Warning

 

Close

Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
Member Login
Site Notices
Arrow Left Previous Page
Page / 3
Posted: 9/9/2010 10:14:12 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 10/7/2010 10:11:55 AM EDT by KA3B]
Edit to delete article - don't have time to get the links, my apologies to the site.
Link Posted: 9/9/2010 10:20:58 AM EDT
When it comes to risk of life and limb I'm all for eliminating welfare programs to continue to support military/police/FD retirements
Link Posted: 9/9/2010 10:22:43 AM EDT
Maybe the .mil folks can get the same unions the PD and FD folks have...
Link Posted: 9/9/2010 10:22:51 AM EDT
My dad spent 20 years in the USN, moving all over the country when his Country needed. Going out to sea for months, etc

I will be fuming mad if they start taking away his insurance, retirement.

Cut welfare, not our militaries benefits.
Link Posted: 9/9/2010 10:27:21 AM EDT
Originally Posted By danpass:
When it comes to risk of life and limb I'm all for eliminating welfare programs to continue to support military/police/FD retirements

I agree, but we need to stop this unfunded pension shit going forward. Period.
Link Posted: 9/9/2010 10:29:23 AM EDT
We are bankrupt. No one is getting a pension. No one.
Link Posted: 9/9/2010 10:33:00 AM EDT
When they stop my Retainer Pay it is Fo time.
Link Posted: 9/9/2010 10:40:04 AM EDT
Punaro, a Defense Business Board senior fellow...


Pentagon leaders are pushing toward a goal of freeing up $100 billion over five years and shifting those monies to hardware programs.


Now why would he advocate cutting pay, healthcare and retirement for the troops in order to pay for hardware??
Link Posted: 9/9/2010 10:42:40 AM EDT
Hint-you're also paying for the fact that you're sabotaging the servicemember's spouse's career progression at regular intervals.
Link Posted: 9/9/2010 10:42:56 AM EDT
Someone who signs his name to a contract for military service is volunteering to subject himself to orders that could quite possibly get him killed. A person who enters into that contract voluntarily and of his own free will certainly DESERVES a solid retirement package and medical care for life if he can make it to retirement age.

If there is one group that deserves a solid retirement, it's those who volunteer for service that could well kill them. Fair's fair. I offer my life
in service to this country, and if I serve my time and survive it, I expect to be repaid in kind...by ensuring that the rest of my life is reasonably
comfortable and my health issues are seen to.


CJ
Link Posted: 9/9/2010 10:43:06 AM EDT
Now, I coulda sworn my Master Chief quoting some statistics about how most retired .mil end up kicking off within 10 years of retiring. Hmmm.
Link Posted: 9/9/2010 10:45:07 AM EDT
Originally Posted By Smead:
Punaro, a Defense Business Board senior fellow...


Pentagon leaders are pushing toward a goal of freeing up $100 billion over five years and shifting those monies to hardware programs.


Now why would he advocate cutting pay, healthcare and retirement for the troops in order to pay for hardware??


He is will be on the cutting edge soon



Link Posted: 9/9/2010 10:56:08 AM EDT

Personally, I think we'll see significant changes to the recruitment and retention policies as the economy limps along and recruitment goals are met.
Link Posted: 9/9/2010 11:06:57 AM EDT

Originally Posted By Liberation:
My dad spent 20 years in the USN, moving all over the country when his Country needed. Going out to sea for months, etc

I will be fuming mad if they start taking away his insurance, retirement.

Cut welfare, not our militaries benefits.

HAHAHAHAHA, you think so?

My grandfather was a pilot for ~28 years, flew in three wars. He also served in the Top Secret 4925th Test Group (ATOMIC) out of Kirtland AFB. He, like everyone who served in the 4925th, fell to Leukemia. Do you know where he died? I'll give you a hint, it wasn't in the VA hospital. Citing "budgetary" reasons Congress cut their long term VA care. Yeah, all those benefits promised when he enlisted in 1943 didn't mean shit. After a couple months, while the Leukemia was literally eating his body, he had to leave the VA and go to a private hospital and then hospice before he passed away.
Link Posted: 9/9/2010 11:19:41 AM EDT

Originally Posted By cmjohnson:
Someone who signs his name to a contract for military service is volunteering to subject himself to orders that could quite possibly get him killed. A person who enters into that contract voluntarily and of his own free will certainly DESERVES a solid retirement package and medical care for life if he can make it to retirement age.

