New thread--Adjusting the military retirement rules?

[e6bflyer]

In reference to a reserve type retirement program (pays out at 57, 60, or 62), I believe that the military attracts and retains a lot of talent based on their current retirement system. Are there turds out there biding their time until 20 years? Sure, but those guys are in every walk of life. The current system is expensive, but necessary. It is also fairly predicatable and can be planned for.
As far as paying out to people with less than 20 years of service, I think it is a horrible idea. It will be tremendously expensive. Our budget is already crammed with entitlement (mandatory) spending, and this will add to the pile. If you want to know how bad it is, do a google search on US budget mandatory spending and you will see. Basically, we are going to run out of money in a few decades if it continues as it is now, and that is without all the programs that are being added to the budget every year. Eventually, as Phrog said, defense spending (and other discretionary programs) will have to take the cut. Something needs to be done, but nobody in congress wants to be "that guy" who cut program X for recipient Y. Just look at TFL and the new GI bill. Great programs, sure, but how in the hell does the govt think they are going to pay for them in the next few decades? Are we going to just shake out some more money from the tree? No, other programs will have to get cut, and defense is always (every year) on the dartboard. Believe it!
The Navy and other services have already offered early retirements (TERA) for "force shaping" (or whatever the current buzzword is) in the past, and I suspect they will continue to do so wherever neccessary. As far as guys getting nothing for walking at 19 years, so be it. That is the choice they made. If they get the boot, then they still get a severance check and VA benefits. I have never known anyone who made at least a little bit of effort fail to make it to 20 years. The only officer that I have ever seen kicked out due to failure to select was a CEC guy who chose not to go to a deploying unit.
I enlisted many years ago under redux and knew that it was the system that I was under when I would retire. I suspect that I might still be around even if redux didn't get changed (an option now instead of mandatory). I suspect if the retirement system does get changed it will either require more years of service to be vested or will be reduced benefits.

 

[The Chief]

.... Military retirees and eligible dependents may use those programs just like active duty depend .... )

But again for clarity, just do not want you to get there and find out that YOU MUST PAY FOR MEDICARE PART B TO USE TFL. That goes for military hospitals or clinics, you gotta pay for Part B in order to go there. Ditto for military pharmacy.

 

[Flash]

In reference to a reserve type retirement program (pays out at 57, 60, or 62), I believe that the military attracts and retains a lot of talent based on their current retirement system. Are there turds out there biding their time until 20 years? Sure, but those guys are in every walk of life. The current system is expensive, but necessary. It is also fairly predicatable and can be planned for.

As far as paying out to people with less than 20 years of service, I think it is a horrible idea. It will be tremendously expensive.

I have to disagree that the current system is necessary. Jut because we have 'always' done it that way does not mean that it has to always be that way. I am surrounded by people biding their time until they hit 20. Do we need then all? Definitely not. And it certainly would help if they were able to retire earlier in some cases. And in terms of it being predictable, I don't think anyone ever guessed that medical expenses for retirees would cost so much.

As for it being more expensive, that may not be the case. If you are not paying out the retirement for 30 something years, and at a much reduced rate, it ma actually be a lot less.

 

[phrogdriver]

Concur with Flash on this. The truly talented could succeed in or out of the military. They tend to worry less about retirement, at least when they first join, because they know they'll always be able to earn a good living, and most couldn't take more than a few weeks of sitting on their asses anyway. They stay because they like the people, the comraderie, the travel, and occassionally watching things explode.

The marginal tend to join for the retirement. They know that unless they completely hose something up, they'll get 20, then be able to sit with their fat ugly wives and watch TV all day on half-pay.

If you think that our present system is more expensive, ask yourself why no private employer does anything remotely like it anymore. The present system was designed when military service was more physically arduous (i.e. 40-years-old meant you were worn-the-hell-out), the force was largely conscripted (more junior; less top-heavy), and the life expectancy was at least 10-15 years shorter than today.

If we revamped retirement, it would, in my opinion require looking at the whole spread of personnel policies, especially retention. It would mean giving boards the authority to tell someone "see-ya!" at 10 years, or 15, which would probably be a good thing, in a lot of cases. Conversely, we could eliminate some of the time-in-grade requirements, and fast-track some outstanding individuals.

 

[e6bflyer]

I have to disagree that the current system is necessary. Jut because we have 'always' done it that way does not mean that it has to always be that way. I am surrounded by people biding their time until they hit 20. Do we need then all? Definitely not. And it certainly would help if they were able to retire earlier in some cases. And in terms of it being predictable, I don't think anyone ever guessed that medical expenses for retirees would cost so much.

As for it being more expensive, that may not be the case. If you are not paying out the retirement for 30 something years, and at a much reduced rate, it ma actually be a lot less.

