Military retirement under attack

[RAMurai]

Huggy, you and I both know that the list of reasons we joined is not the same as the list of reasons we stayed beyond our initial commitments.

There are similarities, but there are also some very important differences.

[Guest]

Huggy, you and I both know that the list of reasons we joined is not the same as the list of reasons we stayed beyond our initial commitments.

There are similarities, but there are also some very important differences.

Are the two lists really that different?

What are the very important differences?

[albertschu]

Time will tell. Possibly longer initial service commitments for one, healthcare benefits for military members with family medical issues, the desire to serve ones country, this list can go on forever.

Still not sure how your system differentiates turds from non-turds. Don't turds also want free heathcare?

But what would happen if dudes were in a position to stand up for what is right vs what will get them promoted if they weren't gambling it on an all or nothing retirement?

Valid. Although the current system does provide this sort of protection for folks that have already earned their pension. And if you had to choose between capts standing up for what is right and GOs standing up for what is right, I'd pick GOs.

Yes, but you would see a lot more of it.

I don't see how it logically follows that removing the pension system would result in more bonuses, nor do I see the benefit to the tax payer of paying more bonuses.

No but it is much more flexible. If they need to cut costs immediately and going forward they can reduce the size of the force. Once people are on a pension they are always on that pension. Switching to a system like this would force military members to be financially savvy and make good decisions or suffer the consequences.

I disagree. I think it is more flexible to underpay everyone upfront. Once people have been paid huge salaries and big bonuses, they have always been paid huge salaries and big bonuses. I'm too lazy to explain sunk cost more and I'm too lazy to post the link to the wikipedia article, you can look it up.

I don't see how forcing military members to be financially savvy is good for the members, the military, or for the taxpayers. From a national security POV, do we want the military to be full of prudent investors concerned with long term gains or to we want people that will take a hill when their country needs them to and trust that their country will take care of them?

My point was people will quit and go somewhere else if they don't feel adequately compensated.

OK, but from the taxpayers' POV, the pension system is better, since it makes people feel like they are adequately compensated when perhaps they are not.

[RAMurai]

Are the two lists really that different?

What are the very important differences?

The differences mainly stem that I signed on the dotted line as a single guy in college. Now, I'm in my 30s with a family.

Things I hadn't considered as positives:

- Health care for life in retirement

- The retirement cash flow

- Vet's benefits for myself, wife, and children

Things that I used to not care about, but now matter quite a bit:

- How much I'm home

- Missed birthdays/holidays

- My kids being able/unable to get to know their grandparents

...to name a few.

Don't get me wrong: When I was 20, I didn't think that a career in the military would be a cakewalk. Now that I'm watching my daughter grow up (way too fast!) right before my eyes, I think hard about why I do what I do and whether or not it's worth it.

It's still worth it, of course. However, it's definitely NOT your normal civilian career.

If my pay/benefits were changed to reflect what's "normal" for a civilian career, you bet your ass I'd have to re-evaluate my current plan to give 20+ years of service.

[Magellan]

And if you had to choose between capts standing up for what is right and GOs standing up for what is right, I'd pick GOs.

The decisions that Generals make on a daily basis do very little to affect my day to day life/work schedule, but maybe your squadron is run by General Officers. Mine is run by Captains, Majors, and Lt. Cols most of whom are under 20 years and still hoping for at least one more promotion before retirement for the most part. This limits their willingness to put their foot down and take a stand when it comes to taking care of their people, because they have something to lose by not keeping their bosses happy.

[HuggyU2]

Huggy, you and I both know that the list of reasons we joined is not the same as the list of reasons we stayed beyond our initial commitments.

There are similarities, but there are also some very important differences.

Well,.. for me, many of the reasons are the same.

I'm also a pilot who separated at the 15 year point. After being out a little over a year, I realized I had made a mistake, and worked to come back on active duty. Fortunately for me, I made that decision about 6 weeks before 9/11.

