Posted on 08/15/2011 11:35:27 AM PDT by NoLibZone
A Pentagon task force is proposing the largest overhaul of the military retirement system in 50 years that will do away with a traditional pension system, opting instead for a 401(k)-style contribution program.
Under the newly proposed Defense Business Board plan, all troops would receive yearly retirement contributions if they served at least 20 years -- a stipulation of the existing system. The money, however, would not vest until service reached at least three to five years and would then be payable at retirement age. If personnel left before that three- to five-year mark, the time served would be rolled over into Social Security.
The central feature of the new DBB proposal would be a mandatory “Uniformed Military Personnel Thrift Savings Plan (TSP)” in which the contributions by the Department of Defense and the individual service member would be deposited. There is already a TSP program in operation, established by Congress in 1986 for both federal employees and service personnel. But those TSPs are voluntary and only include employee contributions.
The new TSPs -- functioning as a 401(k)-style account -- could include a government contribution amounting to as much as 16.5 percent of the member’s annual pay, as well as a maximum annual tax-deferred contribution limit of $16,500 by members. In addition, there is a $5,500 annual tax-deferred “Catch-up Contribution” for service people age 50 or older, and adjustments for those serving in a combat zone. The proposed DBB retirement program would not impact disabled veterans or current retirees.
(Excerpt) Read more at foxnews.com ...
Let’s bugger the troops yet again.
BOHICA!
Go ahead REMFers Swive w/ the retirement system and watch retention got to 0%!
So serving in the military less than 20 years would double fund social security? A member would have social security taken out of the regular paycheck plus the rollover amount??
I think this is a good idea in general, but why start with the guys who take bullets for us?
Why not the retired clerk typist at the Department of Ag?
Because Government is broken.
when meter maids on New Jersey have a better retirement plan than our fighting men and women, the country is doomed
The military should have a defined benefit pension plan. No other government agency, elected official, appointed official, judge, or public employee at any level in America should have one.
for some reason i couldn’t open link here. probably because it is Fox and everyone here is lib
BUt surely if they change this plan it would not take effect for anyone currently active. or retired.
I am not sure a 401K. line businesses is right. How many businesses send their people away from families for a year at a time, for several deployments AND put them in harm’s way, possible to die?
for that reason I think anyone who willingly does this for 20 years deserves a bettter retirement plan that aomeone who works for a company here in USA
Now that is something that needs to be explained. What is retirement age? Is that after 20 years service or 55? 65? If it is not after 20 years the military will have an impossible recruiting job ahead.
They tired messing with the retirement system once before in the 80’s and it didn't work.
Personally, I am beginning to think that 401(k)’s are a bad deal anyway. I have no idea how much money I have lost because of the stock market fluctuations over the years.
And I also believe that the markets now RELY on that influx of funds from all of the 401(k)’s every two weeks or so. The problem of course is that the money needs to be invested somehow to continue to build up for use by a retiree. Savings accounts aren’t it, you get taxed on savings plus inflation is a killer usually much higher than any rate of savings interest being offered.
The proposal is going nowhere.
This is nothing new. I heard talk about this 10 years ago.
Here’s a better idea.
Offer a 401K type contribution for all years less than 20 but a full pension at 20 years.
Give the military more benefits not less...
|
If they don’t grandfather the troops that are already in, they should be sent to the Afgh/Pak border with a rusted rifle. Of course, I am opinionated because I have a son doing his 20.
This will eviscerate the Senior Enlisted ranks.
I am not sure about this, “Because they will have a problem with retention and be paying out monies to everyone who signs up for 3 or 4 years.”
doesn’t it say one wouldn’t be vested for 3-5 years
and if one left before they were vested the ampunt they paid would go into their SS account.
That I wouldn’t agree with since if you leave a private company now you get the money in your 401k and it is up to you to reinvest it.
Ithink parts of the plan are ok for people who do spend only 3-5 years but for people who stay for 20 their retirment should be better than most,
Your ppint about weiner’s scamming us is spot on.I’d rahter give a military retiree 50% of their base at 20 than give that POS weiner a penny
God bless Your son
give him losts of Freeper love
Right, reform the military retirement program but not the rest of the fed gov including congress, czars etc.
That wouldn’t be because the military tends to vote conservative instead of progressive, would it?
