Military retirees face cuts

Exactly. Thank God there are some damned good lobbyists and some politicians who still understand military retirements.

It's nice we are on the same page, Warrior but there really is no difference in practive between YOUR CONTRACT and the contracts that other workers have.

STATE WORKERS also worked based on a contract that ought NOT be change AFTER THEY HAVE FULFILLED their end of the bargain.

Social Security retirees ALSO worked based on a contract that ought NOT be change AFTER THEY HAVE FULFILLED their end of the bargain.

Fair is fair, after all.

I agree, 100%

WTF?????

When I posted, "The same can be said for Social Security and Medicare." you said I was comparing apples and oranges. Then editec makes the exact same point above and you agree 100%? Why don't you pass along some of what you're smoking so we can ALL get loaded.

I don't think you have a clue as to what you're arguing about.

.
 
Citing the fiscal hazards and inequities of the system, the Defense Business Board proposal would allow soldiers with less than 20 years of service to leave with a small nest egg, provided they served a minimum length of time, three to five years. But it would prevent all retirees from receiving benefits until they were 60.

The business board says that its proposal would reduce the plan’s total liabilities to $1.8 trillion by 2034, from the $2.7 trillion now projected — all without cutting benefits for current service members.


While true that it wouldn't impact current service members, it could have a huge impact in retention of career personnel in the long term. Most people join the military between the ages of 18 (post high school) and 22/23 (post college). In addition the great majority of military personnel are enlisted people, but it seems that when some which to complain about military retirement they always point to what Generals/Admirals make which are a very, VERY small percentage of the overall force structure.

Currently career personnel would then "retire" (it's in quote because most enlisted people can't afford to retire on what their military pay will be. Remember all retirement computations are made on Base Pay, not Actual Pay which includes such things as BAS, BAH/Q, Flight Pay, Combat Pay, etc.

I retired in 1998 and joined the civilian work force and was very lucky, I came from a technical field (MOS/NEC) that transferred well to the civilian word and secured a job with decent pay. However many combat arms MOS/NESs may not be that lucky because of the inability to transfer military job related skills to the civilian work force.

The new plan would mean that people would still be able to stay for a career but then when they "retire" (which for most people is between 38-42 years old) there would be looking at a world where (a) they have no immediate compensation for time served, and (b) would be 20-22 years behind their civilian cohort in terms of longevity/seniority in their chosen field.

The true negative impact would be on force structure for a couple of reasons and this is all IMHO. Technical Career Field personnel would probably still join the military, but would opt to receive their military training and then would leave because their skills have direct applicability to the civilian work force. The biggest impact would be on the combat arms fields whose job duties don't have a lot of transference to the civilian world, this type of plan would be devastating to combat arms because those people that stay know that on trying to enter the civilian work force they would have nothing coming from their military service for about 20-years. Those that do stay are going to look at trying to make it in the civilian work force with few transferable job skills and will then try to stay in long beyond their prime pushing for 40-year careers when they will have trouble with the physical and family demands of such a career. This would really screw up the normal advancement/progression for mid-career folks. There would be plenty of entry level slots and old farts holding on to senior slots, so the mid-career people would stagnate and leave. You end up with lots of old farts and young wet-behind-the-ears recruits who haven't had time to "season" into their progressively more complex and demanding roles as leaders.


>>>>
 
It changed around 1990. 40 percent and it is factored by the average of your highest paid 2 and a half years. Believe they kept the computation for years over 20 though. We got 50 percent of our highest pay no matter how long we received it.


I transferred to the Fleet Reserve in 1998 myself, but just a technical correction. I had the opportunity to look it up when in conversations with my daughter who will be taking her commission in about a year and a half.

I'm posting this for future reference and for those lurkers who may not understand the system.

Final Pay:
  • Applicable to those who joined prior to September 8, 1980
  • Multiplier = 2.5% per year for each year of service
  • At 20 years = 50%, at 30 years = 75%, at 40 years = 100% of base pay
  • COLAs are based on the Consumer Price Index

High-3 (36 Month) Average:
  • Applicable to all who joined between September 8, 1980 and August 1, 1986 and to those who joined after 8/1/1986 and who do not/did not elect the Career Status Bonus/REDUX option.
  • Members must choose this option or CBS/REDUX at their 15th year of service.
  • Multiplier = 2.5% per year for each year of service
  • At 20 years = 50%, at 30 years = 75%, at 40 years = 100% of base pay for the average of the 36 months preceding retirement.
  • COLAs are based on the Consumer Price Index

Career Status Bonus/REDUX (CBS/REDUX)
  • Applicable to all who joined after August 1, 1986.
  • Members must choose this option or CBS/REDUX at their 15th year of service.
  • Multiplier = 2% per year for each year of service prior to 20 and 3.5% for each year after 20.
  • At 20 years = 40%, at 30 years = 75% of base pay for the for the 36 months prior to retirement.
  • COLAs are based on the Consumer Price Index minus 1% (CPI -1).
  • There are certain adjustments made to at age 62 to match High-3 and CBS/REDUX retirement amounts, but after age 62 the member continue to receive CPI-1.