I have not regretted it. I like what I do.

Edited November 6, 2012 by Huggyu2

[RAMurai]

Well,.. for me, many of the reasons are the same.

I'm also a pilot who separated at the 15 year point. After being out a little over a year, I realized I had made a mistake, and worked to come back on active duty. Fortunately for me, I made that decision about 6 weeks before 9/11.

I have not regretted it. I like what I do.

Many, but not all. Many of my reasons are the same, as well. I'm just stating that there are some key differences between what I thought was important at 20 vice what I think now.

Like you, I love what I do and I don't regret one second of it.

[brabus]

Meanwhile Congress' ridiculous retirement remains untouched. Perfect.

[Cap-10]

Where does it actally state that 20yrs of active duty = immediate pension?

I've been reseraching 36-3203 and 36-3209 as well as parts of the US Code Title 10, but everything I've found so far just states things like, you can retire after 20 years, 10 years mimum as officer if prior E, etc, but I haven't been able to find in writing that once retired, you get your $ right away.

Help?

Cheers,

Cap-10

[HeyWatchThis]

Any dudes who went thru the 90's draw down want to chime in? Was military pay/benefits/retirement put under the microscope back then as much as it seems to be now?

[Guest]

No.

[Butters]

No.

No, you don't want to chime in or No, it was not put under the microscope?

[Guest]

No, not under the microscope. I can't remember if that was when they implemented high three retroactive.

[sputnik]

I think that's when we got a bunch of big raises wasn't it?

Or maybe we didn't and they started playing catch up end of 90s.

Yes, another useful input

[MilitaryToFinance]

More writing on the wall: Much in line with the report I posted from the "liberal think tank" that some believed wasn't to be taken seriously, The Congressional Budget Office just released a detailed report effectively saying we enjoy too much pay and too many benefits.

http://www.cbo.gov/s...itaryComp_0.pdf

Apparently, the military retirement system is approaching $1 Trillion in unfunded liabilities.

Also,

Hear me out on this one before you attack me, I think the problem is that we are paid based on rank and TIS not AFSC. For the majority of Air Force officers I would argue we are fairly paid if not over-compensated for the amount of work done. I'm talking about support roles, not pilots/navs here. Looking at acquisitions officers, scientists, finance officers, personnelists etc the pay and benefits are above industry standards. As an engineer my Lt pay was certainly lower than what I would have gotten in industry but by the time you make Captain the pay and benefits are actually higher than comparable civilian jobs. I'm in the process of separating so I've looked at this quite a bit. The average work-week in my office is 40 hours, 45 hours is a "long week," even for the O-5/O-6's more than 45 hours would be outside the norm. If you include tax benefits, medical benefits and actual pay I'm making the equivalent of about $90,000 salary at a civilian company. Not to mention 4 weeks of vacation and thousands a year in tax free per diem. So I work less hours, have better benefits and equal or more pay than if I left and took the same type job at a civilian company. And that is in a low cost of living area. I know Captains at LA AFB making around $110,000/year working 40 hours a week. That is just speaking for acquisitions but seeing how often all the "support" functions on base are closed and I think it is safe to say that most of those officers aren't working 50+ hour weeks.

Then you have pilots who deploy all the time, work longer hours in worse conditions than civilian pilots for less pay. But in order to give pilots a pay raise you also have to give the rest of us a raise too because of how the pay system works. Unless you go towards AFSC-specific bonuses instead of actual pay raises. As much as I love money it would be hard for me to explain why I need a pay raise. I'm not trying to diminish the incredible amount of suck that some career fields go through nor am I saying that everybody is overpaid. I'm just trying to highlight an example of why it is easy for people to think that. Most people here are pilots, surrounded by other pilots, who feel justifiably under-paid. But when I look around my office or the MPF I see lots of overpaid individuals and wasted dollars and sadly you're stuck with us.

