Forum Thread

Nags Head Topics

(Nags Head Specific)

0 messages

Updated

Off-Topic

Lakes Online Forum

83,605 messages

Updated 4/25/2024 9:33:24 PM

Boat Maintenance

Lakes Online Forum

5,193 messages

Updated 4/3/2024 3:47:36 AM

Nags Head Fishing

(Nags Head Specific)

0 messages

Updated

Jokes

Lakes Online Forum

4,169 messages

Updated 4/15/2024 11:05:05 PM

Sports

Lakes Online Forum

4,260 messages

Updated 3/24/2024 9:24:45 AM

Grilling & Recipes

Lakes Online Forum

2,976 messages

Updated 3/20/2024 11:53:43 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
Date:	2/19/2011 2:52:52 PM

In consideration of the fact that 1) very few American workers in private industry have defined pension plans (most get at best 3% employer contribution to 401K), and 2) private industry workers are expected to contribute to Social Security for 40 years of more before collecting full retirement at age 67; is it fair that a retired military person gets 50% of salary for life beginning immediately upon retirement, often before age 40, leading to a potentially huge payout over time? Of course all (normal) Americans appreciates the service of the military person. The question is do you agree that the current military pension system is fair to the American tax payer and should continue as-is unchanged as other entitlements are addressed? http://themilitarywallet.com/military-retirement-worth-millions/

URL: Military Pensions

Name:	Talullahhound -	Reply
Subject:	Military Pensions
Date:	2/19/2011 7:02:10 PM

I think so. First of all, it is only 50% of their base pay, which isn't necessarily anywhere near what people in the private sector pay those with advanced degrees. Additionally, the military is considered to be "on duty" 24/7, so they don't get paid overtime for the extra hours a lot of them work every day, don't get paid extra for the special duty they get assigned, and don't get any kind of cash bonus. No cash associated with their medals. Don't forget that most military people move every 3 years (some a lot more often than that), and despite their move being "paid", most of the time it doesn't cover all their expenses. They usually have limited in choice in where they are moved. Then there is their arcane system of promotions. The actual rate of promotion in the military is not very high. And if they don't get promoted, they are out -- no retirement, no benefits, etc. Then there is the making the ultimate sacrfice thing, i.e., death. Of course there is war, but there are other times when a military member is required to do an assignment that is just inherently dangerous. Not just on the battle field. One of my friend's wives were killed when her plane was shot down doing drug surveillence in Colombia. Another colleague's helicopter crashed. It's not that great a life. Most of the people who spend their life in the military don't do it for the money. They do it so they can serve their country, because they believe that they are serving a higher purpose. Don't get the idea that the military is comprised of people that can't make it anywhere else. They are highly qualified professionals. And it's not easy to break into a new career when you are in your 40's. Most military people cannot live on what they get paid just in their military retirement.

Name:	widgethater -	Reply
Subject:	Military Pensions
Date:	2/20/2011 12:50:50 PM

These people EARN 100% of what they get!!!! Now, to really ask the same question about the Congress and White House, the answer would be a resounding NO!!!!!!And Congress gets their's after 5 years.Makes you sick to your stomach doesn't it??

Name:	Talullahhound -	Reply
Subject:	Military Pensions
Date:	2/20/2011 1:39:47 PM

The basic benefit is 5 years of service and age 62. It's not a full retirement benefit. All retirement benefits are based on a combination of years of service and age. If they served 5 years when they were in their 40's or 50's, they wouldn't get any benefit. There is a Report out on the internet that lays it all out.

Name:	MAJ USA RET -	Reply
Subject:	Military Pensions
Date:	2/20/2011 2:15:34 PM

If y’all don’t mind, I’ll pass on this one.

Name:	comrade -	Reply
Subject:	Military Pensions
Date:	2/20/2011 3:17:17 PM

An eloquently contracted sailboat at that.....

Name:	MAJ USA RET -	Reply
Subject:	Military Pensions
Date:	2/20/2011 3:22:11 PM

A yawl is a two masted sailboat with the smaller (mizzen mast) aft of (behind) the helm (steering wheel.

Name:	4691 -	Reply
Subject:	Military Pensions
Date:	2/20/2011 11:22:34 PM

Hound - most of your financial reasoning is just not backed up by reality...at the 20 year point the cumulative military pay plus benefits (including pension) would exceed the average private sector person. A simple lifetime annuity calculation considering inflation would put the present value of the pension for the military person (an O-5) retiring at 20 years at greater than 2 million dollars assuming a 40 year payout. Spreading the value of this benefit over the 20 years worked easily puts the military compensation above the private sector where pensions no longer exist (and other benefits continue to decline as well). I certainly agree about your points of hardship and sacrifice, but I do not see those as relevant to the financial fairness question that I asked. What I ask is a very difficult question and I suspect very few have the Kaunas to address it with anything other than the popular response.

