DOD Business Board proposes radical overhaul to military retirement plan

[gunther]

Not enough details to really fully evaluate impact on current members if implemented, but certainly something to be aware of:

http://www.militarytimes.com/news/2011/07/military-dod-panel-calls-for-radical-retirement-overhaul-072511/

http://dbb.defense.gov/pdf/DBB_Military_Retirement_Final_Presentationpdf.pdf

[Section 107]

Since it says there is No Grandfathering.  It would hurt the military members who are ALREADY in the military.  Also the ones who are thinking about joining.

In other words it is a ROYAL FRICKING to all who are currently in the military if this stupid thing passes.  But our Sec of Defense thinks it is a great idea.  What a dumb ass.

[IronHog]

Since it says there is No Grandfathering.  It would hurt the military members who are ALREADY in the military.  Also the ones who are thinking about joining.

In other words it is a ROYAL FRICKING to all who are currently in the military if this stupid thing passes.  But our Sec of Defense thinks it is a great idea.  What a dumb ass.

"retirement" is a bad concept


Very bad for a 38 year old.

[1CavHog]

I think the systems does need changed, mainly because there is no benefit to leaving before 20. The problem they will face if they change it will be retention though, particularly among officers and personnel with the technological skills to get a similar job on the outside. Right now the economy is bad so the military is having no problem meeting their manning goals but it always goes in cycles. I know if they don't grandfather those of us already in I will bounce immediately, it's not worth uprooting my family every 3 years and deploying if there isn't an early retirement.

[Ragnar Hogbrok]

I think the systems does need changed, mainly because there is no benefit to leaving before 20. The problem they will face if they change it will be retention though, particularly among officers and personnel with the technological skills to get a similar job on the outside. Right now the economy is bad so the military is having no problem meeting their manning goals but it always goes in cycles. I know if they don't grandfather those of us already in I will bounce immediately, it's not worth uprooting my family every 3 years and deploying if there isn't an early retirement.

If this passes, myself and 80% of helicopter pilots I speak with are ready to walk away.  Good luck having aviation units manned by pilots with 250 total flight hours.

[Section 107]

I think the Sec of Defense and the liberals in Washington are hoping that you do walk away.  If I were you I would be on the phone to Washington asking them idiots what the hell are they thinking? 

Do not just sit back and wait on it to happen.  Because with the Sec of Defense pushing for it.  I bet it happens.

REMEMBER  Tea Party in 2012.

[1CavHog]

If this passes, myself and 80% of helicopter pilots I speak with are ready to walk away.  Good luck having aviation units manned by pilots with 250 total flight hours.

Exactly. If there is no grandfather clause it will be an exodus like none other. I do think the system needs adjusted so that those that don't serve 20 get some sort of pension, maybe similar to how law enforcement does where you are vested after 10 but can't draw till 60, but if you stay 20 years you can still get the immediate pension. There is plenty of ways to cut defense, I remember sitting on Route Tampa watching a Bradley burning up thinking about how it was worth more than what I would make in my entire career.

[TeufelHog]

