matmacwc Posted August 16, 2011 Share Posted August 16, 2011 (edited) I think we should be seeing the earliest of the 10yr people eligible to leave in 2012. 2011.....me. And alot of my friends. Edited August 16, 2011 by matmacwc Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Karl Hungus Posted August 17, 2011 Share Posted August 17, 2011 2011.....me. And alot of my friends. Between folks palace chasing with 6-9 months remaining on their ADSC, the limited few who were approved VSP, and the first of the 10 year guys... there will be a bunch getting out this fall. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MilitaryToFinance Posted August 17, 2011 Share Posted August 17, 2011 I think we're focused too much on our small piece of the puzzle here. The VAST majority of people that joint the military are not in the position of AF officer pilots, who have extremely valuable training and the option to go to a ready-made industry. That force support or MX or AFE airman who's enlistment is up may or may not have a lot of other great options outside the military depending on the economy and their education, so their decision to stay in or get out at the end of their commitments (which are much shorter than pilot ADSCs) is quite different. And under the current system you walk away with exactly $0 dollars in your pocket other than your own contributions to TSP and the value of your skills and training. Look, the majority of people are not making the career-or-punch decision at the 10 year point. They're making it at the 4 year or even 3 year point and it's not a career decision, they can re-up for another 3-4 or even just take one more PCS and the accompanying 2 year commitment and stay a little longer. The calculus is quite different and I think if the forums here were better represented with non-aviators we'd be getting a different perspective WRT the thinking behind the decisions to stay versus go. That perspective I think is more in line with the majority of the active force where our concerns, while valid for our community, may not be applicable to the larger force. Like CH said, the Air Force may have some unique challenges under a new system because we rely on the retention of a smaller number of highly-skilled technical operators rather than on larger numbers of relatively less-skilled bodies like in the Army or Marine Corps. As I've said before, the new system puts money into the pockets of a huge number of people, who as you just said, honorably served out their commitments and are patriots. And it does so only for people who take it upon themselves to save for their retirement; if you contribute nothing there's nothing for the government to match. A new system like the one being proposed would both give something to a greater number of service members and would incentivise positive behavior such as savings and planning for retirement at a young age. I like all those things, especially as someone who's inclined to punch at the 7 year point; the current system has nothing for me and I'd be getting a better retirement bang for my buck if I were working a GS position. As one of the few non-pilots on this forum I'll chime in here. I agree that there should be an option for current folks to choose one or the other but I love this proposed plan. I have a 4 year ADSC, when I finish up my first assignment I can get out, PCS and only serve my 2 year additional and get out, a lot more options. Most of us don't incur a 10 year commitment when we go on active duty. I have no intention of staying in 20 years and I'm going to get nothing for it. I contribute to TSP but get no matching, I will never get an annuity or any benefits. I'll serve 4-6 years and get a thank you for your service, don't let the door hit you on the way out and that's it. The current pension system is unsustainable and there is no way anybody can argue that. It's a great deal and I understand the people who are currently serving being pissed if that option is taken away but there is a reason no businesses offer them anymore. People keep throwing up the examples of market fluctuations and what happens if the market crashes when you're at 18 years of service, etc. I hate to sound like a jerk but welcome to the rest of the world folks. This is not some new problem nobody has seen before, this is something all Americans face and is just the reality of any investment. 1 6 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
