Quantcast

Military Retirement

HomeBrewTalk.com - Beer, Wine, Mead, & Cider Brewing Discussion Community.

Help Support Homebrew Talk:

MikeFlynn74

Well-Known Member
Joined
Nov 24, 2007
Messages
3,875
Reaction score
22
Location
ANCHORAGE!!
No retirement pay before age 57?

Panel also recommends combining active, reserve retirement systems
By William H. McMichael - [email protected]
Posted : February 11, 2008
A congressionally chartered commission has called for scrapping the entire military retirement system and making active-duty troops wait until at least age 57 to begin drawing retired pay.
The proposal, which would spell the end of the current active-duty system that pays nondisability retirement immediately after a service member completes a minimum of 20 years of service, is among 95 recommendations in the final report of the Commission on the National Guard and Reserve, which went well beyond its original charter to review the structure and management of the reserve components and delved into personnel policies for active-duty members.
Under current retirement rules, an active-duty member is eligible for retired pay immediately after completing a minimum of 20 years of service, which can be as young as age 37. However, reservists must wait until age 60 to draw retired pay, although a law signed Jan. 28 by President Bush allows reservists to draw retired pay 90 days earlier than age 60 for every 90 days of mobilization in support of a contingency operation.
Under the commission’s plan, a revamped retired system would grant limited retirement benefits starting at 10 years of service, although payments would not begin until age 62. Those who serve at least 20 years could receive payments at age 60; those who serve 30 years could get them at age 57.
Under the plan, troops could begin drawing retirement pay at earlier ages, but the annuity would be reduced 5 percent for each year that a member is under the statutory minimum retirement age.
The commission said that would bring the military in line with the Federal Employees Retirement System.
The commission concluded that combining the training, promotion and management of active and reserve troops into one integrated manpower system is the only way the nation’s military can become a truly efficient operational force for the future.
“The increasing cost of personnel, and the challenges of recruiting and retaining qualified individuals, will, we believe, inevitably require reductions in the size of the active force,” states the 432-page report, released Jan. 31. “This shrinking active force will necessarily be accompanied by an increased reliance on reserve forces for operations, particularly for homeland missions. The overall effectiveness of those forces will depend on greater integration of the reserves with the active component.”
The commission argued that modifying the 20-year retirements would give the services an incentive to retain troops whom they want to keep for more than 10 years but for less than 20. Additional pay or bonuses would be needed to keep such troops in uniform beyond 10 years to maintain retention rates.
“As part of the reformed retirement system, retention would be encouraged by making service members eligible to receive ‘gate pay’ at pivotal years of service,” the report says. “Such pay would come in the form of a bonus equal to a percentage of annual basic pay at the end of the year of service, at the discretion of the services.”
MATCHING FUNDS FOR TSP
In addition, the report says Congress should expand current law to permit all service members to receive up to 5 percent of annual basic pay in matching government contributions to the Thrift Savings Plan. Service members currently receive no government matching funds for TSP contributions.
“The government’s contribution would vest at 10 years of service, and the Thrift Savings Plan benefit would be portable and thus capable of being rolled over into a civilian 401(k) account,” the report says.
Among the report’s other recommendations:
• The military’s promotion system should be competency-based versus time-based.
• Active and reserve officer personnel management systems should be merged into a single system.
• The number of duty statuses should be reduced from 29 to two — on active duty or off.
• The Defense Department should implement a combined pay and personnel system to eliminate problems with incorrect pay, low data quality, multiple personnel files and inaccurate accounting of credit for service.
• The Guard and reserve should be given the clear lead in Defense Department homeland security missions within U.S. borders.
The recruiting and job market landscape has shifted in dramatic ways, the commission said, which means the Defense Department “must recruit, train and maintain a technologically advanced force in an era that will be characterized by ever-increasing competition for a shrinking pool of qualified individuals whose expectations about career paths and mobility are changing dramatically.”
“We need to look at our manpower assets with a totally integrated approach,” commission Chairman Arnold Punaro said.
For active and reserve service members, such a system would create a “seamless” transition to and from active duty — “on-ramps” and “offramps,” as Navy personnel officials have described the concept. Basing promotions on competency rather than time would keep troops competitive within the system.
RESERVE REORGANIZATION
The 95 recommendations in the report also include a call for the reserves to be reorganized into two formal categories: operational and strategic reserve forces.
The operational reserve would consist of Selected Reserve units and individual mobilization augmentees who would deploy periodically. The strategic reserve would include Selected Reserve personnel and augmentees not scheduled for rotational active-duty tours and the “most ready, operationally current and willing members of the Individual Ready Reserve,” the report says.
The commission also calls for scrapping the Standby Reserve category and said members who are not “viable mobilization assets should be excluded from the total reserve force.”
The Defense Department would have to consistently provide the support needed to ensure the sustained viability of both forces, and Congress and the Pentagon would determine the missions each would perform.
“There used to be an understanding that if you were ready for the away game, you were ready for the home game,” Punaro said. “Most everyone admits that’s not the case anymore. We need a very ready force at home in peacetime, just like we need a ready force for the overseas mission.”
The reserves were conceived as a strategic force that would be called to active duty only in national emergencies. But they have morphed over the past 18 years, beginning with the 1991 Persian Gulf War and spurred by the military drawdown of the 1990s, into an operational reserve that is now regularly called upon to meet the demands of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.
“It’s clear that if you hadn’t had an operational Guard and reserve, you would have had to go back to the draft, which I think everyone agrees is ... pretty unacceptable,” Punaro said.
Punaro is “very bullish” on the prospects for the commission’s work to receive serious attention.
Half of the 95 recommendations “can be done immediately,” he said. About 40 will require congressional or presidential action, according to the report.



