Panetta: 401K instead of high 3 for military...

[WillowTree]

How many military retire each year? I would image the number of total retirees actually goes down each year because Clinton gutted the military in the 90s and it hasn't been built back up since.

not to mention the number of vets who die daily and that pension is stopped. unless of course he/she and the spouse took less so the spouse could inherit



http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/05/25/veterans-burials-rising-a_n_103479.html

 

[old navy]

How many military retire each year? I would image the number of total retirees actually goes down each year because Clinton gutted the military in the 90s and it hasn't been built back up since.

I think about 13 percent of all accessions will serve to retirement. That is chump change compared to the crap this government spends money on.

 

[old navy]

I believe the current system is sustainable. The country just needs to figure out how to fund it.

Throughout US history, but particularly during the Cold War, one huge advantage the US military (especially the Navy) had over the USSR, was a dedicated career enlisted force. The Russians had junior enlisted and officers, but no group of CPOs and SNCOs that compares to what we had.

Changing the retirement system will destroy the career force as we know it. The threat to national security will be huge. Balancing the budget at the expense of military personnel and their families is wrong.

What threat ? Nobody can whip raghead terrorists. Osama proved that when murkas hero sent him to train the rebels and killed Russia.Now they're killing you ( financially) No country wants to put their MILITARY up against the empires that are Russia, China, GB, and the nation formerly known as the USA and those powers know better than to fuck with each other.
You don't need a military when you have the button.

Well. There you are. Let's just scrap the military and dump the money into everyone's favorite social progeam.

 

[Warrior102]

Well, considering how shitty the pay is to begin with with. 50% of shit is still shit.

It would be a great option though.

If they did it, they would also have to have the rest of the Fed workers on the same program. Unions or not.

Just out of curiosity, how would you set something like that up? Would you factor in a high 3 on retirement and put the money in stocks, or, are you going to tell the new recruit that they've got to start paying in as soon as they hit boot camp.

But then, that brings up the question of what happens to those that serve only 1 or 2 terms? Do they lose the 401k, or can they carry it with them into civilian life?

Personally? I think they need to keep the retirement as is.

I remember the high 3 thing being phased out years ago - when did it return ?

My retirement is based on my years of service - not some high 3 crap.

 

[High_Gravity]

I think this will make people think twice in joining the military. This is really the only incentive for someone to join and stay in. I think if they do this a lot of people will not go in and then there will be a draft!!!! In civilian jobs you dont have to worry about going to war, leaving your family up to a year at a time.Moving every 3-4 years just to name few things these guys have to do

They are making too many changes to the service, I think the end of this country will start when the Military goes to ruin because of all these stupid changes.

 

[old navy]

I think this will make people think twice in joining the military. This is really the only incentive for someone to join and stay in. I think if they do this a lot of people will not go in and then there will be a draft!!!! In civilian jobs you dont have to worry about going to war, leaving your family up to a year at a time.Moving every 3-4 years just to name few things these guys have to do

They are making too many changes to the service, I think the end of this country will start when the Military goes to ruin because of all these stupid changes.

You are correct. Thank you.

 

[High_Gravity]

Why does this government keep trying to change the Military? this is the Armed Forces here, not Goldman and Sachs.

They won't audit the Fed, but the military is a free for all.

You know when people starting talking about Military benefits and Retirement pay as if it were a welfare check that the disconnect between the Military and civilian sector is huge and it is alarming.

 

[Patrick2]

Another change is varying the retirement benefits depending on type of service, just as I had posted in the military section a couple weeks before this was announced. The people who were in actual combat zones should get lifetime benefits. We can't afford it anymore for people who just sat at a desk in the US and were never in any danger.

 

[JMadison]

Defense Secretary Leon Panetta said Tuesday that overhauling the military's retirement benefits system is "the kind of thing you have to consider."

During a televised conversation at the National Defense University, Panetta said a decision has not been made yet about a proposal from a Pentagon task force that would abandon the traditional pension system in favor of a 401(k)-style contribution program.



Read more: Panetta: 'You Have to Consider' Military Retirement Reform - FoxNews.com

Panetta: 'You Have to Consider' Military Retirement Reform - FoxNews.com

Basically, this means that instead of a military person's retirement being calculated at their High 3 rate (you average the pay for the highest 3 years of pay and the member gets 50 percent of that for life).

Now, they want to put our military on a 401k program that is going to be influenced by the stock market.

Anyone remember the last crash and what it did to 401ks?

