Forum Thread

Gulf Shores - Orange Beach - Perdido Key Topics

(Gulf Shores - Orange Beach - Perdido Key Specific)

4 messages

Updated 9/16/2020 2:27:26 AM

Off-Topic

Lakes Online Forum

83,671 messages

Updated 6/13/2024 8:32:40 AM

Boat Maintenance

Lakes Online Forum

5,197 messages

Updated 6/10/2024 5:39:11 AM

Gulf Shores - Orange Beach - Perdido Key Fishing

(Gulf Shores - Orange Beach - Perdido Key Specific)

5 messages

Updated 6/5/2012 12:39:50 PM

Jokes

Lakes Online Forum

4,170 messages

Updated 6/10/2024 6:29:37 PM

Sports

Lakes Online Forum

4,261 messages

Updated 5/28/2024 6:31:10 AM

Grilling & Recipes

Lakes Online Forum

2,977 messages

Updated 6/10/2024 6:30:23 PM

Tallapoosa River Topics

Lakes Online Forum

98 messages

Updated 4/15/2024 1:00:58 AM

Forum Usage Rules

Name:	4691 -	Reply
Subject:	Military Pensions after 20 years service
Date:	9/8/2011 11:30:50 AM

From an article in the USA Today - "...In its analysis, the Defense Business Board said the current system — which allows servicemembers to retire after 20 years and begin collecting retirement pay — is unsustainable. Costs will grow from a current liability of $1.3 trillion, of which only $385 billion is funded, to $2.7trillion by 2034..." I brought this issue up a few months ago on this forum. I believe I was in the minority on this forum in thinking that it is not feasible to continue to incur a multi-million dollar liability for each military person that retires. According to the article the system has been in place over 100 years. The life expectancy of a 38-42 year old and spouse is much longer today than 100 years ago. The pension payout period could last 50 to 60 years. Of course if changes are made, those serving now should be grandfathered in the current system if they choose to be. The necessary retention must be maintained with increased salaries and improving other benefits. As a fiscal conservative I prefer to see all government expenses paid as we go and not continue to defer the financial liability to our children and grand-children and great-grand-children. Another option would be to fund the pension program adequately, but we know that will not happen.

URL: Proposed changes in military benefits worry troops

Name:	MartiniMan -	Reply
Subject:	Military Pensions after 20 years service
Date:	9/8/2011 3:59:43 PM

I don't know that much about military pensions but I am more inclined to pay this for our veterans and dramatically overhaul to federal, state and local pension systems. Of the ~2 million federal employees only ~34% are in the military (based on 2008 data). I say we fix the 66% whose biggest hazard is a paper cut and leave the military alone for now. And the statistics are even worse when you include state and local government workers which have ~8.3 million workers. Now the military accounts for only 6% of the total government workforce. Surely if we reform the pension system for the 94% first we can leave the military as is. Just an initial gut reaction as I have not thought a lot about this.....

Name:	MrHodja -	Reply
Subject:	Military Pensions after 20 years service
Date:	9/8/2011 5:13:39 PM (updated 9/8/2011 5:41:20 PM)

I faintly remember the series of posts on this subject, and at the time there was a lot of pushback from us because it appeared you didn't acknowledge the special reasons contributing to military retirement.

In the interest of full disclosure I am receiving an Air Force retirement check every month. I would consider it "about right", considering it was a significant reason for me to invest in a military career and I and my family endured an awful lot more inconveniences and hardships than our civilian counterparts.

I can't really speak for the other services, but at least for the Air Force things are very different now than when I was first commissioned. Pay and other benefits are much improved over 1967 when I, as a second lieutenant, made a whopping $331 per month in base pay, and precious little in housing allowance. Maybe because of those improvements the retirement carrot isn't as much the reason folks decide to stay in for a career.

On the other hand, a military person basically gives up positive control over his or her life. That hasn't changed. You go where the service needs for you to go and/or live. Many times that place or those places aren't where you'd choose to be. And then there's the issue of the ultimate sacrifice. The military person must be willing to give his or her life while defending our country. That's a pretty hefty potential cost.