Just awesome- They cant cut the billions in Contract work or the billions in fuel they burn ant the ends of the fiscal year, so lets go for the peoples retirement.
 

Petey

Supporting Member
HBT Supporter
Joined
Oct 18, 2006
Messages
143
Reaction score
0
Location
Oceanside, Ca
That'll never make it. All the people hangin out for 20 that i Know would be gone in a heart-beat. Hell the retirement plan is half the reason some people join as it is. If they drop that there would be trouble in every service. And that part about reducing the active force...that guy must be smoking crack, were already strained as hell. I know guys that need to apply for citizenship in Iraq cause they've spent 3 of the last 4 years out there already because of shortfalls. I don't see any of that plan ever taking off.
 

TheJadedDog

AFK ATM
Joined
Aug 27, 2006
Messages
3,310
Reaction score
17
Location
People's Republic of Cambridge
I just love the logic of politicians. This is exactly the wrong thing to cut if you want to reduce military spending (which is one of the only things we justifiably spend money on in the first place). It is unconscionable to me that we would cut any part of the military compensation package.

I've got a better idea, let's cut the funding for Congress' health insurance, payroll, and travel reimbursement.
 

david_42

Well-Known Member
Joined
Oct 8, 2005
Messages
25,583
Reaction score
179
Location
Oak Grove
About 90% of the lifers I knew in the service would have bailed in a heartbeat. Only the retirement gravy train kept them onboard.
 

McKBrew

Well-Known Member
Joined
Oct 19, 2006
Messages
8,186
Reaction score
39
Location
Hayden
I can guarantee that if they do something like this, the military will have an even tougher time finding willing applicants. If it does happen, I hope that being close to retirement I will be grandfathered otherwise I will be one disgruntled sailor.
 

SwAMi75

Banned
Joined
Mar 6, 2005
Messages
2,458
Reaction score
10
Location
Midwest City, OK
Seeing as a good chunk of retirees die before they reach age 60, this would save us a load of money. :rolleyes:

It'll never fly.
 

uuurang

Well-Known Member
Joined
Mar 1, 2007
Messages
301
Reaction score
3
Location
madison, wi
Makes sense if you read the book"Shock doctrine" by Naomi Klein. The "new economy" is all about out-sourcing non essential functions of the U.S. government to private corporations through contracts. This essentially creates a new field of profit exploitation that didn't exist before.

Then, as Friedmanite think-tanker Grover Norquist said "I don't want to abolish government. I simply want to reduce it to the size where I can drag it into the bathroom and drown it in the bathtub." Say goodbye to government of the people, by the people, for the people...
 

