Military retirement under attack

[pcola]

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?

Maybe I'm missing your point, or maybe my math is bad, but why would anybody stay in that Battalion for 7+ years? Pretty sure I would've punched during the "home for 16" part.

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.

Mine says 8/21/12. I used 27 days of use/lose and I've been gone at least 45 days already since my short tour return. I don't even fly tankers.

[Duck]

Yeah, they did the OUP, OEF, then back to OUP. Then back to OEF for just a quick 77 day which ended up being extended to almost a 180 because they didn't have a pilot to fill the next line. Not sure on all the math, but I know the base was pretty proud of their almost 1:1 deploy/dwell ratio but what the numbers didn't show were all the guys on staff who hadn't deployed for the year, but were still being counted in the numbers. No complaints from me, but I am not the one picking up the burden like these guys are.

[Lawman]

Maybe I'm missing your point, or maybe my math is bad, but why would anybody stay in that Battalion for 7+ years? Pretty sure I would've punched during the "home for 16" part.

Warrants can IPCOT (In Place Continuation of Tour) and 6 years is actually more the norm. Doing 3 and punching typically lends you no rewards or support from the Battalion/Brigade as far as getting the right jobs/schools for that next promotion board your looking at. So we've got a lot of guys that are locked in for all that bullshit. One of those deployments wasnt supposed to happen, but when another unit failed its NTC rotation so badly that they were deemed undeployable this battalion got the bad news.

Our favorite part is that our Brigade HQ went home on this deployment about 3-4 months in to it and left all their battalions here. So on Paper it looks like as a Brigade we will get our 18 month mandatory dwell time.

Edited December 8, 2012 by Lawman

[Smokin]

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.

I don't pretend to know everyone's deployment schedule. That's why I said "who deploys for 4 months?" rather than "no one deploys for 4 months."

[Guest]

Nice try.

[itsokimapilot]

I don't pretend to know everyone's deployment schedule. That's why I said "who deploys for 4 months?" rather than "no one deploys for 4 months."

There are many of "us" that deploy for 4 months. Even more of us deploy for 2 months.

[Magellan]

BOHICA.

Get ready to pay for your own retirement.

If they weren't already I doubt they will start now.

[HeloDude]

Just think, if we had a Union, then we'd be better represented in regards to lobbyists.

[ThreeHoler]

The arguments in that article can be found as far back as 1948, when the current 20 year retirement program was set up.

[Skitzo]

2 percent sounds like a good deal provided it has nothing to do with voluntary separation pay or separation pay should it come to that which I think it will.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Champ Kind]

Not attacking you, but it's that attitude that will lead to a significant loss of benefits. "Oh, that's not a big deal..." will be said with every contribution and degradation of benefits.

And to the good Congressman saying that 44 cents on the dollar goes to military personnel... there are a mind-boggling number of ways this country could save money. Congress loses credibility to address the problem with each passing day.

I think the irony is that the money "saved" with mandatory retirement contributions will be lost with recruitment/retention bonuses when numbers in those areas tank.

[matmacwc]

It will look much like the ANG DSG retirement soon, benefits at 60.

[BFM this]

It will look much like the ANG DSG retirement soon, benefits at 60.

When the Defense Business Committee, or whatever it was called, drafted their proposal to shift from a defined benefit, to a defined contribution a couple of years ago, I ran some numbers. What I expected to find was that there would be some reduction in the overall retirement benefit.

What I found, was that it ended up being about a 76% reduction in the benefit between an over-20 member now, to what they were proposing. Other than the fact that some of that reduction was essentially spread across more members in the form of earlier vesting, I thought that figure was staggering, and most certainly would be a game changer in our mid grade NCOs and FGOs and their retainability.

[SocialD]

Just think, if we had a Union, then we'd be better represented in regards to lobbyists.

The technician work force has a union and I think they've been on a pay freeze for a few years now. Or were for a few year period in the last 3-4 years.

[MC5Wes]

Its has been 3 years without a raise. January will be 4.

Plus I lost 48 hours of pay this year staying home for the furlough.

Please Lord let there be a civilian VERA/VSIP soon.

[nsplayr]

Not attacking you, but it's that attitude that will lead to a significant loss of benefits. "Oh, that's not a big deal..." will be said with every contribution and degradation of benefits.

This is the MOAA-type attitude that makes me wanna puke.."Never give an inch!!!" Seriously? Equating a 2% contribution for an extremely generous pension to other huge changes is the kind of games most people hate when politicians play. Some things are a big deal and we should fight them, others while not ideal are not worth blowing your load over STS. Something about picking your battles...

Changing the age when you can start getting paid from immediately to age 60...big fucking deal. I'm not a fan of that at all unless they radically overhaul the entire military pay/benefits/retirement system. A 2% contribution while you're on AD only paid by officers...not nearly as big.

Don't get me wrong, I don't want to take a 2% pay cut more than anyone else, but then again I'm also not advocating for huge cuts in the federal budget. Cancel sequestration without requiring kabuki theater offsets that "raise revenue" without raising taxes or reforming social safety net programs and we can forget about all this nonsense.

I for one vote that if AD starts contributing to their retirement you either A) partially vest much earlier than 20 years (i.e. 5 years ish seems right) or B) you get refunded your contributions if you punch before 20. Otherwise, unless you only make officers contribute, it's just basically stealing from mostly junior enlisted (and anyone else who doesn't make it to the full 20) to pay for a retirement benefit that goes to a small fraction of all those who ever served, who are also mostly officers.

