What are your thoughts on the push in Congress to radically change the Military Retirement System?

LCDR Steve Didio — Tue, 28 Apr 2015 19:27:17 -0400

http://www.militarytimes.com/story/military/benefits/pay/2015/01/29/retirement-commission-overhaul/22482103/

Panel would shrink troops' retirement pay, offer 401(k)s

New details emerged Wednesday about the proposal for overhauling military retirement heading to Capitol Hill soon, outlining a plan that would shrink

Response by CSM Charles Hayden made Apr 28 at 2015 7:30 PM

CSM Charles Hayden — Tue, 28 Apr 2015 19:30:20 -0400

LCDR Steve Didio M.S.

DOD is trying to save money on the SMs back again! As soon as the topic of training SMs about money management" arose, my ears perked up. That implies RISK! Many civilians cannot manage money, is Sam going to start a money management program for them also?

I believe the U S Military retirement program should be cast in STONE and placed in a vault where it cannot be changed or altered!

The idea of a benefit for SMs who do not complete 20 years is interesting. Too many dedicated SMs give their best years until a new RIF arises. Others, who in LOD become unable to perform their military duty in should also be compensated, VA coverage seems to be a bit irregular in that aspect.

Response by PO3 Private RallyPoint Member made Apr 29 at 2015 12:24 AM

PO3 Private RallyPoint Member — Wed, 29 Apr 2015 00:24:56 -0400

"Pensions" are like dinosaurs...with the exception of the military and very few other companies, they are extinct. 401Ks force people to be responsible for their OWN retirement. Better yet, if you change your mind and decide you have had enough military crap before the 20 year mark, you make your 401K money and RUN with it. You don't "have" to serve 20 years in order to get that retirement paycheck.

Are there negatives? Well of course. The 18 year old who serves 20 years and gets out will no longer get that paycheck to sit on his tush. He or she will actually need to get another job, unless he or she was smart enough to invest like bandits and have real estate and other investments that basically make enough money on their own for that person to no longer have a "need" to work. Instead of working for a company for 20 years (in this case, the military) and getting a pension (aka, old school military retirement) at 38 years old, you will now have to continue to WORK unless you invested so much that you have other means to sustain your lifestyle, because you will not be able to tap into your military 401K until you reach the appropriate retirement age to avoid tax penalties.

***Pst, here's an idea - go through Dave Ramsey's Financial Peace University and learn how to manage your money appropriately and you'll realize that old school military retirement pension is a joke compared to what you could do on your own anyway.....

Now.... the only question is, will the government be smart with all that extra money they will begin to save, or will they find some other way to flush it down the toilet?

Response by PO1 John Miller made Apr 29 at 2015 3:27 AM

PO1 John Miller — Wed, 29 Apr 2015 03:27:29 -0400

100% against it. As a retiree myself, I'm pretty sure I'm "grandfathered" but that's beside the point.

If they want to change retirement systems they need to look into their own first. Not all military retirees are millionaires, so we depend on that pension to make ends meet.

Response by MSG Private RallyPoint Member made Apr 29 at 2015 9:01 AM

MSG Private RallyPoint Member — Wed, 29 Apr 2015 09:01:59 -0400

If they are going to change our retirement system, then they should change theirs as well. Serving 2 years in the political sector and getting paid the rest of your time is not fair.

Response by PO2 Mark Saffell made Apr 29 at 2015 10:16 AM

PO2 Mark Saffell — Wed, 29 Apr 2015 10:16:58 -0400

I believe changing the system will harm the military and reduce the number that stay in. This will hamstring the experience base.

Response by CPO Michael Callegri made Apr 29 at 2015 3:38 PM

CPO Michael Callegri — Wed, 29 Apr 2015 15:38:39 -0400

The last time this happened, during the 80s and 90s, there was a big drop in enlistments and reenlistments, so I hope this is looked at carefully.

Response by MAJ Ken Landgren made Apr 29 at 2015 5:57 PM

MAJ Ken Landgren — Wed, 29 Apr 2015 17:57:18 -0400

I am going to give you more at a cost savings to the military are diametrically opposing actions.

Response by LTC Private RallyPoint Member made Apr 29 at 2015 10:00 PM

LTC Private RallyPoint Member — Wed, 29 Apr 2015 22:00:46 -0400

they should grandfather all troops who already signed on the line but they are not proposing that... in the civilian world that is called breach of contract

Response by MAJ Private RallyPoint Member made May 4 at 2015 8:51 PM

MAJ Private RallyPoint Member — Mon, 04 May 2015 20:51:36 -0400

Here's my take on it: If it was such a good deal for the troops there wouldn't be a grandfather clause.

I plan on finishing my 20 out regardless of what happens. However, I find this whole initiative misguided. Less than 1% of our population is going to receive these benefits. You can't tell me of all of the federal pension and entitlement programs out there that military retirements are the ones breaking the bank. I don't mind sacrificing for the greater good but it needs to be a shared sacrifice. If we're going to justify reducing my retirement, then we need to also reduce all federal worker's retirements and our politicians retirements. Attempting to save a few bucks on the back of our troops simply because they have less ability to speak out is morally wrong in my opinion.

Response by SPC Jan Allbright, M.Sc., R.S. made May 4 at 2015 9:12 PM

SPC Jan Allbright, M.Sc., R.S. — Mon, 04 May 2015 21:12:18 -0400

401(k) is just another way of ripping off troopers and veterans.

Response by PO2 Alden Dean made May 20 at 2015 7:37 PM

PO2 Alden Dean — Wed, 20 May 2015 19:37:26 -0400

The Post Office did this in 1984. I was lucky that I continued with Civil Service. The FERs system looked good at the time; I didn't fall for it. I retired with a very good pension and benefits. If the military machine is going to do the same thing then my prayers are with you. You are going to be in poverty when you retire.
I left the Navy in '73 with a second class crow. Sometimes regret Leaving. Lots of friends. Knew I would spend the next 16 years on the bounding main. UGH.
Semper Fi ALL.

Response by LTC Private RallyPoint Member made May 22 at 2015 12:58 PM

LTC Private RallyPoint Member — Fri, 22 May 2015 12:58:47 -0400

How this pans out says allot about how our nation truly honors the sacrifices and dedication of the 1% of our nation who are service members. Actions speak louder than verbal a "thank you". Our troops deserve the same security that they provide for this great country.

Response by MAJ Keira Brennan made May 22 at 2015 9:39 PM

MAJ Keira Brennan — Fri, 22 May 2015 21:39:52 -0400

All I would like to say is this, if a person has invested time with the military, there IMHO be some sort old-age stipend. Here's why. In Federal Civil Service (from which I retired), persons serving over 5 yrs in one case or 10 in another are vested for what is called a deferred retirement. It means at age 62 (or MRA) a small annuity is guaranteed. I think it would be a good option if it were tied to Social Security (whatever it will look like). I liked the 401k/TSP option for the military too - but I think that mirroring your time like with FERS (fed retirement) would be a fine option. And I think the 20yr career plan stays.