Military spouses, please read re: change in retirement plan

[Mom in High Heels]

If you haven't read this article about the proposed changes to retirement pay, you need to. If this plan passes, they will not be grandfathering in current troops. This means the contract military members signed with the government will not be honored. I'm absolutely livid about this. James Bond signed on with the agreement that he would receive retirement after 20 years of service. Under the roposed plan, he will not be allowed to get his earned money until 17 years after he retires. That's cr@p. The gov't signed a contract with him and if he decided not to honor his end of it, he'd be considered AWOL and likely thrown in jail. How can they not honor their end?

Edited July 31, 2011 by Mom in High Heels

[Ravin]

I see several consequences here:

 

1. Those injured more likely to seek disability benefits/discharge rather than fighting to stay in the service.

 

2. Lack of incentive to make a career of it making it harder to keep good people. It's already hard enough in many specialties because of the pay gap vs. the private sector. Long term security is the one thing they have going for them. Ditch that, and why stay if you have readily translatable skills that will earn you three times as much in the private sector?

 

3. Me not kicking myself so hard for not staying in the service.

 

This is seriously messed up.

[Mom in High Heels]

2. Lack of incentive to make a career of it making it harder to keep good people. It's already hard enough in many specialties because of the pay gap vs. the private sector. Long term security is the one thing they have going for them. Ditch that, and why stay if you have readily translatable skills that will earn you three times as much in the private sector?

 

 

I see this too. What will that mean for the military? What would make someone want to stay in to become a senior NCO, midgrade or fieldgrade officer? If the military doesn't have these people, it's doomed. They are the ones who have the skills, knowledge and experience to make the military run.

Honestly, I have a hard time seeing this pass, but it could, and that's what scares me. James Bond has been in for 15.5 years. To lose his retirement benefits at 20 years would seriously screw our plans for the future. He had actually planned to stay in past 20, but if this goes through, there's no way he'll stay.

I can understand the need to revise the retirement plan (though why the gov't always go after the military benefits, when they ask so much of them), but the fact that this plan doesn't grandfather in current members who signed up under the agreement that they would be eligible for retirement benefits at 20 years stinks. If they want to revise it, why not do it for new service members? Though I certainly wouldn't want to join up under this plan.

I've spent the morning writing to my state reps (we're legal residents of TN) in the House and Senate.

[Mrs Mungo]

This would have to pass Congress. There is *no way* this plan has enough traction to pass. Military service is hard. It requires a lot of hardships from service members and their families. My eldest will move twice during high school. If you don't offer retirement after 20 years, then there is no way they could keep people that long. You would see way more Majors and First Sergeants walk into contracting jobs instead of sticking it out for their full 20.They can make more money in contracting, work half of the hours and not worry about deployments (yes, some contractors deploy, butthere are more that don't than those who do). How could we ever retire if we aren't grandfathered in to the old plan, and we haven't had 20+ years to invest in he new plan? This is not well thought out, and I don't see it getting enough support to pass.

[Mrs Mungo]

If they want to revise it, why not do it for new service members? Though I certainly wouldn't want to join up under this plan.

 

I think lots of short-timers would sign up to receive desired job skills and partial retirement. There would be more incentives for those types to sign up, and fewer incentives for those planning a military career. It would entirely change military culture.

[Mom in High Heels]

Mungo, I agree that it has little to no chance of passing, but the fact that it's even being proposed ticks me off. It seems like the gov't is ALWAYS trying to reduce military benefits. Maybe they should look at cutting the retirement plan Congress gets. It's much sweeter and costs the country an awful lot of money for not a lot of service, IMO.

[Mrs Mungo]

What I don't understand is how it would cost less to pay retirement to nearly 100% of the force? Only 17% ever receives retirement as things stand.

[Mom in High Heels]

What I don't understand is how it would cost less to pay retirement to nearly 100% of the force? Only 17% ever receives retirement as things stand.

 

Exactly! I'd like to see how they came up with the figure that makes this less expensive.

Also, the investing in the TSP thing is hinky. Putting 12-75% of their annual pay put in the TSP is going to cost a fortune for the govt. While we do inest in TSP, we certainly don't want all of retirement put into it because it's tied to the stock market. If that crashes, what happens to the military's retirement?

This is a stupid, stupid plan.

[TXMomof4]

Mungo, I agree that it has little to no chance of passing, but the fact that it's even being proposed ticks me off. It seems like the gov't is ALWAYS trying to reduce military benefits. Maybe they should look at cutting the retirement plan Congress gets. It's much sweeter and costs the country an awful lot of money for not a lot of service, IMO.

 

 

:iagree:

[TravelingChris]

My dh has 24.5 years in and just started a new job that is for three years so he should be retired at 27.5 years. Before this bill would be effective, his papers would be in so fast they couldn't believe it. I think everyone over 20 would also put their papers in immediately if the plan was to delay retiring till 59.5 years.