Bearcat Brewmeister

Pour, Drink, Pee, Repeat
Lifetime Supporter
Joined
Feb 20, 2006
Messages
696
Reaction score
28
Location
Cincinnati, OH
This has got to be one of the dumbest ideas I have seen in a long time. Why treat the active and reserve components the same? I have an Army Reserve retirement and have no problem with the active retirees getting their retirements right away while I wait until age 60. The active guys put their time in and deserve what they get.

Sounds like they want to reduce the size of the active force and rely more on reservists. They have been doing this for years now and IMHO, they have reached their limit. We have reservists on 2 and 3 tours in Iraq now and because of that, recruiters are now finding it more difficult just to fill the reservist ranks. You can't reduce the active force any further if you are not drawing more reservists.
 

homebrewer_99

Well-Known Member
Joined
Feb 1, 2005
Messages
19,578
Reaction score
1,193
Location
I-80, Exit 27 (near the Quad Cities)
Saner things have been passed by Congress.

One of the latest conspiracy theories I hear was with Operation Desert Storm, etc, is the Govt ignored all voluntary requests for deployment from younger officers because sending the older officers into combat first hoping the would be killed so all they had to pay were insurance claims
versus a lifetime of retirement checks...
 
OP
MikeFlynn74

MikeFlynn74

Well-Known Member
Joined
Nov 24, 2007
Messages
3,875
Reaction score
22
Location
ANCHORAGE!!
Well I sent a letter to my Govs office. I also see that the AF has asked for an additional 14billion next year for more man power. After 3 years for manning cuts now they need more.

I am on my 3rd tour in the desert in 3 years. Being married to my wife for 3 years and being away 1 of them.
 
Joined
Oct 20, 2005
Messages
7,733
Reaction score
74
Location
Nanaimo, BC
I'm not a US American, and While I'm not necessarily a fan of certain military moves made by your government, I do support the troops, ours and yours. Hell I was a reservist my self in Canada.

The commission said that would bring the military in line with the Federal Employees Retirement System.
Yeah, and Federal employees get shot at at a regular basis and have to sign up for "contracts" they can't quit from on a whim.

My God, are they trying to kill off the military? Maybe have an excuse to institute a draft again when no one reups or bothers joining the military?

Next thing you know they will draft a bill requring recruits to pay for there own military training.
 
OP
MikeFlynn74

MikeFlynn74

Well-Known Member
Joined
Nov 24, 2007
Messages
3,875
Reaction score
22
Location
ANCHORAGE!!
Denny

Me neither- you should see the pissing away of money. Hell KBR has a contract until 2012 and 2 more lined up after that. Even if the military is not here we still pay for those contracts
 

JnJ

Well-Known Member
Joined
Feb 18, 2006
Messages
819
Reaction score
5
Location
San Antonio, Texas
Ya, this is assinine. I would not have done 20 years if this was the case while I was in.
If they want to fix something, give all disabled retirees concurrent disablility pay like "all other federal employees" and not just those with 50% disability and above.......
 

Lil' Sparky

Cowboys EAC
Joined
Feb 6, 2006
Messages
3,952
Reaction score
91
Location
Honolulu, HI
This will never fly. The moment they enact something like this, they'll have to immediately follow it up with a draft. We already disgrace ourselves by paying our enlisted guys peanuts compared to their incredible service and sacrifice. I'm an officer in the AF with less than 10 years left until I'm eligible to retire. If they pull something like this I'd probably quit just on principle - to hell with whatever retirement I would still qualify for. I don't think I'd be the only one, either.
 

Dude

Well-Known Member
Lifetime Supporter
Joined
Jan 15, 2005
Messages
8,768
Reaction score
116
Location
Ramstein-Miesenbach
Welcome to my world. Just over 3 years left in the AF and they will pull some crap like this.

I doubt it would ever happen, but leave it to some douchebag lawmaker who approves his own pay raise/benefits/retirement and cuts mine. Gotta love it.
 