[Karl Hungus]

I don't know anyone that I work with that feels that they're underpaid. We make damn good money and enjoy great benefits. Comparable civilian pilot jobs make far less initially, and take a while to catch up. The biggest difference is improved quality of life in the civilian sector, or at least the freedom to have some sort of control over your life.

Start cutting/ delaying the pension and benefits (it WILL happen) and suddenly putting up with multiple 365s to shitholes and a PCS to Cannon as your wife and kids leave you doesn't sound so appealing.

[Duck]

Talking to some of my buddies flying tankers who have been gone over 300 days this year and almost 300 days the year before, they feel underpaid.

[ThreeHoler]

Talking to some of my buddies flying tankers who have been gone over 300 days this year and almost 300 days the year before, they feel underpaid.

That's a lot of dwell time waivers...Although last year they were running the OEF/OUP scam of deploy to OUP, deploy to OEF during your dwell for OUP, then go back to OUP.

I'd like to see the proof though, I find 300/yr two years in a row hard to believe.

[Guest]

Unless they were able to end the engagement by destroying the site.

[schokie]

Unless they were able to end the engagement by destroying the site.

That right there is job satisfaction that no civilian job can match.

[Lawman]

That's a lot of dwell time waivers...Although last year they were running the OEF/OUP scam of deploy to OUP, deploy to OEF during your dwell for OUP, then go back to OUP.

I'd like to see the proof though, I find 300/yr two years in a row hard to believe.

How about being part of a Battalion that was deployed for 15 months... home for 10... deployed for 12 months.... home for 16,,,, Finishing deployed for 10 months... planning to be home for 13.5.... and already on the patch chart to redeploy for 9 months (just short enough to not get R&R). 18 month dwell time? Bueller?

Keep in perspective guys when your talking about "how much this sucks" most of you are doing it from the greener grass. Not saying 4 month or whatever you do isnt shitty. Just saying when somebody comes up with the "well guys it really isnt all bad for everybody" go ahead and punch that guy in the dick for me.

[ThreeHoler]

How about being part of a Battalion that was deployed for 15 months... home for 10... deployed for 12 months.... home for 16,,,, Finishing deployed for 10 months... planning to be home for 13.5.... and already on the patch chart to redeploy for 9 months (just short enough to not get R&R). 18 month dwell time? Bueller?

Keep in perspective guys when your talking about "how much this sucks" most of you are doing it from the greener grass. Not saying 4 month or whatever you do isnt shitty. Just saying when somebody comes up with the "well guys it really isnt all bad for everybody" go ahead and punch that guy in the dick for me.

No complaining from me.

Don't know the Army rules and frankly don't care. I'm curious as to the legitimacy of Duck's claim that his tanker buddies have been gone >600 days in two years...but hey, their STRD ought to be pretty recent based on the 548/3 year rule.

[Smokin]

Who deploys for 4 months? Everything I've heard of for the last 2+ years is six months or more. And there seems to be an assumption that when you're at home, you're actually at home. In reality, most fighter guys are working 55-60 hours a week when we're home and have TDYs that vary between 2 and 5 weeks every couple months. I'm not trying to compare deployment histories or say 'woe is me', but just because I'm 'home' doesn't mean I always see my kid during the week. I don't think that we're overpaid and I bet the vast majority of my squadron agrees.

[SocialD]

There are lots of different deployment schemes out there...don't think you know how everybody rolls just because you guys might do 6s or whatever type of rotation you're on.

So let me get this straight...not everyone in the Air Force deploys on the same cycle?!?

Edited December 8, 2012 by SocialD

[joe1234]

That's a lot of dwell time waivers...Although last year they were running the OEF/OUP scam of deploy to OUP, deploy to OEF during your dwell for OUP, then go back to OUP.

I'd like to see the proof though, I find 300/yr two years in a row hard to believe.

Of course you find it hard to believe. That's because you're operating under the assumption that every base actually complied with dwell time regulations.