Maybe there can be changes to the cost of military retirement, or different options that would still retain quality personnel. But you are right - it must start with those not yet a member of our uniformed services.

MartiniMan brings up an interesting statistic with regard to the ratio of military and civil service workers. I hadn't thought about it that way, and don't know enough about civil service retirement plans to comment. At one time I think they contributed a percentage of their pay toward retirement, but at the time i THINK they didn't pay the social security tax. We have forum member who are recent civil service retirees and I encourage them to weigh in on the subject.

Bottom line is that military retirement should not be off the table when it comes to determining who shares in the necessary reduction in pension expenditures. But like police and firefighters, there are special considerations that must not get lost in the mix. Extra care should be taken to ensure we aren't penny wise and pound foolish.

Name:	Feb -	Reply
Subject:	Military Pensions after 20 years service
Date:	9/8/2011 7:46:08 PM

I believe you stated once before your Spouse was a retired Civil Servant. I do not recall whether it was from a State or a Federal career. You maybe aware the Federal Government revised their retirement system in 1984. They went from the Civil Service Retirement System to the Federal Employee Retirement System. Unlike the Military, Federal civilian employees have alway paid into their retirment funds. When I retired, the Government deducted 9% of my pay and placed it in our retirment system. So over my 35 year career, I paid anywhere from 7 to 9% of my paycheck every two weeks into the retirement fund. Many, many years ago Federal employees got back their invested amount when they retired and started drawig retirement pay. This must of been nice. In later years (when I retired) we no longer received our vested payment and only started drawing our retiremet based upon years of service and your highest average three years of pay. In my case this was and is significantly less than my working paycheck. I was able to adjust based upon the fact I was no longer buying gas to commute 40 miles every work day and not paying $125.00 a month to park my car (this was not tax deductible). The newer Federal Employee Retirement System is even more about individul employees contributing from their pay check (many around 15%) into their retirement program. Not many employees on the outside of Government have their employees paying anything out of their paycheck into a retirement fund. You may want to research it if you happen to think it is a great system for the employee. It is more akin to an investment program for retirement. I personally believe we best leave our Military Retirement System along if we expect to draw quality men and women into service. I am not familiar with state and local civil service retirement systems. In summary, my key point is Federal Civil Servants have had their retirement system revamped. There is always hope our illustrious Congressional leadership can screw it up worse. Now, here is a good place to start looking at retirment systems (that of our elected Congressional Represenatives).

Name:	Talullahhound -	Reply
Subject:	Military Pensions after 20 years service
Date:	9/8/2011 11:32:49 PM

Under the "old" civil service retirement system, 8% of salary was withheld for retirement and the only SS deduction was the medicare portion. Under the old system, the employee was eligible for retirement at age 55 with 30 years of service for 50% of their base pay. Contributions to TSP were voluntary and optional. The new system is much more complicated -- it's primarily based on contributions to a TSP account. The government contributes a basic amount, and then matches the employees contributions, but I don't know the exact formula or if there is a cap. There is also a "floating" age for retirement and years of service. It's considered to be generally a less generous plan, but that of course depends on the percentage that an employee contributes to their TSP account. There is no cap on the contributions and it is not taxed until it is withdrawn. The TSP portion is considered "portable"; something that the retirement contributions under the old system were not. This was done supposedly in recognition that most people would not work for the government for their entire career. I think the current Military retirement is fair. The military is an "up or out" system; ie, service members do not get to stay if they don't get promoted. So there are a lot of service members who don't retire. As Hodja points out, there is a lot of sacrifice on the part of the military member and their families. Keep this in mind -- federal employees and military members are not exempt from federal (and in most cases) state taxes. A good number of federal and military jobs have no civilian equivalent. Many analytical and administrative jobs formerly done by civil service employees are now being done by support contractors and consultants. And there have been huge consolidations for support services (pay, personnel, etc) and in most cases are now being centrally managed. This has been a trend for the last 15 years or so.