Some things to consider:
-Currently, 1% of our country's overall population has served/is serving or has retired from Active Duty. 1% total!
-You are a service member 24/7/365.  Since this is true, why shouldn't they be able to retire at 20 years (meaning collect their retirement earnings as soon as they "retire" from the military and not wait until they're 60, not meaning to quit working in the civilian workforce after they "retire" from the military).  Isn't their 20 years of military service "equitable" to 40 years civilian employment since they are on call to give their life for our country 24/7/365?
-Let's talk about overtime pay.  If you want to go to a "civilian style" pay and retirement system immediately (without "grandfathering those who signed a service contract since 1986/88) they should get their "backpay with interest" for all the overtime they should have been paid for every week they worked over 40 hours a week -AND- every exercise and deployment/combat deployment they've been on.  You know, the ones they were PHYSICALLY away from their family's 24/7 for anywhere from 6-15 months straight serving/protecting our nation.  MULTIPLE 6-15 month deployments.  Can you imagine the cost to the American taxpayer if the Department of Defense had to pay ANY overtime at all to their service members!
-If they are married, their retirement is actually for two people - the member and their spouse who also "served" those 20 years.  Didn't the military uproot their spouse every 2-4 years to move?  How is that conducive for a spouse to achieve a 20 year civilian career/retirement of their own.  It's not.  No employer will hire/invest in someone they know will be gone in 2-4 years because their spouse is in the military.  By the way, don't even try to argue the point that the retirement is not for them -AND- their spouse . . . it is law that they have to give half of their military retirement pay to their spouse in a divorce settlement if they divorce after a minimum of ten years of marriage during ten years of service . . . trust me it's a retirement for two people.
-Financially speaking, for anyone (enlisted or officer) who is in the service right now with 18+ years complete, the only smart thing to do would be to "request" retirement before this could get enacted.  Otherwise they would stand to lose significant income over the course of their future "retirement."  Really, an immediate 401K transfer in today's market.   In other words, under this proposed plan there is NO BENEFIT for anyone close to retirement, or already retirement eligible - over 20 years, to stay in if this proposal was approved.  Here's the kicker, not everyone in that category would be allowed to retire at the same time - that would be ALL of the senior enlisted and officer service members.  DoD wouldn't/couldn't approve all of those requests for retirement at the same time.  So you're "stuck" PERIOD.
-Finally, what a great message to send our service members from Congress IF they pass this proposal . . . "thank you for serving your country over the last 20 years of conflict . . . -wait for it, since 1990: Korea (still not over, it's a ceasefire), Kuwait, Iraq, Somalia, Bosnia, Kosovo (still, bet you forgot), Iraq (again-for 10 years), Afghanistan (again, bet you forgot the 80's and for last 10 years), Red Sea/Indian Ocean (piracy for last two years), Yemen (read your papers), Waziristan (read your papers) and Libya . . . we're going to go back on our pension/healthcare commitment to you right when you are retirement eligible."  WOW!  Reminds me of that airline that quit paying their retirees pension plans a few years back.
-This would crush the all-volunteer force.           

[1CavHog]

+1 spot on. Just a question for other active duty on the board, would you stay in the service if you couldn't retire at 20? Even if I wanted to my wife wouldn't let me if they take that away.

[Old Tusk]

I think there is a great deal of over reaction here. First, it is not clear how they will transition current members to the new system. Also, anyone who is surprised that the military would go to a fixed contribution plan hasn't been paying attention. Two protracted wars has created a huge increase in unfunded entitlements.

The National Guard troops who have made up a significant part of troop strength in the wars will not draw their retirement until they are 60.

Also, the Military Retirement Trust Fund sits in same place as the Social Security Trust Fund who many think we have no obligation to pay. As Kantor said " promises will not be kept."

[hawgsav1]

I think the Sec of Defense and the liberals in Washington are hoping that you do walk away.  If I were you I would be on the phone to Washington asking them idiots what the hell are they thinking? 

Do not just sit back and wait on it to happen.  Because with the Sec of Defense pushing for it.  I bet it happens.

REMEMBER  Tea Party in 2012.

Also remember that this proposal was floated by people within the DoD.

[hawgsav1]

+1 spot on. Just a question for other active duty on the board, would you stay in the service if you couldn't retire at 20? Even if I wanted to my wife wouldn't let me if they take that away.

I don't think I'd walk away right now, mainly because I'm too young to worry about that 20 year mark.  However, at my 0 year mark (depending on whether my career path goes as I like), I would consider leaving a lot more attractive proposition.

[Section 107]

I think there is a great deal of over reaction here. First, it is not clear how they will transition current members to the new system. Also, anyone who is surprised that the military would go to a fixed contribution plan hasn't been paying attention. Two protracted wars has created a huge increase in unfunded entitlements.

The National Guard troops who have made up a significant part of troop strength in the wars will not draw their retirement until they are 60.

