Posted on 07/26/2011 2:40:00 AM PDT by markomalley
A sweeping new plan to overhaul the Pentagon’s retirement system would give some benefits to all troops and phase out the 20-year cliff vesting system that has defined military careers for generations, the Military Times newspapers reported.
The plan calls for a corporate-style benefits program that would contribute money to troops’ retirement savings account rather than the promise of a future monthly pension, according to a new proposal from an influential Pentagon advisory board.
The move would save the Pentagon money -- at a time when it's being asked to cut at least $400 billion -- and benefit troops who leave with less than 20 years of service.
The yearly contributions might amount to about 16.5 percent of a member’s annual pay and would be deposited into a mandatory version of the Thrift Savings Plan, the military’s existing 401(k)-style account that now does not include government matching contributions, according to the Times.
Proponents said the plan would allow more flexibility for servicemembers, who could decide how they want to invest their retirement savings, and for the military, which would be allowed to offer higher contributions to troops who deploy frequently or take hardship assignments.
The Military Times has more on the proposed overhaul, including a summary of how servicemembers would be affected, depending on their length of service.
This will demolish the NCO corps.
I think this is another part of the “progressives’” plan to destroy the U.S.A.
Yep. Remember the effect that was felt under Clinton and his 40% retirement change? This will be even more destructive.
So true....anyone that has served knows w/o a doubt the E6's, 7'S and 8's actually do all the work to make the military function w/ regards to paperwork / supervision.
Take them away = cluster f. 6-8 is the 'working chain of command'.
Big dittos on your reply.
I only stuck it out 21 years because of the 50 at 20 retirement and “free health care for life.”
I agree completely. The crap that the military has to take at the personal and family level is like no other career. Moving every three years whether he or she wants to or not, having no choice who he or she works for, forced to swallow one’s pride when his or her superior is full of it and the list goes on and on. Pressure placed on the individual from his job and his supervisor then expected to salute and carry on.
Nope I would not even enlist under those circumstances and what I know now. Congress and the government only appreciates the military when it is politically expedient to do so. What was that poem by Kipling - Tommy!
I hope to hell this is just a trial balloon. This won’t just destroy the NCO corps. It will hit the regular officer corps just as hard, especially at the O4-05 level.
Career means career. These men and women have to think about their future, and if they’re not building towards a reasonable pension, why the heck would they stay around and put up with the nonsense that goes with military service at NCO and field grade levels?
I’m with you. I would have bailed at 14 when I was ordered to DC.
Big mistake.
The military is already being transformed into a welfare alternative, radical leftist, halfway house for gays, she-males, Obama-bots and REMF bed-wetters.
It will eventually become just another federal government plantation.
As it is, serious people will already be leaving the military in droves when the gay infestation begins in ernest. Changing the retirement will accelerate that.
The plan calls for a corporate-style benefits program that would contribute money to troops' retirement savings account rather than the promise of a future monthly pensionNo problem, we'll just hire illegal immigrants and reformed jihadists to build our field armies. /s
Not saying this plan is good. There are many unanswered questions, like how much in matching funds. However, it sounds like you’d have an actual retirement account that you’d own. In other words, you could walk at the end of any term of service with whatever had been saved at that point. You could conceivably leave with MORE money at the 20 year point.
“You could conceivably leave with MORE money at the 20 year point.”
And if the stock market tanks when PFC Snuffy is about to leave with his “nest egg? No way to sugarcoat this. Its a terrible idea.
Here’s the deal....by fifteen years...you might have built up a nice tidy TSP account and just walk out the door. You could go on and continue working via various jobs and your TSP would likely bulk up by age 55 to 60...and be worth something. When I retired in 1999, I would suggest that one out of four NCOs would have preferred to quit between the 12th and 15th year. I would agree that the overhaul might have more positive situations than negatives.
Prior to WWII, you served until you did not reenlist or resigned your commission or you died. There was no “up or out,” in which you had to advance in rank in order to be retained. It resulted in moribund ranks with 40 year old E-3s and white haired O-4s with no chance of advancement clogging up the billets. It was why senile Admirals had to die before LTs could be promoted.
The 20 year retirement helped correct this. Very few have what it takes to become an E-9 or a flag officer. With a 20 year retirement, the ranks are cleared of those who have no chance at high rank, it keeps the military young, vigorous, and offers opportunity to people of superior talent.
I'm not saying the new proposal will or will not be in the best interest of maintaining the best military in history, for the details are not clear. I'm saying it should not be judged strictly on the basis of cost.
I kind of think this is the whole point.
It's what Obama's minions want to do - destroy our military from within.
Indeed ... the military retirement system is not same-same as civilian ... retention in the military is a far different kettle of fish than in civilian life. Of course, wrecking the economy does incentivize folks to stay in longer.
It’s amazing. Every 10-15 years the bean counters come out and seriously screw the system up. It’s all about the cash and never about whether it’s a good idea; whether it will help or hurt; whether it will demoralize the troops and cause folks to bail.
I retired as an E-8. I would have stayed longer but they decided to outsource my base Support Group. I wasn’t prepared to PCS a 12th time in my 22 years served. They really expected all 3Cs to be in Combat Comms for 20 years!? Like that wouldn’t hurt retention?
But it was all about the money. WHICH they never saved anyway. They just moved it out of O&M into contracts. Base support costs them MORE now.
I dunno, it seems to me that the “cliff” retirement system does generate a lot of perverse incentives. What do you do with a passed over major (O-4) with 16 years service? Under the current system, the guy gets royally shafted. I remember an E-5 in my battalion with 18 years and the battalion commander would not let him re-enlist to finish his 20.
The current system encourages guys to linger long after they would otherwise have left and discourages weeding out losers because of perceived (and actual) unfairness.
Currently the population is divided between first termers and lifers. You have few people who are happy for now and might decide to try something else in a few years.
I didn’t think the cliff retirement system made sense 35 years ago and I don’t think it makes sense today. As far as a money saving option, it seems to me that the conversion is front loaded with costs to the Government today and savings in the distant future. Apparently, it would not apply to anyone currently near retirement.
Move every three but spend two of those in Afghanistan or Iraq.
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.