Name:	Yankee06 -	Reply
Subject:	Military Pensions
Date:	2/21/2011 7:45:51 AM

4691, -Kaunas? ...did you actually use that word in refernce to military service? -I spent 28 years in the service. in my first 12 years , i had 10 permanent changes of station, i.e., moves that relocated me and my family to different parts of the nation and the world. -During that time i spent time in 3 war zones, Today's soldiers do more. -I spent extra hours obtainning two masters degrees in order to keep pace with the latest requirements of my military specialties. -my spouse, because of teh constant moves, was unable to enjoy normal career progression, ...and increased pay or serious retirement benefits. -I, we, loved the time we spent serving our country. There were dark moments when friends actually die in your arms or don't come back from operations. This is not being melodramatic; this was reality. -When I joined the military i wrote Uncle Sam and the American people a blank check that they could fill in up to and including my life. In return they now send me a retirement check, less than my UAW neighbor's and my policeman neighbor's, that says "thank you for your service. But my check is not a "retirement" check; according to law it is a retainer check and the government can call me back to service any time it wants, ...and I'd be willing to go. ..but you ask is it fiscally responsible? I don't know, but I think it is morally responsible. however, if the government decided to take back some part of my retirement , I would --and probably most military people would, say "OK" if you think it is for the good of the country, ---because that's the way most military people think ...and act.

Name:	comrade -	Reply
Subject:	Military Pensions
Date:	2/21/2011 8:19:52 AM

Devil's advocate: What would be the morally responsible way to repay a doctor who saves your life? or controls your diabetes, high blood pressure, delivers your premature baby, etc??? What is the government's moral responsibility, and the personal moral responsibility?

Name:	Talullahhound -	Reply
Subject:	Military Pensions
Date:	2/21/2011 8:43:30 AM

From a strictly financial point of view, it probably doesn't make sense. I'm not sure how your source arrived at their $2M figure. But, without the retirement benefit, I'm not sure you would get the high quality people making the military a career. It would be financial suicide to spend 20 or so years doing something with as many sacrifices as the military requires, without the retirement. And I personally believe that we are being very short sighted in eliminating retirement benefits in private industry. It's going to create a huge financial crisis in the future.

Name:	Talullahhound -	Reply
Subject:	And
Date:	2/21/2011 8:49:24 AM

I don't see the comparison between private industry retirements and military retirement. Where is it written that the military retirement should not exceed a private sector retirement, given the risks and sacrifices that the military makes? Ask those veterans who are medically retired from the military or those who retire and go on to have service connected illness (Agent Orange, exposure to depleted uranium, severe back and knee issues from a lifetime of jumping out of airplanes, etc) if they think it is unfair that they are paid more in retirement than the average private sector person.

Name:	MAJ USA RET -	Reply
Subject:	And
Date:	2/21/2011 10:44:29 AM

How gently I wanted to stay out of this.

I don’t connect the “compensation” for serving with the “honor” of serving. I am thankful that the tradition and privilege, in my family, of service to our country was passed to me.

The military serves under the direction of civilians. Civilians decide what is enough or not enough; one cannot serve in the military with intent to aggrandize one’s self financially.

What I am given is enough for me. Thank you.

Name:	Talullahhound -	Reply
Subject:	And
Date:	2/21/2011 1:28:50 PM

You wouldn't care if inflation eventually ate it away? Or if politicians decided that you shouldn't have it at all? But then, they aren't likely to take away your retirement, are they? It's future retirees that need to worry. How noble of you.

Name:	MAJ USA RET -	Reply
Subject:	I should have stayed home
Date:	2/21/2011 2:25:09 PM

Would you care if they took away your retirement? Of course you would. If “they” took away my retirement… yes, it would hurt… very much so. Am I worried about future retirees? Yes, look at what has happened to Champus… now, TriCare. Every promise held out to me in 1968 has been broken.

I don’t see why you feel compelled to be condescending to me (e.g. “How noble of you.”) I cannot fathom how you read such things into what people write on this forum. Maybe I haven’t earned your respect. Maybe you perceive tradition and honor as silly or suspect. But, I surely don’t deserve your contempt!

You see, this is exactly why I should have stayed out of this thread. It is NOT a soldier’s lot to set his own pay. And, I knew that one of you would slam me from some unforeseen direction.

I was right. And Hound, I will have nothing more to say in this thread!