Uh, huh. This + Gays Serving Openly will decimate the Officer and NCO corps. If we want to win a war, we’ll have to rely on ex-military mercenaries.
The whole 3-5 years thing is confusing. I thought it was saying that the 3-5 year vesting happened after you got out but that everyone got something that went in. Who knows, if it ever reaches the Congress it will most likely be vastly different than what is laid out here.
Exactly right
“if it ever reaches the Congress it will most likely be vastly different than what is laid out here.
“
I just worry that like the dems are doing to seniors, tryint to scare them that we mean ol conservatives, was to take teir SS away dems will also try to scare military and families
Anyone that doesn't have their retirement in hand today is at risk of being shifted to the new plan, either in full or in part. The military has always been more than willing to change the rules mid-stream. Needs of the Army. The current system is not chiseled in stone. Like you pointed out, it's been modified before. If the military needs stop-loss, indefinite status over 10 years for NCOs, or any change in pay or retirement, they'll just do it. They're recalling people to duty who have been retired for years.
The idea that they'll start with people just now joining is great, but the military has never operated like that before. If they need to shift, they'll shift everybody. There may be some phasing to it, but not over 20 years.
You are looking at the death of senior enlisted, the backbone of our military. This is the group that worked for nothing through most of their 20 year career's. I don't see them upping their salaries because 16.5% of most of their salaries ain't much and how are they supposed to contribute themselves.
I have a son that will be in 10 years this January, loves what he does but this would push him to move to a more lucrative field.
Should have read further and seen your post before I said the same thing.
I hope they can’t put this into effect without the approval of congress.
Up until 1988 the retirement system was, as it is now; 50% of base salary @ 20 yrs service with each year over 20 worth 2.5% to a max of 75% @ 30 yrs service.
In 1988 they changed it to 40% @ 20 yrs and every year over 20 was worth 3.5% with a max of 75% @ 30 yrs service.
In the mid 90’s I wrote a research paper for a 4 star commander prior to a session in front of congress citing several years of facts based on exit interviews of soldiers leaving the Army prior to reaching 20 yrs of service. In 1988, prior to the change, two reasons for leaving were at the top of the list, neither was poor retirement benefits. By 1996 however, poor retirement benefits had moved from a middle of the pack response to the top of the list, (a percentage move of over 8%) a huge move when considered over the space of years nothing eles had statisticaly changed more than a tenth or two of a percent.
The biggest impact was on enlisted and commissioned soldiers at the ten year mark, traditionally the point where your making that career decsion. At that time we had seen “Mid-Career” retention fall off pretty badly and were making the point to congress that they needed to fix this fast. Thankfully, at that time they listened and made the change back to the old system.
Me thinks they’ve forgotten the lessons of the past.
You made some very valid points for sure.
This was GREAT
‘ My reply to Tom is, I guess you have no problem that your profession (reporters) are so liberal.”
regarding military and families being frightened by misinformation regarding retirement.
look no further than what Obama did when he told NVC he couldn’t be sure if social security checks or military checks would go our IF we did not raise the debt ceiling .
Many many military families did not know any better and were uncecessarily concerned.
there is a vid of Petraeus on his farewell tour in Afghanistan being asked by troops in the audience if they were going to get their aug checks. He had to admit he did not know.
fooling around with the minds and stress levels of people we send to aras where they may die is the lowest this vile POS 0dumbo has sunk
Leave my current Military Retirement the heck alone congress!!!!! Meet your committment, dang nab it!!!!
You mean like you did before you forced Hillary Care (Tri-Care) down our throats
Ping every veteran that you know. Write your Senator/Congress Critter and call them to give them What - For.
They shoved Hillary Care down our throats, now they want to mess up our Military Retirement.
This indicates they are looking at it for current members who have not yet retired:
“In addition, there is a $5,500 annual tax-deferred “Catch-up Contribution” for service people age 50 or older...”
First, there aren’t many 50+ members in the service. I retired with 25 years in at 50, but I entered a bit later than most. But if they are proposing a way for the handful of very senior enlisted (E-9, since they probably would have at least 30 years in already) or officers (O-6 and higher, probably) to ‘catch up’....WOW!
Talk about a way to decimate the military!