backseatdriver Posted August 17, 2011 Share Posted August 17, 2011 (edited) ...this is something all Americans face... Except all Americans don't endure the hardships of military service. I think the AFA's response to the proposal said it best: The [Defense Business Board] points out that military pay, healthcare benefits, and retirement benefits exceed that of the private sector today. No data was presented to back up that claim, but even if it is true, it is irrelevant. I know of no company in the private sector that asks its employees to sign a piece of paper saying that, if called upon to do so, they will give their lives in the defense of the parent corporation. Comparisons with the private sector are interesting, but they do not dictate what is appropriate for military members. I'm not saying options aren't good, and I think the ability to leave before 20 with some money in your pocket is a good thing, but I think it's fair to say we shouldn't act like military retirements and civilian retirements should be compared like apples to apples. Edited August 17, 2011 by backseatdriver 1 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
backseatdriver Posted August 17, 2011 Share Posted August 17, 2011 (edited) ...$16.5k max gov't contribution per year unless in CZTE Gov't money spent (not counting overhead etc): 16.5k * 20 = 330,000 ...math, math, math But that's assuming the government is matching $16.5K every year, which they won't be. A new E-1's base pay is $17,611/yr. An O-1 is $33,408. Don't know many guys that are investing 50% of their paycheck in retirement - the enlisted side of the house is right out. Nevermind...keep reading... Edited August 17, 2011 by backseatdriver Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BFM this Posted August 17, 2011 Share Posted August 17, 2011 It's not matching, it's defined contribution (govt will contribute x amount to tsp automatically). In fact I don't recall the DBB proposal mentioning matching specifically. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Champ Kind Posted August 17, 2011 Share Posted August 17, 2011 Will the contribution come out of base pay? If so that's a shitty deal. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
backseatdriver Posted August 17, 2011 Share Posted August 17, 2011 It's not matching, it's defined contribution (govt will contribute x amount to tsp automatically). In fact I don't recall the DBB proposal mentioning matching specifically. My bad, looks like you're right on the defined contribution. This is where I got the idea matching was involved... Slide 19: $16,500 annual tax-deferred contribution limit –Applies to Member contributions from basic, special, incentive and bonus pays –Does not include service matching contributions (for the few service members receiving matching) I wonder who gets matching... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DeHavilland Posted August 17, 2011 Share Posted August 17, 2011 The link works for me, goes directly to the PDF and downloads a 24 slide presentation. Can you post the presentation here for all of us to see? The Defense Business Board is expected to issue final recommendations later this month (August) based upon this presentation. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StoleIt Posted August 17, 2011 Share Posted August 17, 2011 words I thought the "free" college was the benefit for the 4 year ADSC. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hacker Posted August 17, 2011 Share Posted August 17, 2011 (edited) I have no intention of staying in 20 years and I'm going to get nothing for it. I contribute to TSP but get no matching, I will never get an annuity or any benefits. I'll serve 4-6 years and get a thank you for your service, don't let the door hit you on the way out and that's it. Yeah, that's why it's called 'the service', dude. It's never been about what you "get" as an exit bonus when you're done with your time in the service. Besides, that extra stuff you're wishing you got when you leave is all ready there: they're called "veteran's benefits", and it's aimed at exactly the dude you're talking about who joins up, does his time, and then gets out. There's a whole shitload of 'em out there...check 'em out. Edited August 17, 2011 by Hacker 2 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nsplayr Posted August 17, 2011 Share Posted August 17, 2011 Yeah, that's why it's called 'the service', dude. It's never been about what you "get" as an exit bonus when you're done with your time in the service. Yet when you mention changing the benefits you "get" after 20+ years people are up in arms. Isn't it still called "service" for those guys? Be honest, it is a little bit about what you get because if we all just got a pat on the back very few would choose to serve at all. As one of the few non-pilots on this forum I'll chime in here. I agree that there should be an option for current folks to choose one or the other but I love this proposed plan. I have a 4 year ADSC, when I finish up my first assignment I can get out, PCS and only serve my 2 year additional and get out, a lot more options. Most of us don't incur a 10 year commitment when we go on active duty. I have no intention of staying in 20 years and I'm going to get nothing for it. I contribute to TSP but get no matching, I will never get an annuity or any benefits. I'll serve 4-6 years