If there is one group that deserves a solid retirement, it's those who volunteer for service that could well kill them. Fair's fair. I offer my life
in service to this country, and if I serve my time and survive it, I expect to be repaid in kind...by ensuring that the rest of my life is reasonably
comfortable and my health issues are seen to.


CJ
This.

And...

"We know that it is not sustainable to pay people for 60 years to serve for 20," the former Marine Corps Reserve director said.

...is complete and utter BS.

Example 1 - youngster enlists in the military upon graduation at 18 years of age and serves 20 years and retires at 38 years of age - said youngster will be 98 years old using the math in that statement.

Example 2 - youngster decides to go to college, get a degree and then sign up for military service upon graduation at the age of 22 and then serves 20 years and retires at the age of 42 - said youngster will be 102 years old using the math in that statement.

VERY FEW military retirees live to be 98 or 102 years of age. Most die well before that age. According to DoD actuaries... "Rossi also produced average life expectancy comparisons. In 2004, for instance, 60-year-old active duty enlisted retirees had an average life expectancy of 19.6 years." http://www.military.com/features/0,15240,183052,00.html Using the 2004 average of 79.6 years for enlisted active duty, that's an 18.4 year error in the numbers the people in the OPs article are using.

Unless the DOD's actuaries made errors in 2004.

Or the numbers have magically improved to a 98 year life expectancy for active duty enlisted retirees.

Or... I don't know... maybe someone is pushing a point-of-view to reach a desired outcome?


Link Posted: 9/9/2010 11:27:51 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 9/9/2010 11:32:36 AM EDT by Combat_Jack]
Alternately you could realize that the sixty year figure is forty retired and twenty active.

And it is unsustainable. I know y'all think you deserve some extra gubment cheese cause life is hard and all, bit you don't deserve it. If you are contractually obligated to a retirement after twenty, that is your legal right and for no other reason.
Link Posted: 9/9/2010 11:33:58 AM EDT
Originally Posted By JAFFE:

Originally Posted By cmjohnson:
Someone who signs his name to a contract for military service is volunteering to subject himself to orders that could quite possibly get him killed. A person who enters into that contract voluntarily and of his own free will certainly DESERVES a solid retirement package and medical care for life if he can make it to retirement age.

If there is one group that deserves a solid retirement, it's those who volunteer for service that could well kill them. Fair's fair. I offer my life
in service to this country, and if I serve my time and survive it, I expect to be repaid in kind...by ensuring that the rest of my life is reasonably
comfortable and my health issues are seen to.


CJ
This.

And...

"We know that it is not sustainable to pay people for 60 years to serve for 20," the former Marine Corps Reserve director said.

...is complete and utter BS.

Example 1 - youngster enlists in the military upon graduation at 18 years of age and serves 20 years and retires at 38 years of age - said youngster will be 98 years old using the math in that statement.

Example 2 - youngster decides to go to college, get a degree and then sign up for military service upon graduation at the age of 22 and then serves 20 years and retires at the age of 42 - said youngster will be 102 years old using the math in that statement.

VERY FEW military retirees live to be 98 or 102 years of age. Most die well before that age. According to DoD actuaries... "Rossi also produced average life expectancy comparisons. In 2004, for instance, 60-year-old active duty enlisted retirees had an average life expectancy of 19.6 years." http://www.military.com/features/0,15240,183052,00.html Using the 2004 average of 79.6 years for enlisted active duty, that's an 18.4 year error in the numbers the people in the OPs article are using.

Unless the DOD's actuaries made errors in 2004.

Or the numbers have magically improved to a 98 year life expectancy for active duty enlisted retirees.

Or... I don't know... maybe someone is pushing a point-of-view to reach a desired outcome?