>>>>

Thank you for the information. Pursuant to Warrior102's comments, is this a government run healthcare and pension plan? If so, why is this being excluded from the GOP's proposed cuts to other government run healthcare and pension plans such as MediCare, MediCaid and Social Security?


Because a commitment was made, service rendered, and intent appears to be to change the terms after services have already been rendered.

Contract with a construction firm to build you a house, the agreed upon price is $200,000. They construct the house on your land and complete the requirements within the contract specifications and when ready for delivery you tell them that you will only pay $150,000. Let us know how that worked for ya.



>>>>
 
It's nice we are on the same page, Warrior but there really is no difference in practive between YOUR CONTRACT and the contracts that other workers have.

STATE WORKERS also worked based on a contract that ought NOT be change AFTER THEY HAVE FULFILLED their end of the bargain.

Social Security retirees ALSO worked based on a contract that ought NOT be change AFTER THEY HAVE FULFILLED their end of the bargain.

Fair is fair, after all.

I agree, 100%

WTF?????

When I posted, "The same can be said for Social Security and Medicare." you said I was comparing apples and oranges. Then editec makes the exact same point above and you agree 100%? Why don't you pass along some of what you're smoking so we can ALL get loaded.

I don't think you have a clue as to what you're arguing about.

.

Trouble keep up ?

Take another stupid pill and get back to us.
 
I transferred to the Fleet Reserve in 1998 myself, but just a technical correction. I had the opportunity to look it up when in conversations with my daughter who will be taking her commission in about a year and a half.

I'm posting this for future reference and for those lurkers who may not understand the system.

Final Pay:
  • Applicable to those who joined prior to September 8, 1980
  • Multiplier = 2.5% per year for each year of service
  • At 20 years = 50%, at 30 years = 75%, at 40 years = 100% of base pay
  • COLAs are based on the Consumer Price Index

High-3 (36 Month) Average:
  • Applicable to all who joined between September 8, 1980 and August 1, 1986 and to those who joined after 8/1/1986 and who do not/did not elect the Career Status Bonus/REDUX option.
  • Members must choose this option or CBS/REDUX at their 15th year of service.
  • Multiplier = 2.5% per year for each year of service
  • At 20 years = 50%, at 30 years = 75%, at 40 years = 100% of base pay for the average of the 36 months preceding retirement.
  • COLAs are based on the Consumer Price Index

Career Status Bonus/REDUX (CBS/REDUX)
  • Applicable to all who joined after August 1, 1986.
  • Members must choose this option or CBS/REDUX at their 15th year of service.
  • Multiplier = 2% per year for each year of service prior to 20 and 3.5% for each year after 20.
  • At 20 years = 40%, at 30 years = 75% of base pay for the for the 36 months prior to retirement.
  • COLAs are based on the Consumer Price Index minus 1% (CPI -1).
  • There are certain adjustments made to at age 62 to match High-3 and CBS/REDUX retirement amounts, but after age 62 the member continue to receive CPI-1.



>>>>

Thank you for the information. Pursuant to Warrior102's comments, is this a government run healthcare and pension plan? If so, why is this being excluded from the GOP's proposed cuts to other government run healthcare and pension plans such as MediCare, MediCaid and Social Security?


Because a commitment was made, service rendered, and intent appears to be to change the terms after services have already been rendered.

Contract with a construction firm to build you a house, the agreed upon price is $200,000. They construct the house on your land and complete the requirements within the contract specifications and when ready for delivery you tell them that you will only pay $150,000. Let us know how that worked for ya.



>>>>

Which is different from those contracts paid into by people in the private sector for MediCare, MedicAid and SS, how, exectly?
 
Yes, because cuts happening now during the Obama administration are Bush's fault.

:lol::lol::lol:

Reagan and the two Bushes created 93% of the National Debt by lowering taxes for the rich. Go to reaganbushdebt.org for the numbers.

Now we can't afford to pay military retiree benefits for the people that voted Republican.

It's called karma.

Are you suggesting democrats should not have funded hookers. So there would be money for the military.

Are you also suggesting the union payoffs did not help the military?
 
