Proposal to not pay military retirement until 57!

[DblDoc]

Here is real world proof:

Local News | Seattle police love NY response to recruiting pitch | Seattle Times Newspaper

DD

[Nords]

Hey, Leo, thanks, good to see you again. Looking forward to an update about your family's nest-launching college experience...

Quote:

Originally Posted by DblDoc Here is real world proof: Local News | Seattle police love NY response to recruiting pitch | Seattle Times Newspaper

King County is notorious for doing the same scalping headhunting of Hawaii police officers...

[stoutboy]

this would be disastrous to the volunteer military. Comparisons with Megacorp, other federal government workers etc. is specious in my book. The realities and hardships of military life are vastly different and cannot be overstated.

If this awful idea goes through, then it should apply only to the officer corps. Enlisted retirement should not change one iota.

Officers make salaries that are far more comparable to the private sector. They also make enough so they are able to save substantial amounts during their careers if they so desire. It is also easier for them to max out TSP.

An E7 at 20 years, on the other hand, is not even making 4K per month. Her pension will bring about 28K per year. She'll get TSP if she contributed, sure, but she will likely never be in a position to max her contributions, particularly if she has a family. And I really doubt she will be able to set aside any significant portion of her take-home pay for retirement. Certainly no where to the degree of an officer.

I really can't believe anyone would support this, especially the enlisted ranks. You guys are getting a royal screwing and you need to fight it. God bless, and good luck.

[utrecht]

Ziggy,

You've made it very clear over the years, that you think that defined benefit pensions are going to end life as we know it. We all know they are expensive, but you clearly have never served in the miltary or law enforcement, otherwise you would realize how wrong your arguments are.

Im not going to ramble on about all the reasons why you should change your mind because you clearly never will. I'll just say 2 things.

1) Military and law enforecment pensions dont cost nearly what you think they do because ex-military and ex-law enforcement officers life spans are quite a bit shorter than the avg person. You should do some research into that.

2) Since you have never served in the mitiary or law enforcement (Ive done both as well as some normal civilian jobs), you have no earthly idea how much sacrifice is required, how much stress is involved and how it permanently affects a person for the rest of his / her life. People are not going to do these jobs for the amount of money they are paid unless there is a bright light at the end of the tunnel and the light is within reach.

When you talk about miltary and law enforcement pensions the way you do, you remind me of an insurance company denying claims based soley on monetary reasons with total lack of disregard for the human factor involved.

[ziggy29]

Quote:

Originally Posted by utrecht Ziggy, You've made it very clear over the years, that you think that defined benefit pensions are going to end life as we know it.

You've made it clear that you don't realize a post is a year and a half old before you respond to it. And I never said they will "end life" -- just that they need to be reconsidered, recalibrated and/or better targeted for new hires.

[utrecht]

Youve made many more "anti pension" posts in the past few months besides the ones in this thread.

[ziggy29]

Quote:

Originally Posted by utrecht Youve made many more "anti pension" posts in the past few months besides the ones in this thread.

I am most definitely not "anti pension" if benefits are set at sane and sustainable levels. I have often praised the FERS model (which includes a DB pension component) as one that is sustainable, sane and which best captures the "three legged stool" concept of retirement. Which, if you'd look to respond to something less than 18 months old, you would know.

I am anti-"maintaining the status quo" for future new hires in particularly generous plans. I am in favor of re-evaluating public pension systems and determining where they do and do not make sense (i.e. they may make sense for military and cops but not for clerical workers), and to set benefit levels based on realistic future expectations of ROI and increasing life expectancy. I have been consistent about not wanting to change the current deal awaiting anyone already in the plan. So my position is no threat to you.

Reading any beyond that into it requires a hyperactive imagination.

[utrecht]

City clerical workers are not part of the same pension that police officers are in any city Ive ever heard of, so Im not sure where that came from.

I realize that you are only advocating changing benefits for new hires, but your point of view about pensions for military and law enforcement is clouded by the fact that you have never been in the military or law enforcement and because of that you cant fathom the fact that it cant be compared to a standard civilian job. Its not just a job. These people are risking their lives for you. Alot of them are dying for you. They are putting their families second. Alot of them are scarred physically and / or emotionally for life. They deserve a pension that you dont consider to be sane because what they are asked to do is not sane. Until youve done the job and faced the challenges, you will never understand.

[ziggy29]

Quote:

Originally Posted by utrecht City clerical workers are not part of the same pension that police officers are in any city Ive ever heard of, so Im not sure where that came from. I realize that you are only advocating changing benefits for new hires, but your point of view about pensions for military and law enforcement is clouded by the fact that you have never been in the military or law enforcement and because of that you cant fathom the fact that it cant be compared to a standard civilian job.

Need I re-quote what I just wrote?

Quote:

Originally Posted by ziggy29 I am in favor of re-evaluating public pension systems and determining where they do and do not make sense (i.e. they may make sense for military and cops but not for clerical workers)

Two things here -- one, I mention pension SYSTEMS. Plural. Not just one. I know darn well that there are different systems despite your claim that I said they were in the same pension plan. Each needs to be evaluated to see whether they are really necessary as a retention tool.

