Proposed changes in military benefits worry troops

Divine Wind

Platinum Member
Aug 2, 2011
20,640
5,568
420
Texas
The lawyers and businessmen who constitute the majority of our elected leaders seem to have nothing better to do than go after our service men and women. "Support the Troops" my ass!

Proposed changes in military benefits worry troops
The plan unveiled last month would end the time-honored, lifetime pension for those who retire at 20 years from the military, and replace it with a 401(k) program that pays benefits after turning 60 to 65.
Offered by an advisory panel to the Pentagon, the plan would save the government $250 billion over 20 years. Defense Secretary Leon Panetta has said that given the current economic crisis, it must be given serious consideration.

....The plan unveiled last month would end the time-honored, lifetime pension for those who retire at 20 years from the military, and replace it with a 401(k) program that pays benefits after turning 60 to 65.
Offered by an advisory panel to the Pentagon, the plan would save the government $250 billion over 20 years. Defense Secretary Leon Panetta has said that given the current economic crisis, it must be given serious consideration.
 
a 401k type program??? so they contribute in to it over the 20 years and the gvt matches it and they have to wait till 65? no guaranteed pension?
 
a 401k type program??? so they contribute in to it over the 20 years and the gvt matches it and they have to wait till 65? no guaranteed pension?

It'd be a 401k just like the night manager at Bennigan's gets but without people trying to put a cap in his ass for wearing an American flag patch on his arm.
 
MY father served 22 years USAF, joined at 17, retired at 39.....he's gonna be 80 next year...that's 41 years so far, of USAF retirement and hopefully he survives till 61 years of it! He served his country well.....

but in the end, he will receive in retirement, more than he was paid in his 22 years serving his country.....

is that justified?

for as little as they paid him for the first 15 years in, before he made senior mstr sgt, then chief master sgt....i'd say he deserved every penny of it.

we were dirt poor most of my childhood.

my parents have a great life....no worries regarding money or healthcare costs most of their lives, after he retired at 39....he did go on to work for the FAA, so the extra usaf retirement pay was what made them monetarily secure.

taking away the retirement perk, will make good military men, get out imo.
 
It will decimate the career senior enlisted force which has forever been the backbone of the world's greatest military. Trying to fix the nation's economic crisis at the expense of military members and their families is bullshit. Hopefully the citizenry will not allow it.
 
It will decimate the career senior enlisted force which has forever been the backbone of the world's greatest military. Trying to fix the nation's economic crisis at the expense of military members and their families is bullshit. Hopefully the citizenry will not allow it.

Agreed, but, unfortunately, many of the citizenry may not see the problem when it comes to accepting higher taxes on their own part to make up the difference.


You are completely correct that it would be the enlisted force which is affected greatest since enlisted personnel can typically trade their military jobs for increased pay in a civilian job very quickly. This link speaks of current differences. If those differences are reduced as the OP link discusses, then there will be less incentive for our military personnel to make a career serving our nation. This might fit the plan of left-wing wienies, but it certainly doesn't fit my thoughts about the best interests of our nation.


What Does the Military "Pay Gap" Mean?
Differences Between Military and Civilian Employment

Before making a decision about military service, a person must consider not only pay but also the employer-sponsored benefits (such as health care and retirement) and a variety of less quantifiable features (including the conditions and nature of the work) that make service in the military different from employment in the civilian sector. Both areas--benefits and conditions of work--have features that might tend to make the military look particularly attractive, at least to some people, and other features that could tend to make military service look unattractive. If the attractive features predominate, the military might be able to offer lower pay than civilian employers; if the unattractive features predominate, it might have to pay a premium to meet its personnel needs.

Why DoD Might Be Able to Pay Less Than Civilian Employers. The military offers a highly competitive package of employee benefits that might, in the absence of other factors, allow DoD to pay less than civilian employers. Those benefits include a noncontributory retirement program with an immediate annuity after 20 years of service, a health plan that treats service members without charge and their dependents at low cost, subsidized day care, and--something not found in the civilian world--subsidized grocery and general-merchandise stores in which service personnel (and military retirees) pay no state or local sales taxes. In addition, the military provides free vocational training to its enlisted personnel and affords many officers the opportunity to obtain advanced degrees--either in military or civilian institutions--while still being paid.

Many aspects of military service could induce some people to enter or remain in the armed forces. The challenge of flying an F-15 is something that only the military can offer. More broadly, the military provides an opportunity for travel and adventure and a sense of belonging to an organization with an important mission. In addition, it gives unusual independence and responsibility to its personnel, often very early in their career. Indeed, when recruits are asked why they enlisted in the military, few cite pay as the primary consideration.

Why DoD Might Need to Pay More Than Civilian Employers. It is easy to find reasons not to serve in the armed forces. The military puts unusual strains on families, regularly transferring personnel from one location to another and sending service members to places where their families cannot join them. Service members are never completely free from military obligations; they can be recalled from vacations, required to work long hours and on weekends, and sent overseas with little or no notice. In addition, military personnel are subject to a separate code of criminal law and can see their military career cut short for offenses that would scarcely be noticed in the civilian world. And, of course, they may be required to risk their lives in combat.
 
Wait a minute, some of you guys said austerity would be good for the average worker (remember Wisconsin?), why not the military too? They were promised something and now they're not gonna' get it, just like the Social Security and MediCare recipients will.

What's the difference? :confused:

Besides, all of our money needs to go to Bankers who signed us on to Trillions in derivatives.
 
is 50 years paid retirement for 22 years serving ok with you two?


he did serve in vietnam for a year and had to do a year in greenland and a year in alaska, without his family! plus they were poor as poor can be for a good 15 years of it!

still, even to me a little....paying ''retirement'' for 50 years is a pretty long time....

i don't think dad stayed in for the benefits....i think he just liked it, felt like he mattered....he enjoyed his job, was proud of it!
 

New Topics

Forum List

Back
Top