Good thoughts Flash. I don't totally disagree, I guess that I am just a product of my experience in the Navy. I have seen a few guys waiting out their 20, but not many. Most are making a good contribution to the cause. A lot of those mirror foggers are going to Iraquistan to be part of the Army of one for a year or so these days anyway (note - I am not saying all IA/GSAs are a result of poor performance at all, just that some are).

I just think that the current system attracts and retains some of our best people. Without it, you are going to lose some of the guys in the margins that would have joined/stayed otherwise.

I don't think it is a horrible idea for saving money, I just think that there are unintended consequences that will rear their ugly head. I think there are better ways to deal with the turds who are waiting out their 20 years. I feel that nobody is entitled to a retirement if they did not honorably serve for their full time, and that if they are not willing to contribute, then there is probably a better place for them in society. Hand them their severance check and send them to TAP class. I am not the answer guy, and I don't know exactly what performance traits you could use to keep/fire someone who has been in for 18 years, but if you aren't pulling your load in Civilian, INC., then you are let go just the same. If we are trying to run the military more like a business these days in the way we handle our money, then send them packing.

As far as medical expenses go, I agree that something needs to be done to stop the insane amount of medical costs that the government is shouldering. I think Tricare for Life is a great program for retirees, but what the hell were they thinking passing such an insanely expensive entitlement program? Getting all your medical covered for the cost of Medicare part B is a bargain and a half. Guess who is picking up the rest of that tab? You, me, and Joe Six Pack.

Don't get me wrong, I plan on retiring from the military and I stand to benefit from many of these programs. The difference is, I am planning on having to cover a lot of these "promises" myself because Medicare and SS should be in full crisis mode by the time that I am in my 60's and 70's.

 

[e6bflyer]

If you think that our present system is more expensive, ask yourself why no private employer does anything remotely like it anymore. The present system was designed when military service was more physically arduous (i.e. 40-years-old meant you were worn-the-hell-out), the force was largely conscripted (more junior; less top-heavy), and the life expectency was at least 10-15 years shorter than today.

Good points....I don't have an answer right now.

If we revamped retirement, it would, in my opinion require looking at the whole spread of personnel policies, especially retention. It would mean giving boards the authority to tell someone "see-ya!" at 10 years, or 15, which would probably be a good thing, in a lot of cases. Conversely, we could eliminate some of the time-in-grade requirements, and fast-track some outstanding individuals.

Amen!

 

[The Chief]

.... I think Tricare for Life is a great program for retirees, but what the hell were they thinking passing such an insanely expensive entitlement program? Getting all your medical covered for the cost of Medicare part B is a bargain and a half. ... .

Could you give me some insight into the benefits of TFL? Is it a mistake for me to drop my TFL coverage and instead take the health benefits provided to civil servants? All health care is provided by the Blue Cross/Blue Shield program of that program is equal or better than TFL and at one third the cost of TFL. Yep it is subsidized by the Gov, to the tune of 60%. Am I missing something that makes TFL a bargain and a half?

Of course my whole point is do not worry, be happy, Soon the Government will provide all health care to everybody, except those very very rich folks at the top 10% of the income ladder, that is, those folks making over $100,000 a year. They need to pay for health care for the other 90%, those making less than 100K. No?

Related: I often hear, I live and play in a very liberal area of the planet, that the military provides to everyone an exorbinant housing allowance, and they do not even have to pay taxes on it. I have also heard that they do not pay state taxes, yet receive all the benefits of the state in which they are stationed. Not fair many say. Further, the say that mil folks should pay the same state taxes as their neighbors, recognizing that not all states have income taxes, but some also have an intangible assets tax and even that the military folks do not pay.

We need some changes, what??

 

[e6bflyer]

Could you give me some insight into the benefits of TFL? Is it a mistake for me to drop my TFL coverage and instead take the health benefits provided to civil servants? All health care is provided by the Blue Cross/Blue Shield program of that program is equal or better than TFL and at one third the cost of TFL. Yep it is subsidized by the Gov, to the tune of 60%. Am I missing something that makes TFL a bargain and a half?

Of course my whole point is do not worry, be happy, Soon the Government will provide all health care to everybody, except those very very rich folks at the top 10% of the income ladder, that is, those folks making over $100,000 a year. They need to pay for health care for the other 90%, those making less than 100K. No?

Related: I often hear, I live and play in a very liberal area of the planet, that the military provides to everyone an exorbinant housing allowance, and they do not even have to pay taxes on it. I have also heard that they do not pay state taxes, yet receive all the benefits of the state in which they are stationed. Not fair many say. Further, the say that mil folks should pay the same state taxes as their neighbors, recognizing that not all states have income taxes, but some also have an intangible assets tax and even that the military folks do not pay.

We need some changes, what??