Thank you for the information. Pursuant to Warrior102's comments, is this a government run healthcare and pension plan? If so, why is this being excluded from the GOP's proposed cuts to other government run healthcare and pension plans such as MediCare, MediCaid and Social Security?


Because a commitment was made, service rendered, and intent appears to be to change the terms after services have already been rendered.

Contract with a construction firm to build you a house, the agreed upon price is $200,000. They construct the house on your land and complete the requirements within the contract specifications and when ready for delivery you tell them that you will only pay $150,000. Let us know how that worked for ya.



>>>>

Which is different from those contracts paid into by people in the private sector for MediCare, MedicAid and SS, how, exectly?

Hey stupid - no one has a LEGAL, SIGNED CONTRACT with Medicare and SS.

Servicemembers do indeed have LEGAL, SIGNED CONTRACTS when they enlist.

Dumbed down enough for you?

God, what an asswipe.
 
Because a commitment was made, service rendered, and intent appears to be to change the terms after services have already been rendered.

Contract with a construction firm to build you a house, the agreed upon price is $200,000. They construct the house on your land and complete the requirements within the contract specifications and when ready for delivery you tell them that you will only pay $150,000. Let us know how that worked for ya.
>>>>

That's exactly what is being done to members of Public Sector Unions. Their AGREED UPON benefits and pay are being "re-negotiated" all over the place.
 
Because a commitment was made, service rendered, and intent appears to be to change the terms after services have already been rendered.

Contract with a construction firm to build you a house, the agreed upon price is $200,000. They construct the house on your land and complete the requirements within the contract specifications and when ready for delivery you tell them that you will only pay $150,000. Let us know how that worked for ya.
>>>>

That's exactly what is being done to members of Public Sector Unions. Their AGREED UPON benefits and pay are being "re-negotiated" all over the place.

Then they should conact Jimmy Hoffa, or leave the Union and get real jobs.

It's a totally different situation compared to the military.
 
As Washington looks to squeeze savings from once-sacrosanct entitlements like Social Security and Medicare, another big social welfare system is growing as rapidly, but with far less scrutiny: the health and pension benefits of military retirees.
What? The government promises something then takes it away? Didn't see that coming.

This is called "austerity" and if it's good enough for Wisconsonites, it's good enough for our troops.
 
Thank you for the information. Pursuant to Warrior102's comments, is this a government run healthcare and pension plan? If so, why is this being excluded from the GOP's proposed cuts to other government run healthcare and pension plans such as MediCare, MediCaid and Social Security?


Because a commitment was made, service rendered, and intent appears to be to change the terms after services have already been rendered.

Contract with a construction firm to build you a house, the agreed upon price is $200,000. They construct the house on your land and complete the requirements within the contract specifications and when ready for delivery you tell them that you will only pay $150,000. Let us know how that worked for ya.



>>>>

Which is different from those contracts paid into by people in the private sector for MediCare, MedicAid and SS, how, exectly?


It's not, I don't support "fixing" the current Social Security, MediCare for those that have paid into the system(s). If you have not paid into the systems then that is another matter since you have not pre-paid for compensation. The difference being that if you worked and played by the rules and paid into the system then that system should remain. I knew one individual on another board that spent an entire adult life working "under the table" and not paying into the system and then was pissed because he didn't qualify for full Social Security benefits because he hadn't paid in. Sorry, evade the rules and it will bite you in the ass.

MedicAid on the other hand does not require any prepayment into the system to qualify, so in my mind it can be treated differently then MediCare.

If changes need to be made going forward, not a problem, make the changes applicable to those entering the system going forward such that they don't have to pay in and can establish their own retirement programs to take care of themselves, then "grandfather" current participants and reduce the amount they contribute proportionally based on the number of years worked. Those in the system nearing retirement would have little to no changes. Those coming into the system would pay nothing and establish their own plans and not be eligible for anything in the future. Those mid-career workers could opt out a percentage to reduce withholding but their future benefits would be decreased by a like percentage.

It would take a generation of workers to eventually eliminate Social Security and replace it with totally private retirement programs, but that is the cost of honor and keeping your word.


>>>>
 
Last edited:
Citing the fiscal hazards and inequities of the system, the Defense Business Board proposal would allow soldiers with less than 20 years of service to leave with a small nest egg, provided they served a minimum length of time, three to five years. But it would prevent all retirees from receiving benefits until they were 60.

The business board says that its proposal would reduce the plan’s total liabilities to $1.8 trillion by 2034, from the $2.7 trillion now projected — all without cutting benefits for current service members.


60?

Why 60?

Aren't they currently proposing that retirement age increase to 68?

The military already has one of the best retirement programs available.