Name:	4691 -	Reply
Subject:	Military Pensions
Date:	2/21/2011 3:02:47 PM

Yankee06 - No, I would never use that word in regard to military service or the military. I used the word in reference to what it will take to address this financial issue, only one of many, that face our country. We are in financial peril. Most agree with this, but when a difficult issue, such as this one is raised, they are quick to justify the continued expense. I am a fiscal conservative. I think that ALL expenses must be re-evaluated and brought in line with what we can afford going forward. The question in my original post was "do you agree that the current military pension system is fair to the American tax payer and should continue as-is unchanged as other entitlements are addressed?" So as a fiscal conservative (and certainly NOT a politically correct Republican conservative), I will go on record to say that I do not think our country, already approaching $14 trillion debt, can afford to hand out multi-million dollar pensions (lifetime cost) in the future to anyone, military or otherwise. That is my opinion based solely on the financial state of our country. Others may disagree for emotional reasons, etc., and that it their right (at least until the time that our country no longer has the financial strength to protect our rights).

Name:	Talullahhound -	Reply
Subject:	apology
Date:	2/21/2011 5:24:42 PM

I must have misread the tone of your posting. I thought you were saying that retirement pay was beside the point, and didn't matter. Sorry.

Name:	Talullahhound -	Reply
Subject:	Military Pensions
Date:	2/21/2011 5:28:37 PM

I agree with the zero based budgeting as an intellectual exercise. Everything should be on the table and given a hard look. But, I think one also has to consider the long range impact of the decisions that are made. And attracting and keeping high quality people for a career in the military has to be considered when looking at military pay. But, I'd rather seem them cut wasteful equipment acquisitions and leave the military retirement pay alone. But, defense lobbyists and Congressional scaredy cats won't ever go that route.

Name:	MrHodja -	Reply
Subject:	Military Pensions
Date:	2/21/2011 10:54:24 PM

"That is my opinion based solely on the financial state of our country. Others may disagree for emotional reasons, etc."

Please don't belittle other opinions as being emotional. I, like MAJ, stayed out of this as long as I could. Disclaimer: I am the recipient of a military retirement income.

For those of us most directly affected it is more than emotion. When we made a conscious decision to make the military a career, there were many factors in play. One was the job security ....do a decent job and you wouldn't lose it. Another was medical care for yourself and your family....not an insignificant consideration. Another was the other benefits....commissary, BX, and so forth (the value of which, or lack thereof, that we could debate on another thread).

Then there was the other side of it. The fact that the military person gives up, for at least 20 years, the ability to choose his or her future. The fact that he or she might have to make the ultimate sacrifice for their country and come home in a plastic bag. Having to live in housing overseas that at times can be miserable. Giving up a spouse's aspirations for a career (It took my wife 23 years and 7 different colleges to get her accounting degree). Giving up the reasonable expectation that one's financial awards would be based on how hard and how smart one works. Having to move just because the military decides you need to. Not being able to forge any kind of real relationship with your pastor, your tire guy, or your barber because you will be gone before you can. Being subjected to homogenized religion when overseas because the chaplain corps has to serve so many different faiths. Never being able to set roots.

When you get right down to it, in this day of the all-volunteer service there is a contract between the service and the serviceman/woman. Part of that contract is the carrot at then end of the stick - the retirement stipend - along with the others (which, by the way, are not at all what I was led to believe they would be). Address that benefit carefully.

I would love to know what a military recruiter would say about reducing the retirement benefit vis a vis their ability to bring in new blood. Or what the unit commander would have to say when the re-up candidate is facing the stay in/get out decision. Face it, the retirement benefit is a MAJOR reason that military folks remain beyond their original commitment. Say what you want about wanting to serve, but if that stick doesn't have something hanging at its end, the decision becomes a lot easier for the service member.

So the military retirement benefit is not something that one can compare to civilian retirement with any sense of intellectual honesty. There are an awful lot of BS expenditures (try, for one, people getting an income tax refund in spite of working at all) that you need to attack before the military retirement benefit. Do you really want a second-rate military in favor of people who won't do for themselves?

Nasreddin Hodja Lt Col, USAF, (Ret)

Name:	MrHodja -	Reply
Subject:	Military Pensions
Date:	2/21/2011 11:48:19 PM

Correction - I left out an important word: "...try, for one, people getting an income tax refund in spite of NOT working at all..."

Name:	4691 -	Reply
Subject:	Military Pensions
Date:	2/22/2011 9:07:38 PM

@MrHodja - I apoligize if the way I phrased the sentence made it appear that I belittled anyone's opinion. That was definitely not my intent. I respect everyone's right to their own opinion, and especially if I disagree, I like to know the basis behind the opposing opinion. That is what makes for interesting debate.

Name:	4691 -	Reply
Subject:	Military Pensions
Date:	2/22/2011 9:50:06 PM

@MrHodja - Thank you for your response. I find it interesting that those that are retired military felt it best to not give opinion when you are the ones with the most insight as to what justifies the current policy continuing into the future. The carrot argument is the most compelling presented.in my opinion. That is a business decision / practice to maintain the best in the armed forces. I would counter argue the current pension practice with an alternate option such as significantly higher pay and very large cash bonuses. This approach could potentially give the same retention results as the pension and would be a current known expense instead of pushing the less known pension liability into the future. Just my opinion. I would apply the same logic to any pension plan evaluated.