and get a thank you for your service, don't let the door hit you on the way out and that's it. The current pension system is unsustainable and there is no way anybody can argue that. It's a great deal and I understand the people who are currently serving being pissed if that option is taken away but there is a reason no businesses offer them anymore. People keep throwing up the examples of market fluctuations and what happens if the market crashes when you're at 18 years of service, etc. I hate to sound like a jerk but welcome to the rest of the world folks. This is not some new problem nobody has seen before, this is something all Americans face and is just the reality of any investment. There are probably 10x more people who think like this than there are pilots who's views we're more accustomed to hearing around here. Since this would be DOD wide we can't just look at our piece of the puzzle. Someone mentioned that a flood of rated guys leaving was what caused the bonus to come into being (for pilots and ABMs anyways...); isn't that exactly the response that would happen if there were changes to the retirement system that uniquely de-motivated rated guys to stay? Why pay for an unsustainable expensive retirement system for the entire force, rated, support, all the services, etc. when instead you can specifically target career fields disproportionally affected by the change with bonuses or other incentives? Part of what the DBB was talking about was exactly this, making the system more flexible and even rewarding those who serve in combat or overseas more than those who sit at a desk. As it stands now, a pilot and a shoe clerk retiring at 20 years (same rank) get exactly the same amount of money in retirement; it looks like their proposals would seek to "reward" the frequent deployed with greater contributions during their career than the guy who stays at home. 1 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
spaw2001 Posted August 17, 2011 Share Posted August 17, 2011 I am 99% sure that I'm going to punch at the end of my ADSC with 13yrs TIS and this new retirement proposal troubles me. Who the hell is going to stay on AD only to enter the civilian workforce years behind your peers starting anew in your mid 40s? There is no ######ing way any competent/logical person will stay beyond an initial commitment for some BS matching TSP funds. The AF will be left with the hangers-on who have no options in the private sector... not a pretty thought. I also take issue with the notion that if you leave before 20 you leave empty handed. I enlisted at 18 and since then I've built up quite a nice savings, the AF has paid for all of my education through my MBA, pilot training, leadership training/experence, ect... and I still have my GI bill for any further graduate work if needed. Soon enough I will punch in my early 30s and have unlimited career options. Not a bad position compared to many of my civilian peers who have comparable education/training and will be hacking away at student loans for a good portion of their adult lives. Would it be nice to punch with a few more retirement dollars from uncle sam? Sure, but it's not worth gutting the force for that small gain in my opinion. Porkchop, I 69% agree with you here. You are right on about less incentive to stay for a career but, I think the people that stick around that are worth a shit aren't really sticking around for the retirement pay. They are sticking around for career advancement or good opportunities (i.e. foreign exchanges, embassy tours, random cool assignments). After all, how many folks on the fast track do you meet that punch right at 20? Actually, even a lot of donezo Lt Cols I run into stick around a few years beyond 20. If it is for the meager extra couple percentages of retirement per yr, that seems ridiculous to me considering they could make much more in the civilian sector. At the end of the day, I think people stay or go for a variety of reasons and not just retirement pay. In 2010, I made over 6 figures in the mobility world being gone all the time. Not worth the money though. Similarly, the average length of an investment bankers' tenure at a wall street bank after their MBA is 1 year. Why when the pay is so great? It is because job satisfaction, perceived development opportunities, and relevance have been consistent top reasons for people sticking around at their job beyond pay. I am in the same boat. I will be eligible to and plan on punching at the 12.5 point, and it is not contingent on what kind of retirement system is in place. I have my own damn retirement system in place. I am not sure why so many folks live or die by what the government may or may not do. As you say, you have maximized your experiences and used the military programs to get educated. As I have mentioned in previous posts, too many officers (pilots especially) don't follow this model. Instead, they sit around watching government benefits or waiting for the next sortie/racking up hours to be ready when Pan-Am hires again. Of course, I am not saying the government should leave service members high and dry so please spare me the "I got shot at and do so much more than civilians" argument. But, I think we are starting to sound like a bunch of entitlement driven, union-backed civil servants. Read Ralph Waldo Emerson's self-reliance please. It fired me up and reminded me that the government doesn't owe me jack shit so my goal is to prepare myself so I don't have to crawl to them for benefits either. 