compound interest would there be?

Response by MSgt Marvin Kinderknecht made Feb 10 at 2016 1:26 PM

MSgt Marvin Kinderknecht — Wed, 10 Feb 2016 13:26:59 -0500

Wording is misleading. It is not a retirement benefit if you leave before 20. A financial benefit, yes. It is also an investment which may go up or down. I a person does not make rank he cannot contribute much. Same in Civilian Service. I do not see any benefit to it. I just bought savings bonds when I was in and after 41.5 years cashed them in and gave the money to the kids.

Response by MAJ David Vermillion made Feb 10 at 2016 2:15 PM

MAJ David Vermillion — Wed, 10 Feb 2016 14:15:00 -0500

There goes your stability!

Response by SSG Audwin Scott made Feb 10 at 2016 3:31 PM

SSG Audwin Scott — Wed, 10 Feb 2016 15:31:53 -0500

It shows its no longer worth doing 20 years of service.

Response by PO1 Ron Clark made Feb 11 at 2016 12:42 PM

PO1 Ron Clark — Thu, 11 Feb 2016 12:42:00 -0500

I can see where this can be beneficial for the GI who spends 4,8, 10 years in and suddenly decide to make a career change, or is forced to make a career change like (involuntary separation) due to fitness standards or such, just so they dont leave the military after all of this time with one final pay-check an then you are on your own, however, I especially hope that this is not some political ploy/money-saving project the politicians put in place to make it harder for the traditional 20 year GI to receive his retirement. I think they need to first test mode this on the politician who proposed this, or better yet all politicians at first, just to see how viable it is for our troops who are serving. Because after four years or eight years the average GI does not get a retirement check because he served on some governmental seat.

Response by MSgt Jeff Greene made Feb 11 at 2016 2:55 PM

MSgt Jeff Greene — Thu, 11 Feb 2016 14:55:34 -0500

If our enlisted members are so short sighted as to not put money away during their first enlistment that is their fault. Contributions to TSP or any other retirement plan should be voluntary. How does the government think this will impact recruitment or retention? Looks like the draft will be back soon. With so many in congress that have never served, their disdain for those in uniform is unprecedented.

Response by PO2 Michael Henry made Feb 18 at 2016 11:47 AM

PO2 Michael Henry — Thu, 18 Feb 2016 11:47:41 -0500

That is what TSP is for... This just seems complicated.

Response by PO1 Steven Ewing made Feb 18 at 2016 11:55 AM

PO1 Steven Ewing — Thu, 18 Feb 2016 11:55:08 -0500

Folks,
I've read through a number of posts and no one mentioned the fact that military retirees @ 20years are part of the Military's Reserve system and are subject to recall to active duty at the need of the services up unto they reach the 30 year mark. No one under the current system is truly retired until they reach that 30year mark. The loss of the availability of those officers and the senior enlisted personnel to the military in case of a major war or national emergency could be disastrous.

Response by Lt Col Private RallyPoint Member made Feb 22 at 2016 5:32 AM

Lt Col Private RallyPoint Member — Mon, 22 Feb 2016 05:32:07 -0500

I have been putting 10% in TSP since 2003....I have not seen the returns the retirement commission anticipates. My G fund has been doing just over 4%...the rest average just below (as of 21 Feb 16). When I combine that with the traditional retirement. It's a pretty sweet deal.

Remember, the new system is about saving the government money. This new system brief's well but only time will tell.

Response by SFC Jeff "Audie Murphy" Bishop made Apr 7 at 2016 1:11 PM

SFC Jeff "Audie Murphy" Bishop — Thu, 07 Apr 2016 13:11:32 -0400

The 20 year plan guaranteed a minimal amount and you could augment your income while transitioning to another profession. The 401k offers no such security. I have took a heck of a beating on my 401k this last few years. What if we are in one of these cycles when someone gets out. Tuff luck I guess.

Response by SFC Jeff "Audie Murphy" Bishop made Apr 7 at 2016 1:13 PM

SFC Jeff "Audie Murphy" Bishop — Thu, 07 Apr 2016 13:13:37 -0400

This is the Obama dictatorship and the congress finding more ways to line there own pockets and disembowel a once proud American Military.

Response by SFC Jeff "Audie Murphy" Bishop made Apr 14 at 2016 1:26 PM

SFC Jeff "Audie Murphy" Bishop — Thu, 14 Apr 2016 13:26:50 -0400

The big point here that I have not seen made is that the current retirement plan allows a retired service member to draw a monthly paycheck while transitioning to a new job. Then you can invest that retirement once you have another career path and are earning another income. What if the market has had a bad time when someone retires? What are they going to live on?

Response by CPO John Best made May 12 at 2016 12:18 PM

CPO John Best — Thu, 12 May 2016 12:18:59 -0400

Unacceptable. You earned it, you should get it. This will severely damage career minded people. 20 years takes a toll on you. I don't care how much of a badass or how cushy your job was. Regular folk do not deal with the things service people do. Hopefully President Trump fixes this.

