Military pensions unaffordable? Like to hear some retired vets on this

[Indy_Guy_77]

<------ not military now, never have been, never will be.

Take the following with a grain of salt:

As a fiscal conservative, I think that ALL avenues of saving this country money should be on the table.

Some things should be looked at harder than others...

Why not look at military pensions? Granted, very few folks who ever enlist will get to 20 years. Probably more than half will be at enlisted pay scale, right? (just going on basic odds of there being more enlisted vs. officer corps?)

How about picking a date some point in the future: If you join the ranks in anyway after Jan 1, 2021, your pension plan will be different. If you're currently in the military on Jan 1, 2021, your pension plan will stay the same.

Granted, the military pension plan is probably only a drop in the bucket... But you cut a lot of those drops, then you can make a dent in the bucket.

(This is also the same plan that I'd hope would be done with the UAW / Auto manufacturers... Pick a date in the future. All new-hires post this date will have different benefits. Either do this or we'll ALL be unemployed. Good luck getting the UAW big-wigs to agree to this, though)

-J-

 

[Kitty]

<------ not military now, never have been, never will be.

Take the following with a grain of salt:

As a fiscal conservative, I think that ALL avenues of saving this country money should be on the table.

Some things should be looked at harder than others...

Why not look at military pensions? Granted, very few folks who ever enlist will get to 20 years. Probably more than half will be at enlisted pay scale, right? (just going on basic odds of there being more enlisted vs. officer corps?)

How about picking a date some point in the future: If you join the ranks in anyway after Jan 1, 2021, your pension plan will be different. If you're currently in the military on Jan 1, 2021, your pension plan will stay the same.

Granted, the military pension plan is probably only a drop in the bucket... But you cut a lot of those drops, then you can make a dent in the bucket.

(This is also the same plan that I'd hope would be done with the UAW / Auto manufacturers... Pick a date in the future. All new-hires post this date will have different benefits. Either do this or we'll ALL be unemployed. Good luck getting the UAW big-wigs to agree to this, though)

-J-

I want to see congress take a hit first. Pay raises voted on by the people. Cut the cushy pension they have. Want to bring jobs and growth back here, how about salaries that reflect the average income of their districts, with every able-bodies unemployed adult (including welfare recipients) adding a 0 to the average?

Once congress has "tightened their belt", then they can go after those who have given a chunk of their LIVES so we can *itch on the internet and sip a latte.

A plan change down the road is one thing, but for me the idiot who haven't even "read" what they have sworn to "uphold" need to come first.

 

[Pocketman]

I want to see congress take a hit first. Pay raises voted on by the people. Cut the cushy pension they have. Want to bring jobs and growth back here, how about salaries that reflect the average income of their districts, with every able-bodies unemployed adult (including welfare recipients) adding a 0 to the average?

Once congress has "tightened their belt", then they can go after those who have given a chunk of their LIVES so we can *itch on the internet and sip a latte.

A plan change down the road is one thing, but for me the idiot who haven't even "read" what they have sworn to "uphold" need to come first.

I support this 100%, but can't help myself from

 

[CarmelHP]

Congressmen and Senators get a full pay pension after serving one term. What's wrong with this picture??

Because they don't, this is a false rumor. No pension after a term, no free healthcare. Same pension system as other federal employees and same terms. Same social security taxes and benefits.

 

[rambone]

I would counter that there should not be any type of retirement or pension, government or civilian, that would include 401k. Did the founding father's have 401ks? They seemed to do pretty well for themselves.

I'm talking about getting the government out of the retirement/entitlement business. Stop culturing people to believe that the government is always going to exist to put food on your table. Even if you've worked for them. I am sure that the founding fathers would approve of people privately saving/investing money throughout their lives to sustain themselves down the road.

Congressmen and Senators get a full pay pension after serving one term. What's wrong with this picture??

I feel the same way about them. Pay them an agreed wage and let them plan their own investments and retirement plan. Uncle Sugar is broke!!

 

[SSGSAD]

Not to threadjack but...

I don't trust that chart 100%, mainly because I don't trust any financial report put out by China, especially one dealing with military expenditures. I'd almost bet that that 7.3% is way too low.

