archer wrote: Perhaps the suggestion of cutting health and pension benefits for our military was put in there to get the support of tea party Republicans.
What a load of crap. Tea party Republicans would not want to cut health and pension benefits for veterans. That sounds more like what democrats would threaten. When Mike Coffman spoke at the local Tea party meeting he mentioned that there are ways to cut the military budget without harming readiness or morale.
I think they are looking at all the cuts across the board...and it is less invasive and doesn't affect military readiness when Veteran's benefits are cut than when active-duty weapons programs and benefits are cut.
(Flame Suit On)
Everyone else has seen their pensions and benefits cut, why not the military? Aren't new service members under a more conventional private sector style pension plan where they can get benefits without serving their 20 or 30?
And while military careers can be tough with long deployments, how many people actually find themselves at the end of the spear, 10%? Maybe less than that.
Thomas Sowell: There are no solutions, just trade-offs.
SS109 wrote: (Flame Suit On)
Aren't new service members under a more conventional private sector style pension plan where they can get benefits without serving their 20 or 30?
.
No, but it is being talked about. Military retirement has been cheapen several times since 1977.
SS109 wrote: (Flame Suit On)
Everyone else has seen their pensions and benefits cut, why not the military? Aren't new service members under a more conventional private sector style pension plan where they can get benefits without serving their 20 or 30?
And while military careers can be tough with long deployments, how many people actually find themselves at the end of the spear, 10%? Maybe less than that.
Or we could get the Blackwater types out of the way and start paying our current duty what they're worth.
SS109 wrote: (Flame Suit On)
Everyone else has seen their pensions and benefits cut, why not the military? Aren't new service members under a more conventional private sector style pension plan where they can get benefits without serving their 20 or 30?
And while military careers can be tough with long deployments, how many people actually find themselves at the end of the spear, 10%? Maybe less than that.
No, military retirement is not under a more conventional private-sector style retirement plan.
Currently, there are 3 different plans retirees may fall under, totally depending on the year they joined the service:
1) Joined prior to September 1980 falls under Final Pay system: 50% of the final month's pay. Increases 2.5% for each additional year past 20 served.
2) Joined between 8 September 1980 and August 1986 falls under High 36 (I always knew it as High 3): The average of the highest pay received the last 36 months (3 years) the member served active duty. Increases 2.5% for each additional year past 20 servied.
For each of the above programs, the multiplier, which is the percentage of your base pay you receive for each year of service is 2.5%. You get 50% of your base pay for 20 years of service and 100% for 40 years of service.
3) Joined after August 1986 falls under CSB/REDUX: You have the option to choose High 36 or CSB/REDUX, but you have to choose which program you want at the 15 year point. Multiplier if you choose CSB/REDUX is 2% per year for the first 20 years of service. Increases 3.5% for each additional year beyond 20 served.
If a person chooses to "get out" (separate) before they reach 20 years or are denied reenlistment (for enlisted members) or are not retained (for officers), they get nothing (with the exceptions of when early retirement is allowed, as in the '90's).
The bottom line...if a regular retirement, the person must serve at least 20 years active duty in order to receive any retirement.
SS109 wrote: (Flame Suit On)
Everyone else has seen their pensions and benefits cut, why not the military? Aren't new service members under a more conventional private sector style pension plan where they can get benefits without serving their 20 or 30?
And while military careers can be tough with long deployments, how many people actually find themselves at the end of the spear, 10%? Maybe less than that.
(fire hose on to put out the fire)
Depends on what you mean by the end of the spear! As for pensions and benefits, why. There is no such thing as a more conventional private sector style pension in the Military. The pension is relates to those that serve the 20 + years unless they offer the early outs again that CB talked about. Those that make the cut to join the military and have thoughts of making it a career do so by signing a contract. Why should the government be allowed to change that contract once signed. What you also have to understand is that just because one joins does not mean they will make it to 20 year mark. There are numerous reasons that one may not make to that mark. Here is the big question though, would you want the us government to be in control of your retirement fund and invest your money?