Name:	MartiniMan -	Reply
Subject:	Military Pensions after 20 years service
Date:	9/9/2011 8:20:35 AM

Feb: My wife worked for EPA for 10 years and contributed to her TSP account with the federal gov't kicking in some cash. While for the most part she made less than I did (not by much) and contributed much less to her TSP account with the gov't match it is actually larger than my 401k (that I subsequently converted to an IRA). So while it is not a pension per se, it is additional funds being contributed to her retirement account just like a pension works. For sure the ridiculous pension system with state and local governments is where we could save trillions. You hear all too often about these people that work 20 years for some agency, retire with a huge pension payment, take another gov't job and end up collecting more than one pension. The old unwritten compact was that if you worked for the government you were paid less than the private sector but got better benefits and greater job security. Once Dems realized they could buy votes via the SEIU and unionization of gov't jobs that got turned on its head. Now they make more, have a pension (you can't even say better because the vast majority of private sector workers have no pension) and better benefits. The world is turned upside down. Either way I think we both agree that we should look for other ways to reduce pension costs before we consider the military.

Name:	Feb -	Reply
Subject:	Military Pensions after 20 years service
Date:	9/9/2011 9:12:38 AM

Yes, I certainly agree it would be foolish to tamper with the military retirement system. Back before I retired, the Thrift Savings Plan was opened to the Military who could voluntarily invest in the same plan as the civilian workers. That is - using their own funds like civil servants to invest for retirment. Many did so and were pleased with the opportunity. As Mr. Hodge has pointed out, the regular retirement is generally not enough to support a family after retirment particularly with college age dependents.

Name:	MAJ USA RET -	Reply
Subject:	Military Pensions after 20 years service
Date:	9/10/2011 9:33:43 AM

Obviously, from my Forum name, I am retired military (I am a “mustang” - I started out as a draftee private). My retired military pay is not enough to live on. I suppose I could go on social security and then have "just enough." So… as a retired military officer… I cannot afford to retire.

Retired military have a different mind-set. They serve first and then continue working to retire from their civilian labors. Do you know ANY retired military person who is able to work but doesn’t?

Then… what if I had died in Iraq. How would my SGLI (for which I paid the premiums) compare to the sum of money paid to each of the families of the Twin Towers?

I DID NOT SERVE FOR THE RETIREMENT BENEFIT!

And, you should consider carefully how you perceive the service of those who defend.

Name:	4691 -	Reply
Subject:	Military Pensions after 20 years service
Date:	9/12/2011 1:39:09 PM

I think my main point is missed on this thread. I am a fiscal conservative. My personal definition of that is that I believe we should PAY today for what we SPEND today. NO EXCEPTIONS short of an unavoidable war. We should not continue to buy on long-term credit and make our children and grand-children pay for it. I don't care so much about the cost of the military retirement system as much as I care that it, like almost all government programs, is not adequately funded to cover future liabilities. I'd like to see the current pay increased for all active duty and especially their current benefits improved; not just for the smaller group that stay long enough to retire. But the cost of the military must be managed and controlled the same as any other expenditure. We should maintain a military that we can afford. Each government program is a sacred cow to some group out there. So with respect to military pension, there are some that will take the position that its worked well for over 100 hundred years as-is so there is certainly no reason to re-evaluate it; and there are others that believe it should be re-evaluated from time-to-time same as any other cost. I am in the latter group. MrHodja's last paragraph sums it up well in my opinion.

Name:	Talullahhound -	Reply
Subject:	Military Pensions after 20 years service
Date:	9/13/2011 8:12:01 PM

Maybe what we need is a smaller military. That would keep politicians from wanting to commit our military to wars with no specific objective. That would also eliminate some of the "sacred cow" acquisition programs that Congress is so fond of keeping going. That might allow us to raise the pay and benefits of all the military.

Name:	MAJ USA RET -	Reply
Subject:	Military Pensions after 20 years service
Date:	9/14/2011 2:47:48 PM

I have seen the promises broken and my benefits eroded... I do expect that trend to continue.

Quick Links
Gulf Shores - Orange Beach - Perdido Key News
Gulf Shores - Orange Beach - Perdido Key Photos
Gulf Shores - Orange Beach - Perdido Key Videos