And there is this analysis:
““So the bottom line is the DBB program, as it’s currently outlined, will be good for those serving less than 20 years and not so good for those serving more than 20 years.”
Yeah, just what we want to do - convince people to get out BEFORE 20!
And why not the retired clerk typist working at CinCPAC or the Pentagon? Soldiers who actually risk life and limb in the defense of this country should be provided top notch benefits, however, what percentage of our military actually do so? 25, 35 percent? The rest are doing jobs that are essentially civilian jobs and they need not be provided with a military pension for a civil service job.
You obviously don’t know squat about the military.
Is it a green thing?
Are you going to get a civilian who’s a “clerk typist” to deploy in time of war?
What about the soldiers of the 507th Maintenance Company who got lost and were subsequently ambushed with 11 of them killed and Jessica Lynch captured along with 5 others?
Jessica was just a “supply clerk” at the time, yet was pressed into service to support the troops at the front. I don’t think she had any idea she would be on the “front lines” during her time in Iraq.
During DS/DS, there were folks pressed into service doing whatever was required of them to support the buildup and subsequent operations against Iraq.
When one puts on the uniform, you’re accepting the fact that wearing it brings with it an inherent amount of risk. No military member is immune from being pressed into combat. Many may think so based on where they’re at or what their MOS, AFSC is, but that’s not the reality.
What’s the old line about the Marines, “Every Marine is an infantryman first.” or some such.
Did I have a certain amount of resentment towards the clerk typists sitting in a climate controlled CBPO while I was freezing on the flightline during my active years? A bit, but I realized that I had chosen my vocation and they had chosen theirs. I was to blame, not the USAF.
There’s enough of a class/caste system in the military already, I don’t see the need to exacerbate it even further by cherry picking which jobs are more important or dangerous than others.
Plenty of people are willing to and do cherry pick jobs which they feel are more important and dangerous, at least when it comes to private sector employees and civil servants. I’m willing to consider for military jobs too. Can’t change the system for those who have already served, but certainly for newer enlistments there can be some room for differentiating between soldiers and pencil pushers. To treat every single service member as someone who has risked life and limb is simply not realistic or affordable. I’m curious how other nations handle it.
Taking out social security was SOP when I enlisted in '76. That's nothing new.
My point is that they are proposing taking the contributions and matching funds from the members 401(k)and throwing them into that morass too if the members doesn't do 20 years.
In the civilian world the money is yours to rollover into a new IRA or 401 account if you change jobs.
It appears that they are fluffing the SS funds on the backs of the military without giving them the same considerations as civilians.
I think you’re way off on trying to differentiate between the different jobs in the military. As has already been noted, many people who are clerk/typists have been pushed into combat. I have a WWII friend who was in the Marine 2nd division band and was thrown into combat as a replacement. He saw serious action on Tarawa, Saipan and Tinian. Won a bronze star.
On the flip side, my career was as an 03 Marine infantryman. I can tell you that there were many times when I was not in a front line company. Assigned to S-3 sitting at a desk. I did a tour on the drill field. Do you think the drill field is any easier than being in an infantry company? I can tell you it’s harder.
If the military truly believed that their front line troops were different than their REMFs, why do they all go through the same basic training, the same physical conditioning and the same small arms qualifications?
Why, if the REMFs are less “valuable”, do those who can’t qualify in small arms get shown the door?
Simple, because the military believes that any and all servicemembers can be pressed into front line service at anytime and must be qualified to at least point a weapon downrange towards the enemy right alongside their fellow servicemembers. None wear a different uniform.
Every military member is subject to risking life and limb. Discriminating against servicemembers based on the perceived hazards or risks of their jobs is abhorrent.
Khobar Towers, the Scud missile that landed in Saudi killing dozens, the USS Cole, the 507th Maint. Co., etc., etc. Many who were not frontline troops were killed in those attacks.
Sorry, I can’t and won’t climb on board with this.
Much like the private sector, pensions will destroy the ability of the military to function once you get to many on the pensions. Either we radically cut the size of the active duty military to support the pensions, or cut the pensions. Or both. Simply put, there is no more money, and if we are serious about getting our fiscal house in order all the sacred cows have to be looked at as burgers.
401 (k)’s will be ended when the boomers start retiring. All the money leaving the market will cause a lot of pain, and simply put end the dream of retirement for many.
We are doing that already.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