Graduate HS, join the .mil at 18
Get paid for the twenty you are on active duty.
Retire at 38
Get .gov check for forty more years.
Die at 78

The .gov sent you a check for a total of 60 years (20+40) for your 20 years of work.

Sorry, but it is not sustainable.







Link Posted: 9/9/2010 11:37:48 AM EDT
Originally Posted By Combat_Jack:
Alternately you could realize that the sixty year figure is forty retired and twenty active.

And it is unsustainable. I know y'all think you deserve some extra gubment cheese cause life is hard and all, bit you don't deserve it. If you are contractually obligated to a retirement after twenty, that is your legal right and for no other reason.


Aren't there technically "savings" for the government due to .mil retirement pay now offsetting SS income?
Link Posted: 9/9/2010 11:44:19 AM EDT
I doubt it. Retirement pay starts twentyears before ss.
Link Posted: 9/9/2010 11:49:15 AM EDT
This from a DoD Civilian?

A GS with a union and their own Government pension program!

Pot, this is kettle...
Link Posted: 9/9/2010 11:53:43 AM EDT
Sustainable?

Well, tell me then...what about all those who signed proudly on the indicated line, recited the Oath of Enlistment (or officer's Oath of Office) proudly, and then ended up DEAD while on active duty? What's a life worth?

Answer me this: How many servicemen have died while on active duty in the 20th century and the last decade?

What's the dollar value attached to those lives? Care to even TRY to calculate it?

Every last one of us who signed that form and took that oath did so knowing that it could mean our lives, LITERALLY.

No other job...except possibly law enforcement jobs...demands that you risk your life to get that paycheck.

Balance all that against the fact that most people can get better pay in the civilian market. Those who choose to serve this country do so
for many reasons but HIGH PAY IS NOT ONE OF THEM.

If anyone is going to give up the BEST 20 to 30 years of his life, and after that he's in the "hard to employ due to age" category, then damn
it, then .gov sure as hell has an obligation to make the juice worth the squeeze!


And, what's your FREEDOM worth to you? If you knew that we were on the verge of being invaded, what would it be worth to you in cash out of your own wallet to stop the invasion?


Our military and its retirement pay is CHEAP compared to the cost of not having one.


CJ
Link Posted: 9/9/2010 11:59:18 AM EDT
Originally Posted By Desert_AIP:
This from a DoD Civilian?

A GS with a union and their own Government pension program!

Pot, this is kettle...


The union doesn't give a flying fuck about GS's, they only like the WG's. When I was in-processing into Govt Service, we were grouped into WG and GS, fucking Union prick didn't even look or say a word to us.
Link Posted: 9/9/2010 11:59:43 AM EDT
I'm curious as to why anyone would say that we have not "earned" it at the end of a 20 year career. Anyone care to elaborate?
Link Posted: 9/9/2010 12:05:52 PM EDT
Originally Posted By HighSeasPoker:
I'm curious as to why anyone would say that we have not "earned" it at the end of a 20 year career. Anyone care to elaborate?


In the strictest sense you earn what you are given by fulfilling your contractual obligations. But there is no moral right to retirement at twenty years, any more than housing and Internet access are a right. They are simply legal obligations undertaken by the legislature.
Link Posted: 9/9/2010 12:11:00 PM EDT
Originally Posted By Combat_Jack:
Alternately you could realize that the sixty year figure is forty retired and twenty active.

And it is unsustainable. I know y'all think you deserve some extra gubment cheese cause life is hard and all, bit you don't deserve it. If you are contractually obligated to a retirement after twenty, that is your legal right and for no other reason.


This! Coming from an active duty (18 yr) Navy Commander. Live up to the contracts you've made. Doesn't mean we can't change the "rules" for the folks coming in - as long as they know the rules have changed before they sign the bottom line.

rich
Link Posted: 9/9/2010 12:13:30 PM EDT
Ok, so essentially it is an agreement stricken between the legislature and the individual volunteering at the time of service entry. The model is one that has been revised most recently in 1986, and before that was, I believe 1947. So when I retire after 20+ years I expect the government to fulfill their agreement from back when I was wet behind the ears. Are you saying that my work in between those dates does not rate the compensation I will be getting?