4 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Catbox Posted August 17, 2011 Share Posted August 17, 2011 I’ve talked ad-nasuem about this on other threads but I too am getting out at 13 years…retirement be damned. I make no bones that this is the hardest decision I have ever had to make because at my deepest core I love being an Air Force officer, I love the “entre” wearing a bag around town gets me, I love it when an old guy shakes my hand and simply says thank you…and I even enjoyed deploying and the only time I shed a tear as an adult was the welcome home I received from total strangers at BWI. But this has to be done…the shenanigans are just too much for me. I’ve spent time away from home and have kids with whom I have to get reacquainted with at least once a year all while my wife has watched her hard earned and expensive education wither away into near uselessness because no company in their right mind would deal with the uncertainty (I guess I shouldn’t forget all the base newcomer’s briefs that remind her of the “great” opportunities at AAFES). I’ve seen mind-numbing stupidity when it comes to uniforms (“combat” uniforms that are essentially shrink-wrap in a fire, “sweat-causing” fabric in the ill-fitting PT uniform and arguments whether a belt should go on the blues). I’ve now seen good majors get fired because they caught a bad break, didn’t have someone looking out for them, wrong place at the wrong time, etc… and didn’t get promoted. No doubt some bad apples got shown the door but how many of those 157 guys were the best sticks in the squadron, the most knowledgeable, trustworthy, etc… I’ve been in squadrons where good CC’s with the best of intentions work ridiculous hours on queep, so much so that they have to be propped up every time they step in the jet. To top this all off I have seen an E-9, in writing, criticize Robin Olds for his famous/infamous appearance. Not attempting for a second to understand what Olds was trying to accomplish…that leadership doesn’t always come out of AFIs, the color of a persons boots and t-shirt, or even some imaginary professional image that has never fully existed anyways. What does my disgust have to do with the current retirement row? If I was still proud to serve I would gladly do the next 7+ years and collect what I felt like was a well deserved retirement. But my disgust with the present state of things means that I would just be a hanger on waiting for the dole like any other welfare recipient, no matter what retirement scheme congress conjures up. For those of you that still feel that pride and want to serve…god bless you…the country needs you. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dubs Posted August 17, 2011 Share Posted August 17, 2011 (edited) my disgust with the present state of things The number one reason I'm punching at the first available opportunity. I've always loved the idea of serving my country and I'll admit patriotism is the reason I joined in the first place, but like it's been said so many times on this site before... patriotism only goes so far. I'm sick of: learning how to do other people's jobs (we all should have like 15 duty badges), learning 100 different office jobs, getting assigned 10,000 additional duties, being denied time to focus on my primary job (which I thought was flying), getting lectured about SOS in correspondence to do SOS in residence, constantly being told by everyone and their mother to take some time to start my masters (even though I'm almost done... good job knowing what your people are doing), being told I'm a piece of sh*t for not volunteering enough, being made to feel like a criminal because I'm not getting 100's on the stupid f'ing PT test, being made to feel like a criminal in general through all of the sexual harassment/equal opportunity/DADT/You're-a-flyer-therefore-I-hate-you briefings that we get, being "Chief'd" (most of the guys were actually SSgts and TSgts) at the chow hall because I'm wearing a green fleece with a flight suit (I'm sorry, seeing as how there's 10 feet of snow on the ground and this is the only "jacket" I have, I thought common sense would prevail) and the grand-daddy of them all... "Doing more with less". All of that crap and more, coupled with the thought that you could spend 15 years dealing with all of this sh*t and then