Posted on Sep 7, 2015
What do you think about a 20% cut in your retirement pay?
3.28K
15
11
1
1
0
This doesn't affect me because I didn't do 20 years. However, it seems to affect a lot of my brothers and sisters on here who do get retirement pay and will be in the future. How does this impact you and what are your thoughts on this?
http://www.truthandaction.org/obama-signs-onto-20-military-retirement-pay-cut/
http://www.truthandaction.org/obama-signs-onto-20-military-retirement-pay-cut/
Posted in these groups: 
Retirement
Pay Cuts
Retirement Pay Cuts
Posted >1 y ago
Responses: 5
3
3
0
Title should be changed to...
"The Senate Armed Services Committee votes to overhaul military retirement, to cut headquarters spending"
"The Senate Armed Services Committee votes to overhaul military retirement, to cut headquarters spending"
(3)
(0)
3
3
0
PO2 Jeffrey Sheibels
How's the Washington Times for you?
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2015/mar/30/obama-supports-reduction-military-retirement-pay/
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2015/mar/30/obama-supports-reduction-military-retirement-pay/
Obama supports reduction in military retirement pay
President Obama said Monday he supports the recommendations of a military commission that would reduce the size of traditional military retirement pay by about 20 percent and offer a new defined-contribution benefit for troops who leave before 20 years of service.
(2)
(0)
Sgt Aaron Kennedy, MS
PO2 Jeffrey Sheibels As SPC Jan Allbright, M.Sc., R.S. posted, the title is misleading to the point of being disingenuous.
The actual "plan" was a "modification" which was discussed ad nauseum on this site about converting military retirement from a straight "government" program to something more akin to a government plus private program. That would necessitate reducing the government multiplier (by the 20%~ mark quoted in the title), however it was estimated that the private portion could more than make up for it.
The Military Times (et al) discussed this in depth at the time, and how it would actually affect (future) retirees.
The actual "plan" was a "modification" which was discussed ad nauseum on this site about converting military retirement from a straight "government" program to something more akin to a government plus private program. That would necessitate reducing the government multiplier (by the 20%~ mark quoted in the title), however it was estimated that the private portion could more than make up for it.
The Military Times (et al) discussed this in depth at the time, and how it would actually affect (future) retirees.
(1)
(0)
1
1
0
PO2 Jeffrey Sheibels
Usually when this type of legislation is passed it exempts currently serving military members and has an implementation date in the future.
If that is the case and the bill is not retroactive to those currently serving or worse yet to those drawing retirement pay then I think this change in retirement should give anybody considering to join the military and their parents to think twice and count the cost.
If this bill, if and when signed into law, is retroactive to those currently serving or worse yet to those drawing retirement pay then I think a public outcry would be a proper response.
Usually when this type of legislation is passed it exempts currently serving military members and has an implementation date in the future.
If that is the case and the bill is not retroactive to those currently serving or worse yet to those drawing retirement pay then I think this change in retirement should give anybody considering to join the military and their parents to think twice and count the cost.
If this bill, if and when signed into law, is retroactive to those currently serving or worse yet to those drawing retirement pay then I think a public outcry would be a proper response.
(1)
(0)
Read This Next
Continue with Facebook 
Continue with Google