Basically you have moral objection to the amount we are getting versus the work we put in. Am I right?

Have you served? Someone mentioned that you are GS, is that right?
Link Posted: 9/9/2010 12:23:32 PM EDT

Originally Posted By Combat_Jack:
Alternately you could realize that the sixty year figure is forty retired and twenty active.

And it is unsustainable. I know y'all think you deserve some extra gubment cheese cause life is hard and all, bit you don't deserve it. If you are contractually obligated to a retirement after twenty, that is your legal right and for no other reason.
I've seen other articles discussing this line of thinking that were pretty much 60 years after retirement. Generated some lively debate. IF they are saying 60 years TOTAL service and retirement, that would add up to the approximate life span. I would also think they might want to be very clear in their intentions when discussing this hot-button issue.

Link Posted: 9/9/2010 12:46:57 PM EDT
Lets not forget, its not a 100% pay and benifits retirement @ 20 years. You never keep housing and food bennies or anything else, just a portion of your base pay.

Also, the DOD and DHS has been authorized to match 401k contributions, but does not and will not get the funding to do it. Lots of private companies 401k match.
Link Posted: 9/9/2010 12:50:21 PM EDT
Kill welfare, and funnel 25% of the left over money to DoD benefits.
Link Posted: 9/9/2010 1:05:38 PM EDT
Originally Posted By crurifragium:
Hint-you're also paying for the fact that you're sabotaging the servicemember's spouse's career progression at regular intervals.


+87

My wife has a degree but doesn't use it because of moving every 3 years. She just works front desk jobs wherever we go.
Link Posted: 9/9/2010 2:41:32 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 9/9/2010 2:45:34 PM EDT by Combat_Jack]
You are entitled to whatever was promised to you when you signed. Were you worth it? I don't know. Some earn it some ride it out below the radar. I think the defined benefit plan ought to be scrapped in favor of a transferable defined contribution plan and a higher wage anyway.

ETA: AD Army.
Originally Posted By HighSeasPoker:
Ok, so essentially it is an agreement stricken between the legislature and the individual volunteering at the time of service entry. The model is one that has been revised most recently in 1986, and before that was, I believe 1947. So when I retire after 20+ years I expect the government to fulfill their agreement from back when I was wet behind the ears. Are you saying that my work in between those dates does not rate the compensation I will be getting?

Basically you have moral objection to the amount we are getting versus the work we put in. Am I right?

Have you served? Someone mentioned that you are GS, is that right?

Link Posted: 9/9/2010 2:43:38 PM EDT
Originally Posted By Skg_Mre_Lght:
Kill welfare, and funnel 25% of the left over money to DoD benefits.


By welfare, do you mean tanif, or wic, or what?
Link Posted: 9/9/2010 3:25:47 PM EDT
Originally Posted By rich1967:
Originally Posted By Combat_Jack:
Alternately you could realize that the sixty year figure is forty retired and twenty active.

And it is unsustainable. I know y'all think you deserve some extra gubment cheese cause life is hard and all, bit you don't deserve it. If you are contractually obligated to a retirement after twenty, that is your legal right and for no other reason.


This! Coming from an active duty (18 yr) Navy Commander. Live up to the contracts you've made. Doesn't mean we can't change the "rules" for the folks coming in - as long as they know the rules have changed before they sign the bottom line.

rich


Which is exactly what happened when the REDUX system was first introduced.

Link Posted: 9/9/2010 4:52:06 PM EDT
Retirement pay is not retirement pay per-say, it is retainer pay for the until the 30th year of service for enlisted and for life for officers.

Link Posted: 9/9/2010 5:43:14 PM EDT
Originally Posted By R0N:
Retirement pay is not retirement pay per-say, it is retainer pay for the until the 30th year of service for enlisted and for life for officers.



While true, what is the percentage of Officers or E's pulled off retirement status. I know of a few post 9/11, but that almost 10 years at this point, and the first time since when?