And while certainly I agree that there are much more deserving budget expenses to attack instead of the military pension, I think that there should be no sacred cows. With a $14 trillion debt I don't consider any expense excluded from at least an evaluation. The reason I started this post in the first place was to illustrate how difficult if will be for politicians bound pandering to the voters to make the kind of deep cuts in federal and state and local spending that are necessary to restore fiscal strength to our country. Every expense has its own passionate backers determined to prevent any change believing their expense is justified above all others.

Name:	MrHodja -	Reply
Subject:	Military Pensions
Date:	2/22/2011 11:56:19 PM (updated 2/22/2011 11:59:23 PM)

They are giving big cash bonuses now for critical needs - in addition to the retirement "carrot". One of my daughter's high school classmates ended up enlisting in the Navy to be a nuclear propulsion technician. He was in school for at least an additional two years after his basic Navy training. He got about $20K for just agreeing to go into the field, and has been offered multiple thousands to stay on. Apparently it isn't enough though, because he is going to get out of the Navy with some very marketable skills and a good civilian job waiting. That means someone else will have to be put through two years of additional training....given multiple bonuses...you get my drift.

The key element of the retirement incentive is the need to have military folks stay on for the long term. Not sure a bunch of cash up front or in the form of higher pay would do that. The military invests a bunch of money in training its members to do their jobs, and it is actually cheaper to keep one person to retirement and then pay them that retirement stipend than it is to enlist and train a series of short-term members - plus the fact that the additional years of on-the-job experience for the "lifer" pay many dividends that can't be measured in dollars and cents.

I have no problem whatsoever with a review of the retirement benefit as long as it is done with eyes wide open and consideration for what its termination might have on readiness and long-term fiscal outlays. But I still believe that, with all cards on the table and a level playing field, the cost of that benefit and its positive effect on our national security will prove to be far more attractive to keep than some of the blatant giveaways to people whose income tax refund far exceeds any pittance they might have contributed in the way of tax withholding.

Another consideration. I will be 66 in April, still work, and see no reason to stop working any time soon (due in large part to the marvels of modern chemistry...Lipitor...Altace...Meloxicam...among others). I would have no problem whatsoever with the Government raising the age for full Social Security benefits kicking in to 68 or even 70. Doing something like that would be just one way that we could address the deficit, and would be a long-term reduction in outlays.

And don't get me started on the "stimulus" funds sent to places like the National Endowment for the Arts....and most of the other similar "stuff" in that "stimulus" bill.

Again, no problem asking the question as to whether the retirement benefit should be revisited- just please don't try to compare military retirement with civilian retirement. The differences in what it takes to get to the end point for each are so stark that you just can't compare the two.

Name:	Talullahhound -	Reply
Subject:	Military Pensions
Date:	2/23/2011 8:13:12 AM

I agree with everything you have said about military retirement. Where I start to disagree is in raising the "retirement" age in general. For people such as yourself who active and engaged, I keep going back to those that simply can't keep up. They aren't able to engage with the latest technologies or to keep up with the pace of business (which seems to get faster every year), experience an increase in health issues and may not physically be able to perform in their trade. All indications are that people already do not save much for retirement, and with companies abandoning retirement plans, what will realistically happen to those who cannot keep working to age 70? While I realize that SS was never intended to be a "retirement fund", the truth is that a good portion of our society relies on their SS benefit to fund their retirement. And if we change the SS eligibility what will be the cutoff for those currently working? Those in their 50's? I don't collect SS, nor will I ever collect SS, so I'm just a casual observer.

Name:	MrHodja -	Reply
Subject:	Military Pensions
Date:	2/23/2011 9:00:24 AM

Would have to be phased in, just like it was for me when they changed the eligibility date for "full" SS from 65 to 66. Folks would know well in advance what their own "full" SS age would be and would thus have to plan accordingly.

And if SS wasn't supposed to be a retirement plan, then why are we treating it as one? What happened to personal responsibility?

In a perfect world with unlimited resources we wouldn't be having this conversation but the world is not perfect and the idiots in Washington have squandered far too much of the resources we have, so we have to try to figure out how to accommodate their extravagances....and I threw raising the SS full retirement age out as an alternative.

Gotta go do what I'm getting paid for now....cheers...

Name:	Talullahhound -	Reply
Subject:	Military Pensions
Date:	2/23/2011 5:23:56 PM

Yes, I think somewhere SS got way off track for what it was supposed to do. Personal responsibility? You mean like when people used to actually save money for their old age? I think it went the way of families taking care of their senior members. When I read about people in the 50's with only $20k (if that) saved for their retirement, I wonder how that is going to work.

Quick Links
Nags Head News
Nags Head Photos
Nags Head Videos