Hey, Chief, you are preaching to the chior here. If you have better health care at a lower cost, then there obviously is no question. For the majority of military retirees, however, TFL is the best thing going. I fully plan on using it if it is still around when I am eligible.
My point is, medical costs are increasing at an insane rate and the gov'ment is running out of the good stuff that they use to pay for all that medical care. If nobody does anything to stop the insanity, the government will be so wracked with debt that our current financial crisis will seem like a joke. Meanwhile, Congressman X is a hero because he just started a new mandatory program that subsidizes medical care for constituent Y, no matter where the money is going to come from.
I am not saying the military doesn't deserve the benefits we receive. I don't think most servicemembers would put up with the bullshit for two decades if they didn't receive them. I am just saying that until our lawmakers sit down and have a frank and honest discussion on how to make things right, we are sitting on a ticking timebomb. In the meantime, though, we need to at least attempt to put a damper on entitlement spending.

 

[nittany03]

Related: I often hear, I live and play in a very liberal area of the planet, that the military provides to everyone an exorbinant housing allowance, and they do not even have to pay taxes on it. I have also heard that they do not pay state taxes, yet receive all the benefits of the state in which they are stationed. Not fair many say. Further, the say that mil folks should pay the same state taxes as their neighbors, recognizing that not all states have income taxes, but some also have an intangible assets tax and even that the military folks do not pay.

OK, Chief, I know I'm preaching to the choir here, but here's a point for those blue state, well, people. That last bit really chaps my ass. I know you're just the messenger, so this bullet isn't aimed your way.

What other job can you take where, once you sign up, you run the risk of being violently killed in some shitty foreign country, and are obligated to spend months and years away from family, hearth, and home in order to do so? And obligated to live wherever the system sees fit, even if it's where housing costs well outside anything you could afford while still supporting your family? And you sign away, among other rights, the right to free speech and free association? And objecting to any of this or quitting on any terms other than the company's is a federal criminal offense?

We who served have bet our lives that we will survive our hitch. For some jobs, that's more likely than others. Suppose the balloon goes up on China/NK tomorrow? My good friends in CVW 5 will have the choice between facing the PLA/KPA or facing a court martial. We don't much think that way about our line of work, because one of those choices is despicable and unthinkable. But to some of a more liberal bent (no offense Flash ), it may not be.

The point being, the ultimate price most civilians could pay for their job is possible termination and unemployment. This is nothing to sneeze at. But for those who put their lives at risk to protect the very social contract we hold so dear, I don't think a few bennies should be begrudged.

I have yet to hear of anyone getting rich off military service anyway, so maybe these liberal aquaintances of yours can point out all the McMansions and shiny new cars that the military personnel are getting with these "unfair" allowances.

:icon_rage

 

[Catmando]

But again for clarity, just do not want you to get there and find out that YOU MUST PAY FOR MEDICARE PART B TO USE TFL. That goes for military hospitals or clinics, you gotta pay for Part B in order to go there. Ditto for military pharmacy.

Thank you for that. I was not aware.

Since my situation is unique, I am entitled to, and do now receive both TFL and Medicare B - much earlier than normal because of significant disabilities. I now pay for neither. But given your statement, I must assume I will have to pay for Part B when I hit 65.

Thanks for the heads up. I see I will need to look into this.....

FWIW, I was very pleasantly surprised with the TriCare for Life combined with Medicare A and B. I was able to keep all my doctors, medical group and hospital, and the coverage is far better than my former major airline employer's paid healthcare plan.

 

[Flash]

OK, Chief, I know I'm preaching to the choir here, but here's a point for those blue state, well, people. That last bit really chaps my ass. I know you're just the messenger, so this bullet isn't aimed your way.....

....But to some of a more liberal bent (no offense Flash ), it may not be.....

....I don't think a few bennies should be begrudged......

:icon_rage

I get your anger, but I think you are making a mountain out of a moelhill in this case. I have barely heard of it as an issue, I honestly don't ever remember it ever coming up in talking with regular folk. I am certain that there are some people out there who are really bothered by it, but who cares what the hell they think anyways? Just laugh at them and move on.

 

[The Chief]

... so this bullet isn't aimed your way.

Not a problem. Very thick skin here.

This started out as "What effect with the outcome of the election be on ....", title somewhat paraphrased. I got split off into another thread as my answer was aimed at military, broadly, not specifically the aviation community.

The socialists do not want their targets to know what they are up to. They are want to say "Oh do not worry about it, that will not happen" My only point was to give examples of what has already happened to 'rights" and benefits and what is being talked about in the more liberal bastions of power. Nowhere did I intend to defend either position but to just outline some of the "perks" that have already been eliminated/downsized. I also expounded on what they, the true believers, think should be taken away from the "baby killers", their term, not mine.

My only hope is that folks look carefully at the issues and try to sort through the garbage that spews out in preparation for the election.

Change is on the way.