end up getting non-continued or RIF'd or the scarier thought that's now the issue... you could 15+ years in and then end up losing our current retirement plan and end up years behind your peers in the civilian sector. I'm raging just typing this up... Edited August 17, 2011 by Dubs 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DUNBAR Posted August 17, 2011 Share Posted August 17, 2011 The really infuriating, bizarro thing about all of this is they are talking about saving $250B over 20 years with this draconian, slash-and-burn proposal. Math in public, but isn't that like $12.5B/year? Isn't that like beer money when compared to the annual DOD budget? I concede that there will be a day in the near future in which we have to unplug the 20 year retirement system. But before we do something so radical and disruptive, shouldn't we make a real attempt to cut the fat, fraud, waste and abuse in the DOD budget? Here in my undisclosed location in SW Asia, you can't swing your reflective belt without hitting a brand new king cab Ford F150 4x4. Walk through downtown Honolulu on any weekday morning and tell me how many uniformed military personnel are staying at the hotels downtown. Maybe people who set foot somewhere in the vicinity of the middle east for a day don't need that entire month tax-free? Maybe evaluate the 18 gazillion intel agencies that sprung up after 9/11 and see how many are redundant? Sheesh. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vetter Posted August 17, 2011 Share Posted August 17, 2011 The really infuriating, bizarro thing about all of this is they are talking about saving $250B over 20 years with this draconian, slash-and-burn proposal. Math in public, but isn't that like $12.5B/year? Isn't that like beer money when compared to the annual DOD budget? I concede that there will be a day in the near future in which we have to unplug the 20 year retirement system. But before we do something so radical and disruptive, shouldn't we make a real attempt to cut the fat, fraud, waste and abuse in the DOD budget? Here in my undisclosed location in SW Asia, you can't swing your reflective belt without hitting a brand new king cab Ford F150 4x4. Walk through downtown Honolulu on any weekday morning and tell me how many uniformed military personnel are staying at the hotels downtown. Maybe people who set foot somewhere in the vicinity of the middle east for a day don't need that entire month tax-free? Maybe evaluate the 18 gazillion intel agencies that sprung up after 9/11 and see how many are redundant? Sheesh. Or start cutting the fraud, waste, abuse, and improper payments from the over 1,800 federal subsidy programs. That would account for upward of $100 billion per year. Source Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ThreeHoler Posted August 18, 2011 Share Posted August 18, 2011 ...maybe the sky isn't falling after all (or just yet anyway). Holy ######, do people even read threads before they respond? from two days ago, courtesy of Dr. John Dorian. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
matmacwc Posted August 18, 2011 Share Posted August 18, 2011 Speak of slash and burn, hope this story has nothing to do with us new ART hires: http://www.af.mil/news/story.asp?id=123267930 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Hueypilot812 Posted August 18, 2011 Share Posted August 18, 2011 Speak of slash and burn, hope this story has nothing to do with us new ART hires: http://www.af.mil/news/story.asp?id=123267930 I had heard it covered ARTs as well. Not that it directly affects me yet...since I indicated I wanted to Palace Chase I got told I had to do a 182 day deployment first (after having done a 365 just a couple years ago...while assigned to the same wing), and I can't even apply till I'm back from the deployment...I could almost Palace Front by the time I get home. Luckily they are supposed to hire a bunch of ARTs here though. Good luck with the job. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DeHavilland Posted August 18, 2011 Share Posted August 18, 2011 All, Here is a list of the 12 Senators and Representatives that are sitting on the Super Congress that will determine where to find all the budget cuts needed to fix the fiscal mess this country is in. I encourage you to contact each of them and tell them your opinion of the proposal to change military retirements. Also listed is the link to the full Congress. Use that to contact your individual congressman or senator to tell them also what you think. You can be a sheep and let the wolves rule and take what comes or you can be a sheep dog and stand up and at least be part of the democratic process and tell them what you think. Sorry for the lousy copy, but it list the persons name, party, state, office phone, website and Wash DC address for snail mail NAME PARTY STATE PHONE WEBSITE ADDRESS James E. Clyburn D SC 202 225-3315 http://clyburn.house.gov/ 