Edited December 9, 2013 by nsplayr

[Herk Driver]

to pay for a retirement benefit that goes to a small fraction of all those who ever served, who are also mostly officers.

Really?

[nsplayr]

to pay for a retirement benefit that goes to a small fraction of all those who ever served, who are also mostly disproportionally officers.

Really?

Fixed for accuracy.

Edited December 9, 2013 by nsplayr

[ClearedHot]

to pay for a retirement benefit that goes to a small fraction of all those who ever served, who are also mostly disproportionally officers.

Huh? In almost every category the number of retired E-7's alone exceeds the combined total of ALL retired officers by a factor of two.

[Spartacus]

This is the MOAA-type attitude that makes me wanna puke.."Never give an inch!!!" Seriously? Equating a 2% contribution for an extremely generous pension to other huge changes is the kind of games most people hate when politicians play. Some things are a big deal and we should fight them, others while not ideal are not worth blowing your load over STS. Something about picking your battles...

I see what you are saying. You make a point, but I think the problem that a lot of military personnel have with this is that there are so many other areas in the federal budget that could be cut instead of military pay and benefits. Doesn't the military already give WAY more than the average person? It's kind of a slap in the face to ask someone in the military for a pay cut when Congress won't do anything to their own pay and benefits? It's kind of like the DOD and Congress complaining about the skyrocketing cost of Tricare etc over the past ten years when in reality have they ever acknowledged that a factor in this might be the fact that over the past ten years a lot of military members have had a limb blown off and are suffering from PTSD? Maybe that is contributing to the higher costs? Maybe the higher personnel costs are also due in part to the increased size of the military? I'm also really tired of people comparing the military to a civilian job. They are in no way the same except with rare exception.

[Egghead]

In absolute numbers, enlisted retirees absolutely outnumber officer. In terms of percentages, they are not representative of the force at large. I think that's what nsplayr is referring to when he says dispropotionately.

In 2011:

Retired- 27% officer, 73% enlisted

DoD - 17% officer, 83% enlisted

https://www.dmdc.osd.mil/appj/dwp/reports.do?category=reports&subCat=milActDutReg

The AF does better because our officer ratio is higher (R: 25/75, DoD: 19/81) but the gap is very large in the Army and USMC.

[ClearedHot]

In absolute numbers, enlisted retirees absolutely outnumber officer. In terms of percentages, they are not representative of the force at large. I think that's what nsplayr is referring to when he says dispropotionately.

In 2011:

Retired- 27% officer, 73% enlisted

DoD - 17% officer, 83% enlisted

https://www.dmdc.osd.mil/appj/dwp/reports.do?category=reports&subCat=milActDutReg

The AF does better because our officer ratio is higher (R: 25/75, DoD: 19/81) but the gap is very large in the Army and USMC.

10% is hardly a concerning gap especially when you consider how the other services approach enlistment. In the Marines it is common and somewhat expected that a large portion of the enlisted force will only complete one tour. And those who do serve under those circumstance do get the benefit of, compensation, a lot of valuable training and the GI Bill in return for their service.

[FlyinGrunt]

With regards to quality of life and deployments, especially towards the Army: the grass is greener on both sides. While I have nothing but respect for those who endured, say, the 1 AD's legendary 18 month deployment to Iraq during the early stages of OIF, the short deployment plan has hazards too. Just ask the numerous units who spent a decade on 2 on, 2 off, for instance. Sure, you're never gone for long. But you're never home either. I have seen the divorce rates from that schedule, and they compete with Bragg any day.

And there are still a number of units on 4 on, 4 off . . . until told otherwise. It's tough all over, and when there's no light at the end of the tunnel, reducing compensation is not going to help matters. At all.

[Homestar]

http://www.businessinsider.com/tony-carr-pentagon-budget-vultures-target-personnel-2013-3

I’ve written elsewhere that today’s military personnel, though they’re not asking for additional compensation, would be a bargain at twice the current rate. Given that the $189B in total compensation paid to American servicemembers last year equates to less than 2% of the adjusted gross income of America’s top 1% wage earners — who have not been asked to dig into their pockets to fund the defense of the free enterprise system that has allowed them to amass considerable wealth — military manpower is actually amazingly affordable. DoD’s concern that retirement benefits could consume $3.85T in obligations two decades from now is valid, but misplaced. Rather than worrying about how to pay for it, DoD should worry about how to reinforce to the American people, who voted for and endorsed a war in Iraq that has a price tag approaching $6T, that war is expensive; the cost can be delayed, but must eventually be counted. Whatever the bill for veteran services in the future, it’s part of the price tag of a war already fought, and there is no moral way to avoid settling up.

From Tony Carr

[BitteEinBit]

If anyone thinks "retirement benefits" are off the table, I want some of what you're smoking.

Sure, I know the administration said that any changes wouldn't affect currently serving members of the military, but this is the same administration that said "If you like your doctor, you can keep your doctor"...which is true, you can keep your doctor...you'll just pay more for insurance for that same doctor. I'm thinking there is more to the quote after "changes won't affect currently serving members..." Just listen to the verbiage when this administration makes promises to you. We'll probably still have a retirement, but like the deal with the doctors and insurance, it isn't going to be exactly what you're expecting.

For those currently in the service who would theoretically be "grandfathered," at a minimum I would expect a change in either how they calculate retirement pay like nixing high-three and making it a high-five with a kick in the nuts, or change WHEN you actually start collecting (age 50+). Either way, we're going to get less than what we expected. Count on it....