 

Oh, and by the way, I am not for raising retirement ages for police, fire or military. There is a reason they had 20 year retirements- the stress of these jobs is such that the average lifespan (and I am not talking about deaths by killing) is much lower than average. Having a 20 year or longer span of high stress puts a lot of wear on the body. Now I have no idea why teachers should have twenty year retirements- that makes no sense.

[WagsWife]

This makes me very thankful that we have one more month of terminal leave, before my DH is officially retired from the AF. You would have thought that they would have learned a lesson from Redux.

 

For a short time, back in the late 80's, contracts for new recruits only allowed for a 40% retirement after 20 years. Of course, it did not take too long before they saw that the people on the 40% plan were not planning to make a career out of the military. Because of this, they had to come up with a plan to help retention. They ended up upping everyone to the 50% (or they were given the chance to keep the 40% and receive a cash payout.)

 

Who on earth would make a career out of the military, with all the deployments, long hours, stress on the families, etc...when they can go out into the civilian sector--be paid more, and and their family be stable?

 

Maybe they want a military with nothing but E-5s' running things?

 

The only reason we stuck it out, was the promise of that immediate retirement check.

[Sebastian (a lady)]

While I understand that the retirement benefits as is are incredibly expensive over the retired life of the servicemember, I think that it stinks that they would consider a change that doesn't grandfather in people near retirement.

 

I'd like to see them explain to me how it was ok for them to put our family through the wringer (with comments like "That's why they are called orders" or "If the military wanted you to have a family, they would have issued you one in your seabag" or "I don't have to explain this to you, you aren't the service member") and expect a 12 hour day as a normal day (for non deployed, non underway days) with no extra compensation or consideration; but our retirement is too luxurious.

 

There are lots of hard jobs in the working world. But no so many that come with a real risk of loss of life as part and parcel of the job. Not so many that think sending you away from your family for months at a time is just part of the job.

 

Really, between the military budget cuts that I expect will happen as a result of the recent debt ceiling agreement and the proposed changes in benefits, I don't think the military ten years from now will at all be what we've grown used to having as a country. I think that the PTB have gotten so used to the military doing impossible things with limited resources that they think there isn't an end to the cuts they can make. I think they are wrong.

[Mom in High Heels]

This makes me very thankful that we have one more month of terminal leave, before my DH is officially retired from the AF. You would have thought that they would have learned a lesson from Redux.

 

 

They still have a version of Redux that they off to service members at 14.5 years. You get $30K (taxed at 28% of course) at your 15 year mark and then at 20 years you only get 40% retirement. If you stay for 25 years, you get 50%. Dh got the paperwork for it this past Sept (when he hit 14.5 years) and had until the day before he hit 15 years to opt out of it or it would be automatic. He opted out, but now he's thinking he should have taken it because we could have invested that $21K and have some money in the bank in case this idiotic plan somehow goes through.

 

While I understand that the retirement benefits as is are incredibly expensive over the retired life of the servicemember, I think that it stinks that they would consider a change that doesn't grandfather in people near retirement.

 

I'd like to see them explain to me how it was ok for them to put our family through the wringer (with comments like "That's why they are called orders" or "If the military wanted you to have a family, they would have issued you one in your seabag" or "I don't have to explain this to you, you aren't the service member") and expect a 12 hour day as a normal day (for non deployed, non underway days) with no extra compensation or consideration; but our retirement is too luxurious.

 

There are lots of hard jobs in the working world. But no so many that come with a real risk of loss of life as part and parcel of the job. Not so many that think sending you away from your family for months at a time is just part of the job.

 

Really, between the military budget cuts that I expect will happen as a result of the recent debt ceiling agreement and the proposed changes in benefits, I don't think the military ten years from now will at all be what we've grown used to having as a country. I think that the PTB have gotten so used to the military doing impossible things with limited resources that they think there isn't an end to the cuts they can make. I think they are wrong.

 

I could kiss you. Do they have a DADT for spouses? :lol: Everything you said is exactly right.

 

I talked to my dad (retired Navy-29 years) about this the other night and he was livid. He hadn't heard about it and while it wouldn't affect him, because he's already retired, he was livid on behalf of James Bond and every other "lifer." He said this could lead to a slew of class action law suits by military members who have binding contracts because the gov't will not be fulfilling their agreement. He said the gov't has the ability to change and amend retirement benefits, but not for people who already have contracts. He said if it went through he'd hire a lawyer for James Bond. :) It's generally known that you can't sue the military, but you can sue the gov't for breach of contract, which is what this would be. He's a post commander for the American Legion and planned to bring this up at their next meeting and start a letter writing and phone calling campaign to the state gov't. He knows people in several different states that belong to the American Legion and he's going to contact them too.

I've already fired off several (respectful) letters to my state gov't and I'm working on several others to different key military supporters in Congress. I'm all about the letter writing!