Almost no American worker in the civiliam or public sector does nearly so well.

That said, I still think changing it on retirees is

1. Stupid economic policy; and

2. Immoral to do, given that the retirees have ALREADY fulsilled the contract.

Now as to " Warrior's" POV?

Well clearly he's one of those lifers who thinks that his time was honorable served but that civilians who worked their whole lives had it easy.

Those of us who actualloy served understand that except those who served in combat, military life is pretty damned easy.

I never worked less hard than when I was in uniform.

But hey, that's okay.

I also ran the risk of getting shipped into harms way, too.

Leave pensions and retirement benefits for ALL people the hell alone.

That's my advice.

It is not only the best economic policy, it also happens to be the MORAL policy we ought to stick to, too.
 
Citing the fiscal hazards and inequities of the system, the Defense Business Board proposal would allow soldiers with less than 20 years of service to leave with a small nest egg, provided they served a minimum length of time, three to five years. But it would prevent all retirees from receiving benefits until they were 60.

The business board says that its proposal would reduce the plan’s total liabilities to $1.8 trillion by 2034, from the $2.7 trillion now projected — all without cutting benefits for current service members.


60?

Why 60?

Aren't they currently proposing that retirement age increase to 68?

The military already has one of the best retirement programs available.

Almost no American worker in the civiliam or public sector does nearly so well.

That said, I still think changing it on retirees is

1. Stupid economic policy; and

2. Immoral to do, given that the retirees have ALREADY fulsilled the contract.

Now as to " Warrior's" POV?

Well clearly he's one of those lifers who thinks that his time was honorable served but that civilians who worked their whole lives had it easy.

Those of us who actualloy served understand that except those who served in combat, military life is pretty damned easy.
I never worked less hard than when I was in uniform.

But hey, that's okay.

I also ran the risk of getting shipped into harms way, too.

Leave pensions and retirement benefits for ALL people the hell alone.

That's my advice.

It is not only the best economic policy, it also happens to be the MORAL policy we ought to stick to, too.

You must have been in the Air Farce.
I spent 9 and half years at sea my friend. Most of that 6-7 months DEPLOYED with no family. Back in CONUS, we were out to sea more than we were in port. Only extended time in port was when we were in the shipyard, and that's hell on earth. Never saw combat, but was in Beirut in 1983 when the barracks blew up, experienced fire and collisions at sea, and was aboard USS Iowa on April 19, 1989 when the turret exloded killing 47 of my shipmates. "Pretty easy?" My ass. You don't have a clue
 
Last edited:
Citing the fiscal hazards and inequities of the system, the Defense Business Board proposal would allow soldiers with less than 20 years of service to leave with a small nest egg, provided they served a minimum length of time, three to five years. But it would prevent all retirees from receiving benefits until they were 60.

The business board says that its proposal would reduce the plan’s total liabilities to $1.8 trillion by 2034, from the $2.7 trillion now projected — all without cutting benefits for current service members.


60?

Why 60?

Aren't they currently proposing that retirement age increase to 68?

The military already has one of the best retirement programs available.

Almost no American worker in the civiliam or public sector does nearly so well.

That said, I still think changing it on retirees is

1. Stupid economic policy; and

2. Immoral to do, given that the retirees have ALREADY fulsilled the contract.

Now as to " Warrior's" POV?

Well clearly he's one of those lifers who thinks that his time was honorable served but that civilians who worked their whole lives had it easy.

Those of us who actualloy served understand that except those who served in combat, military life is pretty damned easy.
I never worked less hard than when I was in uniform.

But hey, that's okay.

I also ran the risk of getting shipped into harms way, too.

Leave pensions and retirement benefits for ALL people the hell alone.

That's my advice.

It is not only the best economic policy, it also happens to be the MORAL policy we ought to stick to, too.

You must have been in the Air Farce.
I spent 9 and half years at sea my friend. Most of that 6-7 months DEPLOYED with no family. Back in CONUS, we were out to sea more than we were in port. Only extended time in port was when we were in the shipyard, and that's hell on earth. Never saw combat, but was in Beirut in 1983 when the barracks blew up, experienced fire and collisions at sea, and was aboard USS Iowa on April 19, 1989 when the turret exloded killing 47 of my shipmates. "Pretty easy?" My ass. You don't have a clue

Why do you appear to be crying about all of the hardships of your CHOSEN career path? There was another poster in this thread that stated all military personnel are Patirots and some of the best people on earth. Yet, here you are bitching about life in the military. Wasn't your Patriotism enough?
 
Well clearly he's one of those lifers who thinks that his time was honorable served but that civilians who worked their whole lives had it easy.