While I think the retirement thing needs to be rejiggered, I know what will happen is that Congress will ram through a change to a DC program for new accessions, with no change in base pay.
Link Posted: 9/10/2010 12:38:27 AM EDT
Very few, but it does happen.

Also a factor that is not made apparent by the article is percent of people who actually stay in to retire, in the Marines it is under 10 percent.
Link Posted: 9/10/2010 12:49:33 AM EDT
Originally Posted By Combat_Jack:
Originally Posted By HighSeasPoker:
I'm curious as to why anyone would say that we have not "earned" it at the end of a 20 year career. Anyone care to elaborate?


In the strictest sense you earn what you are given by fulfilling your contractual obligations. But there is no moral right to retirement at twenty years, any more than housing and Internet access are a right. They are simply legal obligations undertaken by the legislature.


It's an incentive for skilled people to put in a full 20 year career in a job with low pay and high risks.

Of all the things the Federal government spends money on, military pensions is about the dumbest thing you can get upset with.
Link Posted: 9/10/2010 1:05:53 AM EDT
Originally Posted By MonkeyFist:
When they stop my Retainer Pay it is Fo time.


I'm with you. Can bring more.
Link Posted: 9/10/2010 1:12:44 AM EDT
Originally Posted By Screechjet1:

Personally, I think we'll see significant changes to the recruitment and retention policies as the economy limps along and recruitment goals are met.


We are paying fo the pensions of WW-II, Korean War, Vietnam etc today. There was a much bigger military back then.

Since we have cut the .mil several times since the collapse of the USSR, future pension costs have also been cut.

As the .mil gets smaller, so will pension costs, even of it take a while for them to catch up.
Link Posted: 9/10/2010 1:19:04 AM EDT
Originally Posted By Combat_Jack:
Alternately you could realize that the sixty year figure is forty retired and twenty active.

And it is unsustainable. I know y'all think you deserve some extra gubment cheese cause life is hard and all, bit you don't deserve it. If you are contractually obligated to a retirement after twenty, that is your legal right and for no other reason.


If people have to stay in longer to earn a retirement, that will mean promotiona will be slower etc. That could lead to retention issues with mid-term service members.

They should be very careful how they decide to re-structure retirements. Saving money on retirements, while having lower retention rates, will cause higher training costs.
Link Posted: 9/10/2010 1:39:03 AM EDT
Originally Posted By danpass:
When it comes to risk of life and limb I'm all for eliminating welfare programs to continue to support military/police/FD retirements


Right on. Cuts must be made to afford benefits for our DoD peeps.
If Laquita, Brittney and Maria gotta get their WIC, TANF, Food Stamps, Medicaid and Section 8 housing cut, then fuck em. They should take the first cut.
Link Posted: 9/10/2010 1:45:28 AM EDT
Wonder how much money would be "saved" if they did away with the earned income lottery at tax time.
I still don't understand how you get more back than you pay in as a "refund" at tax time.
There are better places to cut money from besides our National Defense.
I would rather have a National Defense system than a National Park system.
Link Posted: 9/10/2010 3:27:13 AM EDT
Well, he's omittiing some information...like retirees only get 1/2 their retirement until after age 60, 62 IIRC.

The majority in service do not stay in long enough for retirement.

it also seems shady to me...to advocate cutting pay, retirement and healthcare benefits so that hardware can be aquired...while most likely working for those interested in selling hardware.

They aren't looking to reap savings to ease the yearly deficit.

I was really offended by the "worse than welfare" comment...even in times of peace .mil is earning their salt; now they are getting maimed and killed fighting active wars going on ten years in duration: They aren't more damaging than breeders sitting on their asses drinking 40 ouncers and smoking meth.
Link Posted: 9/10/2010 3:51:14 AM EDT
Originally Posted By JAFFE:

Originally Posted By cmjohnson:
Someone who signs his name to a contract for military service is volunteering to subject himself to orders that could quite possibly get him killed. A person who enters into that contract voluntarily and of his own free will certainly DESERVES a solid retirement package and medical care for life if he can make it to retirement age.