Back on topic, I'm interested to know how much, as a percentage, the military spends on pensions and healthcare for veterans, because I'm sure it's not a huge percentage compared to their overall budget. Not that many people make it 20 years in the military.

Now prolonged conflicts in the Middle East, that would be a major reason for bloated military budgets...

Also, there are approx. 1oo billion, chinese, and about 3 billion, AMERICANS, so they still, can match us .....

 

[SSGSAD]

Congressmen and Senators get a full pay pension after serving one term. What's wrong with this picture??

Actually, they must serve 10 years, I learned this listening to Dan (the MAN) Burton, on Mondays, at 9:30, on WIBC radio, 93.1 fm .....

 

[tedbower]

Ross Perot said it best , we pay more for people to entertain us than we do for people to protect us , when you really think about that statement it kinda makes you makes our system look stupid.

 

[96firephoenix]

gee, whats really more un-affordable; pensions for veterans who have served 20+ years in good standing* or (much bigger) pensions and (the best ever) health care plans for representatives who only have to serve 2 years to qualify for the rest of their lives, regardless of standing*...?

*It is my (possibly erroneous) understanding that nothing disqualifies a congressman from his pension, whereas a veteran can get a DHD/BCD on year 21 and not get his pension.

 

[96firephoenix]

Also, there are approx. 1oo billion, chinese, and about 3 billion, AMERICANS, so they still, can match us .....

those numbers.... are completely wrong. There are approx. 1.3 Billion Chinese and approx. 330 Million Americans

 

[Blackhawk2001]

As a 39 year vet and now a military retiree, I'd like to make a couple points.

Nations which use conscription for their military personnel can afford large numbers of troops because they don't pay them very much - basically "cokes & smokes" money. The downside to this system is that they don't keep most of their troops for very long and they have only a small professional officer and/or NCO corps to make the decisions for the troops. Take out the leadership and the troops break.

Even when we had conscription, our conscriptees had a reputation of being creative and willing to step up to leadership responsibilities, but we still had only two years to use them; hardly enough time to learn their jobs, even with the level of technology we were using then. (This is the 'generation' of military that I joined in 1970)

Since the decision was made to make the military "all-volunteer", the military could no longer afford to pay its troops "cokes & smokes" salaries, so, gradually, pay raises brought the military salaries up to commensurate with civilian pay scales (If we're not talking about being paid by the hour - which is a whole different argument) and, in return, we've been able to retain trained personnel for much longer periods of time; time in which to create highly trained and experienced personnel, who are much more capable, out of the box, than their conscript counterparts in my generation. This has created a couple issues.

When most enlisted and many officers served a term and got out, personnel costs were lower. Also, because of the short terms of service, service personnel didn't have as much opportunity to break their bodies down, such as happens when they are exposed to long years of punishing, repetitive exercise of various portions of their bodies. I was in aviation, but I spent years running and keeping my body fit - I have arthritis in my knees and ankles; I spent more years wearing flight helmets with 16 oz of night vision goggles on the front of the helmet and 20 oz of lead counterbalance weights on the back - I have arthritis in my shoulders and neck. Infantry guys typically have back and lower extremity joint issues, arty guys have back and shoulder issues, just about everyone has hearing loss. These things have years to accumulate and the military - to an extent - tends to those injuries.

Because salaries and benefit costs have risen over the last 30 years, HR costs, like in the civilian community, are the biggest expense the military has to plan for. We've changed the retirement program several times over my career, and I don't see a reason we can't change it again, however, if it is done, it will begin with troops who aren't currently in the system; that's the only way which makes sense, and it's the way it's been done in the past.

 

[badwolf.usmc]

I'm talking about getting the government out of the retirement/entitlement business. Stop culturing people to believe that the government is always going to exist to put food on your table. Even if you've worked for them. I am sure that the founding fathers would approve of people privately saving/investing money throughout their lives to sustain themselves down the road.

What if i was to tell you that that the first Veteran Pensions were set up in 1776, to take care of Revolutionary War vets that were wounded. In 1818 it was changed to allow anyone who served for more than 9 months to get a pension.

Pensions enacted by Congress for American Revolutionary War Veterans

 

[Kutnupe14]

What if i was to tell you that that the first Veteran Pensions were set up in 1776, to take care of Revolutionary War vets that were wounded. In 1818 it was changed to allow anyone who served for more than 9 months to get a pension.