Who thinks this is a good idea to do to our military? I mean, if an E-6 is deciding whether or not to stay, one of the considerations is how much they will get when they retire. With the high 3 you can calculate that, with a 401k, it's based on what stocks do.

If they do that, the military is gonna lose a lot of mid level talent.

Wrong, they will stay because they won't get anything better anywhere else. Federal Employees have been on such a system since 1984.

 

[old navy]

Well, considering how shitty the pay is to begin with with. 50% of shit is still shit.

It would be a great option though.

If they did it, they would also have to have the rest of the Fed workers on the same program. Unions or not.

Just out of curiosity, how would you set something like that up? Would you factor in a high 3 on retirement and put the money in stocks, or, are you going to tell the new recruit that they've got to start paying in as soon as they hit boot camp.

But then, that brings up the question of what happens to those that serve only 1 or 2 terms? Do they lose the 401k, or can they carry it with them into civilian life?

Personally? I think they need to keep the retirement as is.

I remember the high 3 thing being phased out years ago - when did it return ?

My retirement is based on my years of service - not some high 3 crap.

Hello warrior. I remember in the middle 80s, they ef'd with the retirement system and had to change it back because of retention problems. Why spend 20 plus years and have to wait for your money from some crappy 401 that will probably be worth squat? A lot of talent will bolt at 10-12 years before they get too old to compete in the civilian job market. Readiness and effectiveness will suffer.

 

[High_Gravity]

I think this will make people think twice in joining the military. This is really the only incentive for someone to join and stay in. I think if they do this a lot of people will not go in and then there will be a draft!!!! In civilian jobs you dont have to worry about going to war, leaving your family up to a year at a time.Moving every 3-4 years just to name few things these guys have to do

They are making too many changes to the service, I think the end of this country will start when the Military goes to ruin because of all these stupid changes.

You are correct. Thank you.

There is a growing disconnect between our civilian sector and the Military and it is growing everyday, back in the day during WW2, Korea and Vietnam there was a draft so almost everyone either had a loved one in the service, knew someone that did or served themselves so most people were familiar with how the Military works, its structure and why it is a different line of work than most other jobs. Now however our Military isn't as big as it used to be and with no draft not alot of people enlist, so ALOT of families have no one in the service and have no idea how it works, the Military is a foreign concept to them and something they only see on CNN, read about in the papers or play around with on the XBOX in Medal of Honor. This disconnect is going to get even worse when alot of the politicians who actually served in the Military start dying off and we are left with a bunch of people who don't know anything about the service and have no family members associated with it at all. They are going to turn the Military into the adult version of the boy scouts and take away all the benefits to joining.

 

[Full-Auto]

Defense Secretary Leon Panetta said Tuesday that overhauling the military's retirement benefits system is "the kind of thing you have to consider."

During a televised conversation at the National Defense University, Panetta said a decision has not been made yet about a proposal from a Pentagon task force that would abandon the traditional pension system in favor of a 401(k)-style contribution program.



Read more: Panetta: 'You Have to Consider' Military Retirement Reform - FoxNews.com

Panetta: 'You Have to Consider' Military Retirement Reform - FoxNews.com

Basically, this means that instead of a military person's retirement being calculated at their High 3 rate (you average the pay for the highest 3 years of pay and the member gets 50 percent of that for life).

Now, they want to put our military on a 401k program that is going to be influenced by the stock market.

Anyone remember the last crash and what it did to 401ks?

Who thinks this is a good idea to do to our military? I mean, if an E-6 is deciding whether or not to stay, one of the considerations is how much they will get when they retire. With the high 3 you can calculate that, with a 401k, it's based on what stocks do.

If they do that, the military is gonna lose a lot of mid level talent.

My 401k

The Bob Rivers Show with Bob Spike and Joe

 

[High_Gravity]

Just out of curiosity, how would you set something like that up? Would you factor in a high 3 on retirement and put the money in stocks, or, are you going to tell the new recruit that they've got to start paying in as soon as they hit boot camp.

But then, that brings up the question of what happens to those that serve only 1 or 2 terms? Do they lose the 401k, or can they carry it with them into civilian life?

Personally? I think they need to keep the retirement as is.

I remember the high 3 thing being phased out years ago - when did it return ?

My retirement is based on my years of service - not some high 3 crap.

Hello warrior. I remember in the middle 80s, they ef'd with the retirement system and had to change it back because of retention problems. Why spend 20 plus years and have to wait for your money from some crappy 401 that will probably be worth squat? A lot of talent will bolt at 10-12 years before they get too old to compete in the civilian job market. Readiness and effectiveness will suffer.