If there is one group that deserves a solid retirement, it's those who volunteer for service that could well kill them. Fair's fair. I offer my life
in service to this country, and if I serve my time and survive it, I expect to be repaid in kind...by ensuring that the rest of my life is reasonably
comfortable and my health issues are seen to.


CJ
This.

And...

"We know that it is not sustainable to pay people for 60 years to serve for 20," the former Marine Corps Reserve director said.

...is complete and utter BS.

Example 1 - youngster enlists in the military upon graduation at 18 years of age and serves 20 years and retires at 38 years of age - said youngster will be 98 years old using the math in that statement.

Example 2 - youngster decides to go to college, get a degree and then sign up for military service upon graduation at the age of 22 and then serves 20 years and retires at the age of 42 - said youngster will be 102 years old using the math in that statement.

VERY FEW military retirees live to be 98 or 102 years of age. Most die well before that age. According to DoD actuaries... "Rossi also produced average life expectancy comparisons. In 2004, for instance, 60-year-old active duty enlisted retirees had an average life expectancy of 19.6 years." http://www.military.com/features/0,15240,183052,00.html Using the 2004 average of 79.6 years for enlisted active duty, that's an 18.4 year error in the numbers the people in the OPs article are using.

Unless the DOD's actuaries made errors in 2004.

Or the numbers have magically improved to a 98 year life expectancy for active duty enlisted retirees.

Or... I don't know... maybe someone is pushing a point-of-view to reach a desired outcome?




Jaffe,

I don't agree with cutting the retirement (either) but I took what was said in the article a different way:

I hire you right out of high school, you work for me for 20 years....then retire. I pay you for 40 MORE years (for a TOTAL of 60 years) as a pension. That makes the retirement figures in the article more realistic.

AFARR
Link Posted: 9/10/2010 4:12:17 AM EDT
What do you want to bet this fuck has never served? I'm almost tempted to throw down a paycheck. These liberal dicksucks have no idea what it's like to serve your country, to risk life and limb. You want to cut out programs? Start with welfare. Remove those leaches from our system. The amount of bullshit we have to put up with in the military is ludicrous. Like for instance my wife and I want a family. It's kind of hard to make one when I'm deployed. But, these blood sucking leaches can sit around the 'crib' all day and collect their check, text on that smart phone, etc. and what do these people put in? Not a goddamn thing. I think a retirement check and some Tricare insurance is a nice thank you for all your hard work and sacrifice after 20+ years in the service.
Link Posted: 9/10/2010 4:14:53 AM EDT
Originally Posted By Liberation:
My dad spent 20 years in the USN, moving all over the country when his Country needed. Going out to sea for months, etc

I will be fuming mad if they start taking away his insurance, retirement.

Cut welfare, not our militaries benefits.


Cut welfare and deport illegals. Congrats, we're halfway to solving the problem.

Link Posted: 9/10/2010 4:21:42 AM EDT
This is retarded. This is not some corrupt public sector union cutting backroom deals in New Jersey or California. The benefits system for the military has been known and established for decades, and is one of the better aspects of the compensation package. In large part it makes up for crappy base pay. So you change the system, you'll either end up with a crappier class of recruit or you'll have to increase base pay to compensate, resulting in no savings.

IMHO this is just some guy seeking to stick his tongue up the Obamamessiah's asshole.
Link Posted: 9/10/2010 4:30:16 AM EDT
Originally Posted By happycynic:
This is retarded. This is not some corrupt public sector union cutting backroom deals in New Jersey or California. The benefits system for the military has been known and established for decades, and is one of the better aspects of the compensation package. In large part it makes up for crappy base pay. So you change the system, you'll either end up with a crappier class of recruit or you'll have to increase base pay to compensate, resulting in no savings.

IMHO this is just some guy seeking to stick his tongue up the Obamamessiah's asshole.