Pensions enacted by Congress for American Revolutionary War Veterans

You'd be right. The did it to keep soldier in the field shooting rather than plowing.

 

[Pocketman]

What if i was to tell you that that the first Veteran Pensions were set up in 1776, to take care of Revolutionary War vets that were wounded. In 1818 it was changed to allow anyone who served for more than 9 months to get a pension.

Pensions enacted by Congress for American Revolutionary War Veterans

If you dig a little into this you'll see that Congress kept screwing with the pensioners and required a needs assessment to keep many off the rolls. It wasn't until 1832, when most of them were dead, that Congress granted more liberal pensions for Revolutionary War service.

 

[CarmelHP]

Actually, they must serve 10 years, I learned this listening to Dan (the MAN) Burton, on Mondays, at 9:30, on WIBC radio, 93.1 fm .....

10 years to vest in FERS, no pension until you hit the minimum retirement age (MRA). The lowest MRA is 55. Pension is based on years of service and salary.

 

[badwolf.usmc]

If you dig a little into this you'll see that Congress kept screwing with the pensioners and required a needs assessment to keep many off the rolls. It wasn't until 1832, when most of them were dead, that Congress granted more liberal pensions for Revolutionary War service.

I was showing that there was a precedent for pensions since the start of our nation, and long before.

 

[Prometheus]

Commitments made need to be honored. Going forward, pay them a respectable wage and let them invest it how they see fit.

No pensions and certainly no free medical care for life (unless it was for an injury received while actually working) for anyone new coming into the system. Break your back during a rappelling assault? Covered for life. Break your back playing football between missions? Sorry buddy, that's on YOU. Treat it like any other insurance plan would.

This way no one is passing the buck down to the next generation. Everything gets paid on the current generations tab.

Otherwise the US is just like GM, going to go bankrupt making insane promises that are impossible to keep when the ponzi scheme is up.

Guys with just a few years in could stay on the current system or change over to the new one if they preferred and in a couple decades the problem is solved.

No cow should sacred in getting this nation back on the path of financial solvency.

 

[gunowner930]

<------ not military now, never have been, never will be.

Take the following with a grain of salt:

As a fiscal conservative, I think that ALL avenues of saving this country money should be on the table.

Some things should be looked at harder than others...

Why not look at military pensions? Granted, very few folks who ever enlist will get to 20 years. Probably more than half will be at enlisted pay scale, right? (just going on basic odds of there being more enlisted vs. officer corps?)

How about picking a date some point in the future: If you join the ranks in anyway after Jan 1, 2021, your pension plan will be different. If you're currently in the military on Jan 1, 2021, your pension plan will stay the same.

Granted, the military pension plan is probably only a drop in the bucket... But you cut a lot of those drops, then you can make a dent in the bucket.

(This is also the same plan that I'd hope would be done with the UAW / Auto manufacturers... Pick a date in the future. All new-hires post this date will have different benefits. Either do this or we'll ALL be unemployed. Good luck getting the UAW big-wigs to agree to this, though)

-J-

If we have to overhaul military pensions, then that option should be on the table. My issue is why they're looking at the military now. The Federal Government isn't going after public union employees, they're certainly not reducing their own benefits, they signed an expensive abortion of a healthcare bill, and overall it seems that they don't have a problem giving money to the 3rd generation bums on welfare that refuse to get a job. Why are they targeting the most productive Federal Employees who have sacrificed the most, instead of the lazy Federal Employees that get every stupid holiday off and can't be fired?

 

[chraland51]

The whole Washington D.C. area is just trying to screw those that actually deserve something any which way they can. This is one of the few times that those pricks actually might mention cutting costs and it just happens to be a cost that should not be cut. This is just another example to illustrate that Washington is just one big joke. Do no worry however. The pensions of those other federal employees are secured ang guaranteed. Does anyone else out there ever get tired of constantly being lied to?

 

[Denny347]

Because they don't, this is a false rumor. No pension after a term, no free healthcare. Same pension system as other federal employees and same terms. Same social security taxes and benefits.

I don't think anyone heard you