New military retirement proposal.

Low_Level_Hell

Well-Known Member
Guess this proposal has been out for a while but just recently heard about it. Kind of a bias source but it appears accurate.

http://www.armytimes.com/money/retirement/military_retire_080214w/

An independent council recomends that the current military retirement program be changed so that retired service members recieve retirement benefits at age 62 for 10 years service, age 60 for 20 years service, and age 57 for 30 years service. No mention how likely it will be implemented or what service members it would affect.

I think it for the most part blows being that its unfair in my opinion and would encourage the brightest service members to retire at 10 years and further hurt retention. Howerver if it does go into place I'd think I'd benefit from the 10 year retirement option (and I am by no means implyng that I am a bright service member).
 

MikeFavinger

Hubschrauber Flieger
While I'd be all for 10 year retirement pay (would that be retroactive? ;)), this proposal is a slap in the face to career military personnel. Right now anyone who did 20 years or longer gets their retirement pay immediately and it lasts until their death. Under this plan, a standard 38-42 year-old 20-year retiree would lose 15-19 YEARS of retirement benefits.
 

Velocipede

New Member
Looks like even the govenment wants to raid retirement plans. This will KILL career military guys.

Nothing like reneging on a promise.
 

subpilot

Squawking 7600
If this happened then everyone would be 10 and out. This would be too good a deal for someone to get out at the 4-6 year point so they would just bite the bullet to make it to the 10 year point. At the same time, no motivation for anyone to stay past 10 years (unless you really love the job).
 

bunk22

Well-Known Member
By delaying retirement for those 20 year+ types, it saves quite a bit of money. For example, my plan is to retire in 4 years as an O-4, 20 years of active duty service. Over the next 20 years, until age 62, the payout is about $1.19 million (average of 3% COLA included in each year), before taxes and not including medical. Not sure if the government decides to take the money and invest it or put it in a big pot. Over 40 years, if one lives that long, it is worth $3.34 million. I certainly don't agree with the 20 year concept. The 20 year retirement has always been that carrot dangling at the end of the stick. Not all top notch guys stay (me for example :D) but it allows for experience and numbers to hold on for a bit of benefit at the end.
 

germb747

Well-Known Member
If this happened then everyone would be 10 and out. This would be too good a deal for someone to get out at the 4-6 year point so they would just bite the bullet to make it to the 10 year point. At the same time, no motivation for anyone to stay past 10 years (unless you really love the job).
I think that's the idea.

I guess they have more to gain by encouraging 6-8 year people to stick around to the 10 year point than they do by encouraging 16-17 year people to stick around until the 20 year point. As a reservist, benefits have never been payable until age 60 (and of course it's prorated based on the number of "points" you have at retirement). I didn't read the article, but I think this proposal will only be applicable to people entering the military in the future.

Still, that's throwing away a huge deal (incentive) for people to serve in the military. Another cheezy way to cut costs on defense spending, put more people in the unemployment lines, hurt the economy more--so that we can spend another 3/4 trillion on corporate bailouts.
 

Velocipede

New Member
The other "dirty little secret" about Reserve retirements is you have to do 8 years in a reserve status. So, for example, USNs who get out and go USNR have to do 8 years even if it extends them past 20 to qualify.

On the other hand, USNRs (like me) got credit for 11.5 years of active duty AND the time I put in my reserve billets when calculating retirement points.
 

Hacker15e

Dunning–Kruger Observer
The good news is that this would not necessarily apply to anyone currently serving. Every time this gets brought up (and I've seen retirement change proposals 3 times since 1995), it ALWAYS has a grandfather clause that says "you have the option to retire with the retirement plan you entered the military with".
 

HeyEng

NAHB Doesn't Give a Crap
The good news is that this would not necessarily apply to anyone currently serving. Every time this gets brought up (and I've seen retirement change proposals 3 times since 1995), it ALWAYS has a grandfather clause that says "you have the option to retire with the retirement plan you entered the military with".
I second that. I figured once the 40-year charts rolled out, it would be just a matter of time before the system is changed. I can't remember what the figures are, but retirees cost WAY more than active members do. When all the civilian pension plans have gone away, it will be a lot easier to sell. Thankfully, I'm only 4 years from my carrot, so I don't think it'll change between now and then.
 

rmepilot

New Member
I second that. I figured once the 40-year charts rolled out, it would be just a matter of time before the system is changed. I can't remember what the figures are, but retirees cost WAY more than active members do. When all the civilian pension plans have gone away, it will be a lot easier to sell. Thankfully, I'm only 4 years from my carrot, so I don't think it'll change between now and then.
:yeahthat: I just 22 years active and drop my paperwork upon redeployment. :D
 
Top