Second, I acknowledge that there may well be reason to not significantly change things for SOME occupations, and I specifically mention military and law enforcement as likely places where that may be the case. In fact, the reason it CAN'T be compared to any comparable private sector job is one of the main reasons I say that. (I'm pretty sure I've said that before, less than 18 months ago.)

Despite what I just wrote -- not 18 months ago, but today -- you are still making arguments that don't need to be made based on what I said. You're arguing against positions I haven't explicitly taken (other than my belief that collecting a pension at age 38 is absurd -- unless you were disabled in the line of duty, obviously).

As for my thinking being "clouded," maybe so. I also think some people who never worked in the private sector have their positions "clouded" by the fact that many never faced the insecurities of working in the private sector. If they never feared layoffs or losing their health insurance or retirement, I could just as easily say they can't relate to what the private sector worker deals with. Maybe I can't relate to the life of a soldier or a cop, but many in the public sector can't relate the panic of those in the private sector worrying about layoffs, pay/hour cuts and a terrible market threatening their ability to retire at all. It goes both ways.

Adversarially pointing fingers in either direction does no good. But I do think things need to be reviewed in light of all the state and local budget crises exacerbated by out-of-control increases in pension funding liabilities. The taxpayers may appreciate the services they receive, but in the *general* case that only goes so far, especially in times like these when people are asked to take a tax hike to shore up other people's retirements when their own 401K-based retirement is circling the drain.

[Nords]

Quote:

Originally Posted by ziggy29 But I do think things need to be reviewed in light of all the state and local budget crises exacerbated by out-of-control increases in pension funding liabilities. The taxpayers may appreciate the services they receive, but in the *general* case that only goes so far, especially in times like these when people are asked to take a tax hike to shore up other people's retirements when their own 401K-based retirement is circling the drain.

Review away. The veterans, police, and firefighters know how to vote with their feet. The situation will work itself out one way or the other, albeit in a more painful fashion than necessary.

I think comparing "fear of layoff" to "fear of being burned" or "fear of being shot" is, not to put too fine a point on it, a bad foundation for a credible argument.

[Gumby]

Quote:

Originally Posted by utrecht Until youve done the job and faced the challenges, you will never understand.

Dismissing a person's views on this topic just because they have never been in the military is unfair and, I think, a bit unwise. Anyone can have a good idea, and sometimes those who are most immersed in a system are not the best ones to identify where it needs to be changed. Personally, I have always felt that the possibility of an early pension is a key part of the deal when one signs up with the military, but I'm willing to give Ziggy a fair hearing. I would suggest that just a tad more objectivity might be helpful.

[ziggy29]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gumby Dismissing a person's views on this topic just because they have never been in the military is unfair and, I think, a bit unwise. Anyone can have a good idea, and sometimes those who are most immersed in a system are not the best ones to identify where it needs to be changed. Personally, I have always felt that the possibility of an early pension is a key part of the deal when one signs up with the military, but I'm willing to give Ziggy a fair hearing. I would suggest that just a tad more objectivity might be helpful.

Thank you. I could also add that one could apply similar logic and say that we should not allow a president to be Commander in Chief if he didn't serve. How can he make moves with our military if he doesn't understand it? He must not understand it if he never served, yes?

For the most part, I was discussing public pensions in general yesterday (in response to being unfairly tagged "anti-pension" in general) and acknowledged military and law enforcement as possible exceptions to reform for new hires, but everyone keeps getting back to those two areas as if that's the point I'm emphasizing or what I'm "going after."

[utrecht]

I do think the President should be required to serve in the military, and I prefer not to vote for one who hasnt, but this is a democracy and people have the right to vote for whoever they want. I dont think its a major problem because the President has many advisors and I assume he listens to his military advisors on related issues as any good leader would.

If people want to vote for Congressmen who make new laws that curtail military and / or law enforecement pensions, thats their right also, but they wont like the results.

As we speak, in the middle of one of the worst recessions ever, my department has over 200 openings. They have doubled the recruiting staff to try to fill the positions and still cant. My dept. has one of the best (if not THE best) law enforcement pensions in the country and Im sure if you looked at it, you would think it needed to be "reviewed" for new hires, but still, they cant fill the positions. Why do you think this is?

The job HAS to be done. They HAVE to find people to do it. They HAVE to pay people whatever it takes to do the job. If they cant find enough people, they have to raise pay and / or benefits until they do. Its an easy concept really. If a city has money trouble and cant raise taxes, they need to close pools or libraries or cut back on trash pick-up or whatever. They CANT lower law enforcement benefits without serious consequences.

Cut back miltary pay, benefits and /or pensions and you will severely weaken the military. Cut it back far enough and you will have to re-instate the draft because their wont be enough volunteers.

I dont know if you have kids or not, but if you had an 18 year old son, would you advise him to join the miltary right now?

