Posted on 07/26/2011 2:40:00 AM PDT by markomalley
A sweeping new plan to overhaul the Pentagons 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 members annual pay and would be deposited into a mandatory version of the Thrift Savings Plan, the militarys 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.
And that is why I left as an O it was up or out and I would have been just as happy to stay an o-3 but couldn’t. The politics of moving up were a crap shoot that depended too much on who your co was and not what you knew or how u led. I couldn’t see spending 12-15 and then being walked for failure to promote and I did see it a few times in the 90s.
Because that worked SO well for the Roman Empire.
Yes.
How long before Obama agrees to let SEIU unionize the military?
I agree. I would think that getting rid of every other government workers pension would save much more than killing the 20 year military retirment. They should do that first and see how it works out.
:’) /bingo
We shouldn’t be too hard on them though — the Roman Empire endured in some form until the 15th c.
F Obama and his enablers!
I’d have left after 10 years under this proposal. My main reason for staying in despite all the deployments - I was gone 5/6 months each year - was the retirement pay.
In fact, I stayed in for 25 years...but if it were all ‘proportional contributions, leave at any time’, I’d have left after 10 to make better pay with less time away from home elsewhere.
This is what happens when people who have no military experience and who are not smart enough to learn for the tinkering in the 80s are put in charge of the military. Very few NCO or company grade officers would have much incentive to stay in.
My husband has 1,099 days until he qualifies for a 20-year military retirement (he's got 17 years in) and they want to change the system on him NOW???? Unbelievable. My only hope at this point is that it takes them three years to do this, if they (foolishly) choose to do so.
If they MUST change the system, I think it should be changed for new recruits who can then choose whether or not to enlist with the knowledge that the pension system has been radically changed. But for those people who have already put in 15+ years towards a 20+ year career, it seems unconscionable to change things this late in the game.
And I agree with the other posters who have said: Change all other federal pensions FIRST, including Congressional pensions. The LAST place to cut corners should be to steal money from those who are risking their lives for our freedom.
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.