Also, the Military Retirement Trust Fund sits in same place as the Social Security Trust Fund who many think we have no obligation to pay. As Kantor said " promises will not be kept."

Have you ever been in the military?  WHY would the National Guard getting paid at age 60 have anything to do, with someone who is in for TWENTY YEARS straight.  It is a stupid rule by a Sec of Def who was put in place by an idiot President.

[IronHog]

Some things to consider:

-This would crush the all-volunteer force.           

Who cares?

The conventional forces were developed to engage enemies that no longer exist.


Most of the Army, Navy, and Air Forces is outdated and needs to wind down.

[Old Tusk]

Have you ever been in the military?  WHY would the National Guard getting paid at age 60 have anything to do, with someone who is in for TWENTY YEARS straight.  It is a stupid rule by a Sec of Def who was put in place by an idiot President.

You are right, I don't no anything about the military. Those NG troops have spent more in combat than many active duty personnel. Also it is not a rule and just a commision reccomendation. I guess you think people who spend 18 yrs, should get nothing. The plan could make many troops multi millionaires at 60 yrs old.

[Section 107]

If you are stupid enough to be within 2 years of a lifetime retirement and get out.
YES. I think you should not get anything.

[TeufelHog]

Ironhog - Sounds like you have too much trust in China, Russia, North Korea, Pakistan and India.  Believe me, they have been preparing for war during their time of "peace."  The interconnections of the global economy won't prevent them from protecting/furthering their national interests and they don't use unconventional warfare as their primary means.  Some argue that our current U.S. economic situation  is directly contributed to a couple of those countries who have nefarious intentions.

[Section 107]

Who cares?

The conventional forces were developed to engage enemies that no longer exist.

Most of the Army, Navy, and Air Forces is outdated and needs to wind down.

Possibly the stupidest post ever posted.

How long have you been playing "video games"? 

[Old Tusk]

If you are stupid enough to be within 2 years of a lifetime retirement and get out.
YES. I think you should not get anything.

Evidently don't understand the retention system.

[IronHog]

Possibly the stupidest post ever posted.

How long have you been playing "video games"? 

A cold war style conventional military is outdated and ineffective in the modern geopolitical environment.

[IronHog]

some argue that our current U.S. economic situation  is directly contributed to a couple of those countries who have nefarious intentions.

What are grunts and planes gonna do about that?


Defense is still very relevant......most of our current military is not.

[Section 107]

The planes are going to bomb them.

The grunts are going to make SURE they are dead.

The college kids will stay home and complain.

[Old Tusk]

The thing is that the pols continue to engage in invasions and nation building even though the say they won't.

[IronHog]

The planes are going to bomb them.

The grunts are going to make SURE they are dead.

The college kids will stay home and complain.

The US will likely never engage China with conventional military weapons.


IT, space, economics, maybe........but not guns and planes.



If it ever happened it would be the last gasp of a dying empire...........A Spanish Armada moment if you will........

[Old Tusk]

The US will likely never engage China with conventional military weapons.


IT, space, economics, maybe........but not guns and planes.



If it ever happened it would be the last gasp of a dying empire...........A Spanish Armada moment if you will........

Remember the old rule: Never fight a ground war in Asia.

[Section 107]

The US will likely never engage China with conventional military weapons.
IT, space, economics, maybe........but not guns and planes.
If it ever happened it would be the last gasp of a dying empire...........A Spanish Armada moment if you will........

Ever heard of PSYOPS

[Old Tusk]

Ever heard of PSYOPS

This means what?

[IronHog]

Ever heard of PSYOPS

Yes.

[Section 107]

This means what?

Psychological Operations.

We will "frick you up" and never fire a shot.

[Old Tusk]

Psychological Operations.

We will "frick you up" and never fire a shot.

I know what it means. I just can't figure out what it has to do with Iron's post. I guess you think we can talk them into submission.

[Section 107]

Talking is not the ONLY way. You control the mind. You win the battle.

[1CavHog]

Remember the old rule: Never fight a ground war in Asia.

Haha +1.