Response by CPO John Best made May 12 at 2016 12:24 PM

CPO John Best — Thu, 12 May 2016 12:24:19 -0400

So much for retention. Then again, the current administration has done many things to drive people out of the service, so who's surprised? Hopefully Pres. Trump fixes this ( and many other ) messes the social reject has set into motion.

Response by PO1 Rodney Bracey made May 12 at 2016 8:52 PM

PO1 Rodney Bracey — Thu, 12 May 2016 20:52:00 -0400

I have a feeling the military will eventually lose their subject matter experts and senior well salted leadership. My advice to anyone planning to serve in the military would be to do a tour and/or meet your initial obligation, take advantage of any and all educational benefits while on AD, get honorably discharged and use the GI Bill to further education into a field that would lead to a comfortable way of life.

Response by MSgt Christopher Schoen made May 19 at 2016 2:58 PM

MSgt Christopher Schoen — Thu, 19 May 2016 14:58:51 -0400

~Retired 4 years ago. People are bailing in droves right now...so, what does that tell you? I think there are more things wrong going on. Dicking with the retirement system and appeasing the folks short of 20...right, that'll fix things.

Response by PO2 Chris Wright made Jun 2 at 2016 1:16 PM

PO2 Chris Wright — Thu, 02 Jun 2016 13:16:48 -0400

From an investment standpoint, the TSP is possibly one of the worst investment vehicles available. The 401k system is better, but rarely on point because the architecture is created to relieve the employer of liability from lawsuits stemming from losses. These systems were created to give the service member or employee a means of saving on their own for retirement, but after the Supreme Court’s LaRue decision, employers, including the US government, had to shield themselves from being sued. That decision allowed that someone could be made whole for investment losses due to inadequate investment options and eduction. In response, these investment vehicles were dumbed down in an attempt to protect the interests of the employer and not those of the saver.

Investment education has long been the greatest barrier for people participating in the market. We don’t receive any training in school or from our parents and then we’re thrown out into the world and expected to invest and not make mistakes that can cost us another arm and another leg. Myself and other former military investment advisors have made attempts to correct the issue by offering free courses to service members, but we aren’t allowed, again because the military wants to protect members from being scammed. It’s a shame. Instead of people getting the help they need to learn how to make good choices for themselves, we just continue to kick the can down the road and suffer from an inefficient system.

I think this new system sounds good to most people on the surface, but what they’ll find is that their investments perform poorly over time and they are disappointed with the results. Not only do members need training, but they need options. Mutual funds were at one time a great option because they offered a high level of diversification to the average investor at a low price points. You could invest in man different companies for as little as a $500 minimum investment. Unfortunately, they’re usually more expensive than some of the alternatives like ETFs. These alternatives aren’t available to the military. Again, that’s due to the architecture of the TSP and 401k options that favor the interests of the employer more than they do the investor in my opinion.

Doug that article that you posted is misleading at best. It’s another way for people to offer generic financial advice because they feel they need to offer something, but can’t be specific to each person. A 4% withdrawal rate assumption is the first place I’d start. In practice, that works for almost nobody. The average rolling inflation rate takes up nearly all of that to begin with. The expenses one has will vary on their lifestyle and where they live. The largest population areas are also generally the most expensive. So someone living in California is much less likely to be able to achieve financial independence on a military retirement by age 38 than someone who lives in Iowa. I could pick this apart all day, but to me, it’s detrimental to a person to use this type of article to determine their ability to retire.

Is my motivation to make a buck? Yes, I offer financial planning and investment advice for an income. Am I pimping my service here? No. I work mostly with athletes and sheriff’s deputies. I’ve tried to help servicemen in a pro bono way but have been turned away by the infinite wisdom of government. The information I’m sharing today is based on a long profession career of experience. I offer it freely because I happen to care about this group. I’m not prospecting for new clients here, just sharing some fun facts.

Is there risk in investing in the market? Yes of course, but if you’re finding yourself losing all your money then the problem is more likely how you’re investing. Having the ability to invest is only half of what we need. The tools to invest wisely are just as necessary. Wisely doesn’t mean earning a low rate of return, it just means that you should have a good reason for putting your money where you do. Proper planning prevents piss poor performance. It was never more true than with how you invest.

The military pension has been undergoing changes for as long as I’ve been alive. When my dad retired, he had to do 30 years and he received 100%. Yes, that was a very long time ago, but the government continues to look for ways to deleverage itself from their liability to your retirement. At some point, they will end up going to a 100% self savings model like most companies. They will likely make a mandatory deduction from your paycheck into the system and make it portable so you can bring the funds to another plan if you continue to work when you leave service. I see that as the future, which means we need to really get going to educate people about how to allocate those dollars before they screw themselves out of ignorance.