I havent seen anyone argue against reviewing non military / law enforcement pensions, but this is a military thread and youve also posted similar ideas in at least one thread where law enforcement pensions were being discussed.

So if you are only talking about revamping pensions for goverment employees who have administrative type jobs, then we have nothing to argue about.

[ziggy29]

Quote:

Originally Posted by utrecht I havent seen anyone argue against reviewing non military / law enforcement pensions, but this is a military thread....

It was until you made a blanket statement about me being "anti-pension" when I'm not.

And with that, I'm out of this thread.

[Rustic23]

I would like to address the 'fear of being laid off' comment. Anyone that has been in the service knows that this threat exist in the military. For an officer, if he does not make O4, he will be forced out, and 05's also had a mandatory retirement age when I was in. General Officers are, I believe, are the only Officers that can serve beyond 30 years. Now you may be of the school that says 'well 30 years is long enough', but many of the general officers would be glad to continue beyond this point if they could. I am not aware of a single company that has an 'up or out promotion system' similar to the military. The air lines are close with a mandatory retirement age for pilots. It is as if your firm hired 100 accountants and said 'no matter how good you are, only 75% of you can stay with the company' till retirement.

I am not saying the system should not exist as it does. It was put in by Eisenhower after WWII to force senior officers and enlisted to retire. I am just saying that the fear of layoff does exist in the military, maybe not to the extent in the civilian work force but it is still there.

[Bimmerbill]

Army had 28 years total comissioned time, with time added when you hit O6, and more for O7 and above.

Way different rules for medical officers, and I think certain others (JAG maybe?).

There have been many, many programs that were used to force people out (reduction in force).

[jimnjana]

I think changes to the Military Retirement system will occur, this proposal may not fly, but more and more of the military retirement benefits will be pushed into the 401k/tsp vs traditional pension. Fed Gov't civilian retirement plans as well will see the workers assume more risk for their retirement benefits (tsp/401k). This trend will continue as it has in the private sector.

Jim

[chinaco]

I am a veteran and am biased towards veterans' well being.

However, most private pensions that have survived have been modified (with less generous benefits). What has happened in business provides some insight into what will happen for various government employees (including the military).

We are living longer, therefore the cost of pensions have increased. In addition, they were often not funded appropriately. Now that the entities are facing the reality of paying... they are going to have try to fix it.

I suspect the traditional pensions will survive but with less generous benefits. I believe the reduction will be in terms of tax increases (of some sort) and moving the full-retirement age higher. There will probably still be the option to ER at a reduced amount... but it will probably be further reduced from what it is today.

Short of having national health care... I suspect that retirement medical benefits will be reduced also. It may be available, but the Gov employee will shoulder a larger portion of the burden.

Ultimately gov entities will make moves to lower payout one way or the other.

If the general population is not going to get those benefits (traditional pension and medical)... then the writing is on the wall or at least you can see where it is headed.

[Rustic23]

I think a plan that would have the least effect on force levels is to increase the retirement age. For instants, pilots retire from the service at 20 years, age 42-44, on average, and go to the airlines for another 20 years. It is not more strenuous to fly an C-5 than a 747. Well a little if a combat zone is in the picture, but still the same qualifications are required. As the services become more technical and less physical, as folks live longer, and healthier, it would appear that retirement at 25 years would work just as well as 20. Many General Officers stay past 30 years and are productive. It may be that some specialty codes would have a lower retirement age, and just like bonuses these could be recognized and adjusted.

You may also be able to phase it in rather than grandfathering the entire force. I think the younger troops are more interested in current pay and benefits than retirement. About the 10 year point folks begin to focus on retirement, past 15 years many become myopic.

So while I think things may change, I think there are things that can be done that do not have as much impact as others might.

[lets-retire]

Rustic--while you do bring up an interesting point about technology, I think it ignores the basic fact that in most military jobs you are in fact a rifleman first (whether the service agrees or not). The Navy might be the exception, since they are not likely to be attack by ground forces in the middle of the ocean, but they have equally arduous duty, that requires them to maintain a minimal level of fitness. That is my position, fitness. It doesn't matter how carefully you train, if you are training hard enough to be in relatively decent enough shape to go to war, you will most likely suffer lasting injuries (most likely through accidents). Add to that the marginal medical care received at military hospitals and the formula for lasting physical injuries is developed. I had the saying while in, that I really didn't want to serve past 20 years, only because my body wouldn't last that long. At this point I know I was and still am on track to wanting to call it quits after 20 years, not likely to happen since I'm not in the military any longer, but I still have to maintain a high level of fitness. That level of fitness is becoming more and more painful to maintain due, in part, to some of the injuries I suffered while serving.

I would have no problem with the government going to a retirement program for the military similar, if not the same, to the 6(c)/12(d)retirement offered to federal civilian law enforcement, fire fighters, other high risk federal jobs. It allows for 25 and out, or 20 years service and I think it's 52 years old. I don't know what the difference in cost would be, but I don't think the military members should have to pay for the pension side of it.