More realistically, this is the DoD acknowledging that there will be no significant change to the welfare state model we currently operate under, and if we want to recapitalize the force, we'll only have our own resources to do it. Unfair, but life is tough.
Link Posted: 9/10/2010 4:32:47 AM EDT

Originally Posted By Screechjet1:
Originally Posted By happycynic:
This is retarded. This is not some corrupt public sector union cutting backroom deals in New Jersey or California. The benefits system for the military has been known and established for decades, and is one of the better aspects of the compensation package. In large part it makes up for crappy base pay. So you change the system, you'll either end up with a crappier class of recruit or you'll have to increase base pay to compensate, resulting in no savings.

IMHO this is just some guy seeking to stick his tongue up the Obamamessiah's asshole.


More realistically, this is the DoD acknowledging that there will be no significant change to the welfare state model we currently operate under, and if we want to recapitalize the force, we'll only have our own resources to do it. Unfair, but life is tough.

Wait two years to see if the Kenyan is gone before making this kind of structural change.
Link Posted: 9/10/2010 4:45:28 AM EDT
Originally Posted By Bubbatheredneck:
Originally Posted By JAFFE:

Originally Posted By cmjohnson:
Someone who signs his name to a contract for military service is volunteering to subject himself to orders that could quite possibly get him killed. A person who enters into that contract voluntarily and of his own free will certainly DESERVES a solid retirement package and medical care for life if he can make it to retirement age.

If there is one group that deserves a solid retirement, it's those who volunteer for service that could well kill them. Fair's fair. I offer my life
in service to this country, and if I serve my time and survive it, I expect to be repaid in kind...by ensuring that the rest of my life is reasonably
comfortable and my health issues are seen to.


CJ
This.

And...

"We know that it is not sustainable to pay people for 60 years to serve for 20," the former Marine Corps Reserve director said.

...is complete and utter BS.

Example 1 - youngster enlists in the military upon graduation at 18 years of age and serves 20 years and retires at 38 years of age - said youngster will be 98 years old using the math in that statement.

Example 2 - youngster decides to go to college, get a degree and then sign up for military service upon graduation at the age of 22 and then serves 20 years and retires at the age of 42 - said youngster will be 102 years old using the math in that statement.

VERY FEW military retirees live to be 98 or 102 years of age. Most die well before that age. According to DoD actuaries... "Rossi also produced average life expectancy comparisons. In 2004, for instance, 60-year-old active duty enlisted retirees had an average life expectancy of 19.6 years." http://www.military.com/features/0,15240,183052,00.html Using the 2004 average of 79.6 years for enlisted active duty, that's an 18.4 year error in the numbers the people in the OPs article are using.

Unless the DOD's actuaries made errors in 2004.

Or the numbers have magically improved to a 98 year life expectancy for active duty enlisted retirees.

Or... I don't know... maybe someone is pushing a point-of-view to reach a desired outcome?




Graduate HS, join the .mil at 18
Get paid for the twenty you are on active duty.
Retire at 38
Get .gov check for forty more years.
Die at 78

The .gov sent you a check for a total of 60 years (20+40) for your 20 years of work.

Sorry, but it is not sustainable.









I was under the impression that the military retiree only gets his check at 55 y/o and not at the time he retires. This would mean 55 + 40=95 for all of them. Disability does not count, you are paying them because their service broke them (we will ignore the rampant abuse of this for the purposes of THIS discussion).

Now, I understand not wanting to pay them at 55 y/o when the rest of the country gets theirs at 68 y/o. No problem. Don't try and tell me you are going to bend me over because YOU are jealous.
Link Posted: 9/10/2010 4:59:00 AM EDT
Yeah, the only reason I put up with the mediocre pay, lousy hours, and other headaches is due to the fact that I would receive retainer pay at 20 years.

Others have already mentioned to negative effects military life has on the earning power of spouses.

I won't argue whether I "deserve" it or not, as that is highly a matter of opinion, but if Uncle Sugar has no problem with funding generation after generation of welfare rats–– it would be an extreme injustice to mess with our pay while still funding all sorts of stuff for people who never did anything to earn it other than spreading their legs.
Arrow Left Previous Page
Page / 3
Top Top