OP
MikeFlynn74

MikeFlynn74

Well-Known Member
Joined
Nov 24, 2007
Messages
3,875
Reaction score
22
Location
ANCHORAGE!!
Lil Sparky

Yea I was talking to some of the pilots today about this. None of them would stay another 5 min if they were told their retirement was going to be put on hold.
 

Dude

Well-Known Member
Lifetime Supporter
Joined
Jan 15, 2005
Messages
8,768
Reaction score
116
Location
Ramstein-Miesenbach
MikeFlynn74 said:
Lil Sparky

Yea I was talking to some of the pilots today about this. None of them would stay another 5 min if they were told their retirement was going to be put on hold.
And it wouldn't be just pilots either. I'd bet a good majority of the enlisted force would punch ASAP too. I have almost 17 years in, if they approved this and didn't grandfather me, I'd put in the papers right now.
 

the_bird

10th-Level Beer Nerd
Lifetime Supporter
Joined
May 21, 2006
Messages
20,968
Reaction score
594
Location
Adams, MA
I cannot possibly fathom how something like this would ever come to be. I mean, they have enough trouble enlisting as it is, and what politician in his right mind would vote in favor of reducing veterans' benefits?
 
OP
MikeFlynn74

MikeFlynn74

Well-Known Member
Joined
Nov 24, 2007
Messages
3,875
Reaction score
22
Location
ANCHORAGE!!
They want their cake and eat it too- Chances are they would immediately impose a "stop-loss" meaning even if you were due to seperate or re-up you woulndt have a choice. Much like conscripting those of us who are currently in until they see fit.
 

Bearcat Brewmeister

Pour, Drink, Pee, Repeat
Lifetime Supporter
Joined
Feb 20, 2006
Messages
696
Reaction score
28
Location
Cincinnati, OH
The only upside on this is that when it comes to changes in the retirement system, they have typically grandfathered everyone. There have only been 2 that I know of in the last 50 years (for a while, I did retirement point audits in the reserves and had to keep up on this) and both times everyone that was in at the time was grandfathered.
 

RichBrewer

Well-Known Member
Lifetime Supporter
Joined
Feb 2, 2006
Messages
5,907
Reaction score
207
Location
Denver
I am in the Air National Guard both as a reservist and a full time technician and this proposal is garbage. They desperately need to change the reserve retirement system which currently starts paying at age 60. The Guard and reserves are an integral part of the military framework these days and there are a lot of Airmen, Soldiers, Sailer, and Marine reservists who have done a lot of time deployed all over the world. To make them wait until age 60 is BS. The current law of reducing it 90 days for 90 days of service helps but it is not the cure.

Having said that, dragging the active duty into this is just crazy! With or without a grandfathered system, folks will enlist, get their training and education, and then bail. Not a smart move in my opinion.
 
OP
MikeFlynn74

MikeFlynn74

Well-Known Member
Joined
Nov 24, 2007
Messages
3,875
Reaction score
22
Location
ANCHORAGE!!
lol- Sparky!

Comm Officer eh.

3c0x1 for me-

Dude-(Ive had plenty of shift work, the crappy thing is I can and should be able to do my job from home)
 

david_42

Well-Known Member
Joined
Oct 8, 2005
Messages
25,583
Reaction score
179
Location
Oak Grove
I hated shift work. My last station, I was doing 3 12 hr day shifts, 3 off, 3 night shifts, 3 off (where off means I only had to do 9-5). The worst part was coming off the night shift at 6 a.m. and then doing a 9-5 work day!

Lost 30 pounds in 6 months.
 

mad hops

Well-Known Member
Joined
Aug 9, 2007
Messages
62
Reaction score
0
Location
San Diego, CA
I have been in six years now and if that would come into play and effect me i would get out. :mad:
 
OP
MikeFlynn74

MikeFlynn74

Well-Known Member
Joined
Nov 24, 2007
Messages
3,875
Reaction score
22
Location
ANCHORAGE!!
You know its amazing how they feel they can justify this-

Even if I were to retire as an E-9 at 20 years my basic pay is 4,990.50. That means I would get for retirement 2495.25 minus taxes. Only 1% of the AF makes it to E-9. Only 2% make it to E-8.

This is by no means a good retirement. Id still need to have a fulltime job.
 
Top