Its already happening now, alot of people are getting out because of all the repeat deployments and the NCO ranks are suffering.

 

[bodecea]

I believe the current system is sustainable. The country just needs to figure out how to fund it.

Throughout US history, but particularly during the Cold War, one huge advantage the US military (especially the Navy) had over the USSR, was a dedicated career enlisted force. The Russians had junior enlisted and officers, but no group of CPOs and SNCOs that compares to what we had.

Changing the retirement system will destroy the career force as we know it. The threat to national security will be huge. Balancing the budget at the expense of military personnel and their families is wrong.

^ This.

 

[Warrior102]

Just out of curiosity, how would you set something like that up? Would you factor in a high 3 on retirement and put the money in stocks, or, are you going to tell the new recruit that they've got to start paying in as soon as they hit boot camp.

But then, that brings up the question of what happens to those that serve only 1 or 2 terms? Do they lose the 401k, or can they carry it with them into civilian life?

Personally? I think they need to keep the retirement as is.

I remember the high 3 thing being phased out years ago - when did it return ?

My retirement is based on my years of service - not some high 3 crap.

Hello warrior. I remember in the middle 80s, they ef'd with the retirement system and had to change it back because of retention problems. Why spend 20 plus years and have to wait for your money from some crappy 401 that will probably be worth squat? A lot of talent will bolt at 10-12 years before they get too old to compete in the civilian job market. Readiness and effectiveness will suffer.

Carter and Clinton years in the Navy for me, were the worst.
We were economic Guinea Pigs for those assholes.
Many servicemembers and their families suffered - at POVERTY levels. Pay sucked, deployments were long, morale was horrible. No wonder people are leaving. Everytime a Dem is in the WH, the military gets shit on.

 

[Missourian]

Defense Secretary Leon Panetta said Tuesday that overhauling the military's retirement benefits system is "the kind of thing you have to consider."

During a televised conversation at the National Defense University, Panetta said a decision has not been made yet about a proposal from a Pentagon task force that would abandon the traditional pension system in favor of a 401(k)-style contribution program.

Who thinks this is a good idea to do to our military?

Liberals.

 

[Steelplate]

Anyone remember the last crash and what it did to 401ks?

Result of government meddling.

Goldman Sachs and numerous other companies robbing their own investors blind is a result of government meddling? Interesting.

They got into that business why?

Thanks for playing though.

Here you have it folks... Full Auto says it all with this post. They aren't in the financial SERVICES business to help you make money and a reasonable service charge as profit... they are in it to rob their own investors blind.

Congratulations Full Auto.. you proved a liberal's point for him.

 

[old navy]

Only about one percent of American families are affected by the current military optempo, and thus future bureaucratic and administrative decisions. As previously stated, there is a disconnect between the military and CIVLANTFLT or 1STCIVDIV, take your pick.

My son is a newly commissioned Marine officer and is still in the training pipeline. He is already talking about doing 20 plus years like his old man but I wouldn't blame him if he did his time and got the hell out due to the writing on the wall.

He is an example of a huge loss to the military if he does get out. He's smart with a kick-ass degree, built like a machine, can shoot like a sniper already, and eats this military shit up. But alas, the US has been fundamentally changed, as promised.

 

[WillowTree]

I remember the high 3 thing being phased out years ago - when did it return ?

My retirement is based on my years of service - not some high 3 crap.

Hello warrior. I remember in the middle 80s, they ef'd with the retirement system and had to change it back because of retention problems. Why spend 20 plus years and have to wait for your money from some crappy 401 that will probably be worth squat? A lot of talent will bolt at 10-12 years before they get too old to compete in the civilian job market. Readiness and effectiveness will suffer.

Carter and Clinton years in the Navy for me, were the worst.
We were economic Guinea Pigs for those assholes.
Many servicemembers and their families suffered - at POVERTY levels. Pay sucked, deployments were long, morale was horrible. No wonder people are leaving. Everytime a Dem is in the WH, the military gets shit on.

And that's the facts Jack.

 

[Full-Auto]

Goldman Sachs and numerous other companies robbing their own investors blind is a result of government meddling? Interesting.

They got into that business why?

Thanks for playing though.

Here you have it folks... Full Auto says it all with this post. They aren't in the financial SERVICES business to help you make money and a reasonable service charge as profit... they are in it to rob their own investors blind.

Congratulations Full Auto.. you proved a liberal's point for him.

Did I? WHO FORCED THE MONSTROSITY of sub primes? Do you understand what government meddling is? As long as you can live off the taxpayer dollar your ok with it. We got that already.

You couldnt follow a point if led by the nose.