20 Years in the Navy, 12 of them on deployable sea duty where I average away from home and family about 70% of the time (9-months per year) with deployments, work-ups, training, etc...

When I was on the U.S.S. Midway, we went 181 days without a day off, must of those were at sea working 12 on/12 off. The only reason we got a break at that point was we pulled into Hong Kong and the Status of Forces Agreement said that we could do no work to repair or upgrade weapons systems. With that the Maintenance Officer was forced to make a liberty call.


>>>>
 
60?

Why 60?

Aren't they currently proposing that retirement age increase to 68?

The military already has one of the best retirement programs available.

Almost no American worker in the civiliam or public sector does nearly so well.

That said, I still think changing it on retirees is

1. Stupid economic policy; and

2. Immoral to do, given that the retirees have ALREADY fulsilled the contract.

Now as to " Warrior's" POV?

Well clearly he's one of those lifers who thinks that his time was honorable served but that civilians who worked their whole lives had it easy.

Those of us who actualloy served understand that except those who served in combat, military life is pretty damned easy.
I never worked less hard than when I was in uniform.

But hey, that's okay.

I also ran the risk of getting shipped into harms way, too.

Leave pensions and retirement benefits for ALL people the hell alone.

That's my advice.

It is not only the best economic policy, it also happens to be the MORAL policy we ought to stick to, too.

You must have been in the Air Farce.
I spent 9 and half years at sea my friend. Most of that 6-7 months DEPLOYED with no family. Back in CONUS, we were out to sea more than we were in port. Only extended time in port was when we were in the shipyard, and that's hell on earth. Never saw combat, but was in Beirut in 1983 when the barracks blew up, experienced fire and collisions at sea, and was aboard USS Iowa on April 19, 1989 when the turret exloded killing 47 of my shipmates. "Pretty easy?" My ass. You don't have a clue

Why do you appear to be crying about all of the hardships of your CHOSEN career path? There was another poster in this thread that stated all military personnel are Patirots and some of the best people on earth. Yet, here you are bitching about life in the military. Wasn't your Patriotism enough?

I'm not bitching junior, I am merely pointing out one does not have to be in combat to have arduous duty.
 
Well clearly he's one of those lifers who thinks that his time was honorable served but that civilians who worked their whole lives had it easy.


20 Years in the Navy, 12 of them on deployable sea duty where I average away from home and family about 70% of the time (9-months per year) with deployments, work-ups, training, etc...

When I was on the U.S.S. Midway, we went 181 days without a day off, must of those were at sea working 12 on/12 off. The only reason we got a break at that point was we pulled into Hong Kong and the Status of Forces Agreement said that we could do no work to repair or upgrade weapons systems. With that the Maintenance Officer was forced to make a liberty call.


>>>>

He must have been in the Air Farce, shipmate !
 
You must have been in the Air Farce.
I spent 9 and half years at sea my friend. Most of that 6-7 months DEPLOYED with no family. Back in CONUS, we were out to sea more than we were in port. Only extended time in port was when we were in the shipyard, and that's hell on earth. Never saw combat, but was in Beirut in 1983 when the barracks blew up, experienced fire and collisions at sea, and was aboard USS Iowa on April 19, 1989 when the turret exloded killing 47 of my shipmates. "Pretty easy?" My ass. You don't have a clue

Why do you appear to be crying about all of the hardships of your CHOSEN career path? There was another poster in this thread that stated all military personnel are Patirots and some of the best people on earth. Yet, here you are bitching about life in the military. Wasn't your Patriotism enough?

I'm not bitching junior, I am merely pointing out one does not have to be in combat to have arduous duty.

Wow....I know that took a lot out of you to do. Shall we call you Captain Obvious now? Those in the private sector who perform "arduous duty"....should they then be spared the cuts to Social Security and MediCare, or are you simply "special"? How about your fellow government empoyees like fire and police employees? Are they special too? Or, is that reserved only for those who sat on a ship for 9 months out of the year by choice?
 
Last edited:
Why do you appear to be crying about all of the hardships of your CHOSEN career path? There was another poster in this thread that stated all military personnel are Patirots and some of the best people on earth. Yet, here you are bitching about life in the military. Wasn't your Patriotism enough?

I'm not bitching junior, I am merely pointing out one does not have to be in combat to have arduous duty.

Wow....I know that took a lot out of you to do. Shall we call you Captain Obvious now? Those in the private sector who perform "arduous duty"....shoudl they then be spared the cuts to Social Security and MediCare, or are you simply "special"?

Your rant falls short of the airstrip. The private sector is always free to leave.
 

New Topics

Forum List

Back
Top