2135 Rayburn House Office BLDG, Wash. DC 20515 Chris Van Hollen D MD 202-225-5341 http://vanhollen.house.gov/ 1707 Longworth House Office BLDG, Wash. DC 20515 Xavier Becerra D CA 202-225-6235 http://becerra.house.gov/ Max Baucus D MT 202-224-2651 http://baucus.senate.gov/ 511 Hart Senate Office BLDG, Wash. DC 20510 John Kerry D MA 202-224-2742 http://kerry.senate.gov/ 218 Russell Senate Office BLDG, Wash. DC 20510 Patty Murray D WA 202-224-2621 http://murray.senate.gov/public/ 448 Russell Senate Office BLDG, Wash. DC 20510 Fred Upton R MI 202-225-3761 http://upton.house.gov/ 2183 Rayburn House Office BLDG, Wash. DC 20515 Dave Camp R MI 202-225-3561 http://camp.house.gov/ 341 Cannon House Office BLDG, Wash. DC 20515 Jeb Hensarling R TX 202-225-3484 http://hensarling.house.gov/ 129 Cannon House Office BLDG, Wash. DC 20515 Jon Kyl R AZ 202-224-4521 http://kyl.senate.gov/ 730 Hart Senate Office BLDG, Wash. DC 20510 Rob Portman R OH 202-224-3353 http://portman.senate.gov/public/ 338 Russell Senate Office BLDG, Wash. DC 20510 Pat Toomey R PA 202-224-4254 http://toomey.senate.gov/ 502 Hart Senate Office BLDG, Wash. DC 20510 YOUR CONGRESSMAN http://www.house.gov/ YOUR SENATOR http://www.senate.gov/ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
di1630 Posted August 18, 2011 Share Posted August 18, 2011 Speak of slash and burn, hope this story has nothing to do with us new ART hires: http://www.af.mil/news/story.asp?id=123267930 You are good, ARTs are exempt.....for now. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DeHavilland Posted August 18, 2011 Share Posted August 18, 2011 All, Here is the actual briefing by the Defense Business Board. The word "unfair" is used alot. Lots to digest. Page 22 states that all AC personnel start to accrue new benefit for the balance of their service payable under new terms. I read that as not a 100% grandfathering. Much has been said here, but I will add my opinion. When I joined the military in 1983, yeah that was 28 years ago, I did it fully hoping to make it to 20 years and fully expecting a pension at that time. Well, I hit 20 and the money was good and most importantly, I was still enjoying coming to work everyday. So, I have stayed in. At 30 years, I am out with 75% waiting on me. During all this time, I have moved 10 times, the kids have gone to schools all over the world and my well educated wife has not worked a steady job since 1994. I have bought and sold and made and lost money on houses all over the country. I have saved when I could and contributed to my TSP and other investmenst on a regular basis. So, now the verbal contract I had with the military is possibly about to be broken. Why? Because it is unfair. BS. Every person who joins up knows they have to stay to 20 to get a pension. There was no vagueness in that. So, they get out at 8-12 years and feel they got ripped. Sorry, but the gov't was just living up to its end of the bargain. Stay to 20 and get a pension, get out early and get nothing. There was no surprise in that. They knew that all along. So, now to be "fair" they want to take from me and the 100,000+ others retirement ready or near there and give to guy who gets out after 8 years. BS. The slides say only 17% stay till retirement. That is those that are willing to put up with all the BS for 20 years. They deserve something. If you serve less than 20, you still have a TSP. While not as nice as most private sector, it is something. Ask me about my years pre-TSP. I never complained. I just did my own saving and investing. So, the contract is aobut to be changed and only those that benefit are happy. They are those that get out prior to 20. I have nothing against those that get out. Less than one-half of one percent of Americans serve. Just don't get out and expect to be paid for it out of my retirement check.DBB Military Retirement Final Presentation.pdf Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HU&W Posted August 18, 2011 Share Posted August 18, 2011 Here is the actual briefing by the Defense Business Board. The word "unfair" is used alot. Lots to digest. Page 22 states that all AC personnel start to accrue new benefit for the balance of their service payable under new terms. Quote from page 2... Provide recommendations that will enable the system to be fiscally sustainable and recruit and retain the highest personnel required for our nation’s defense. That's right, because you'd have to be high to think this would work out like they want. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest CAVEMAN Posted August 18, 2011 Share Posted August 18, 2011 Quote from page 2... That's right, because you'd have to be high to think this would work out like they want. The economy is not fantastic for those running for the door. And if every one leaves, they will throw bonuses at those of us who were already planning to stay . 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now