Why do rich people invest? Because history has shown us that it works. Why do poor people stay poor for so long? Because they fail to do what rich people already have. We need to break down misconceptions and commonly held ideas about retirement. We need to realize that most don’t become rich because of high paying jobs or the next must have widget. People grow wealth over a lifetime a little bit each month. We create streams of income that we don’t have to trade our time for. Your job trades money for time. There’s just so much to it that I want to pass on to people. If only Uncle Sam would allow for it.

Response by SP6 Steven Cardoza made Aug 5 at 2016 7:56 PM

SP6 Steven Cardoza — Fri, 05 Aug 2016 19:56:05 -0400

AttN; On Deck' Brothers and sisters ,,your all my Hero's, and you have always been.
I got a question for all of yaws'' Do you think we should have a law that prevents any Political party from using Fallen Hero's and Fallen Hero's families to be utilized to sway voters or get votes for there campaign? I don't want answers you read in current laws < I would highly respect your honest opinions on this, don't get political with it just an honest answer .

Response by SGT John Thomas made Sep 1 at 2016 2:27 PM

SGT John Thomas — Thu, 01 Sep 2016 14:27:55 -0400

I think the idea has merit. I think the contributions should increase with longevity so that a servicemember who serves 20 years will have an equivalent retirement to the current pension plan. I would also make it so that anyone who serves 20 years could start collecting immediately upon retirement regardless of age.

Response by SGM Mikel Dawson made Sep 1 at 2016 2:31 PM

SGM Mikel Dawson — Thu, 01 Sep 2016 14:31:34 -0400

Thank goodness I started drawing my retirement this year. There may be some good benefits in the new plan, but I don't have to make that decision.

Response by TSgt Scott Anderson made Sep 15 at 2016 3:23 PM

TSgt Scott Anderson — Thu, 15 Sep 2016 15:23:47 -0400

interesting... it mentions enlisted not receiving the traditional 20 yr retirement plan, but what about officers?? affected too?

Response by TSgt Scott Anderson made Sep 15 at 2016 3:25 PM

TSgt Scott Anderson — Thu, 15 Sep 2016 15:25:11 -0400

interesting read, I see that this affects enlisted troops, officers too?

Response by Lt Col John (Jack) Christensen made Mar 27 at 2017 9:02 AM

Lt Col John (Jack) Christensen — Mon, 27 Mar 2017 09:02:14 -0400

As a retiree I have a hard time comprehending this, but if you look at the world we currently live in it's a reflection of life in the 2000s. I'm sure there may be some out there still, but the majority of large companies no longer offer retirement plans. Gone are the days of working for a company for 25 - 30 years and retiring on a company pension. Heck, the concept of working for the same company for that long hardly exists! Rather companies offer 401K or 403B plans for their employees and place the burden of preparing for retirement on the employee.
This has been the norm for over a decade or two so the concept of a company taking care of you in retirement is something that is completely foreign to people who will be entering the service in 2018. This IMO, also means that contributing to some form of retirement savings plan would also be second nature to those in that age group. The new military plan seems to be more in line with what you see in the civilian workplace. In fact it seems to reflect the difference between military and civilian sector jobs through the automatic contributions to a Thrift Savings Plan and matches to personal contributions. Most civilian companies only make matching contributions, and often at percentages less than what the military will do. No matter what, if you contribute to whatever type of plan is offered you come away with something when you leave the military, even if you only stay 4 - 5 years, that alone is exactly what you see in the civilian sector.
This concept is hard to comprehend to those of us who grew up in the 50s to 90s but is the reality of working in 2017. The military is simply keeping up with the times and allowing veterans to walk away with something if they choose not to make a career out of the military.

Response by SPC David Willis made Feb 21 at 2018 3:13 PM

SPC David Willis — Wed, 21 Feb 2018 15:13:35 -0500

Ha I wish this would have been around. I know some are concerned about good soldiers leaving early since they'll have a little something instead of sticking it out for 20, but I think itll be a good thing. Ive known a few guys whose hearts aren't in it but stick around for retirement. That can be dangerous and this will let them out without losing everything.

Response by MAJ Ken Landgren made Jun 26 at 2019 2:00 PM

MAJ Ken Landgren — Wed, 26 Jun 2019 14:00:05 -0400

This is what SMs should know: "Based annually to simplify the process"

- TSP is portable and it can be accessed at age 59.5 I believe.
- If a SM invests $3000/year and is at the marginal tax rate of 10%, the SM "gets back $300 from the IRS" so the true cost of investing $3000 is $2700.
- If the government matches the SMs investment, assuming the annual salary of $20,000 and a 5% cap. The government will match $1000 per year. For a total investment of $4000/year.
- If the SM can replicate the annual investments, the sum will equal over $1,947,407 if done for 40 years at 10% growth rate.
- Know the inherent risks of the investment vehicles and the long-term growth rate.

Response by LTC Private RallyPoint Member made Nov 30 at 2019 5:42 AM

LTC Private RallyPoint Member — Sat, 30 Nov 2019 05:42:55 -0500

The new retirement plan gives a lot more flexibility to the individual and to the service. It would have been nice to have been under the new retirement plan when I resigned from active duty with 17 years of active service.