Just a vent: Reducing retirement benefits/pensions

[booyah]

I was reading the AF Times and yet another study came out of the Pentagon saying that military retirement pensions and other benefits should be reduced. This study said retirement pay after 20 years should start at 40% of base pay and only start when the retiree reaches age 60. Also, Tricare would increase dramatically.

Do these people actually think people will stay in the military if you reduce the pensions like that? Right now I have 10 years active duty and husband has 12, and we operate under constant worry of joint assignments, deploying at the same time, etc. We've already spent 2 years apart and found out DH has to go to a year long master's degree program (that he didn't apply for) next year...in a different state. I will probably deploy while he's gone, so we either need to pull our kids from school so they can live with him, or have our parents come here to take care of them while we are gone.

WTH would anyone do that when the Reserves retirement is the same or better than AD? Hells to the no. These think tanks that come up with slashing benefits have not realized how this will hollow out the force because people will not put up with the crap if there is no reward.

[booyah]

They only wanted to grandfather in people with over 10 years. And kudos to you if you are willing to join and spend 20 years not living where you want, not necessarily with your spouse, and away from your kids in order to get a small pension when you are 60. Since you say you "will still try to join" I'm assuming you haven't lived with these uncertainties of being dual-mil....I'd be curious to talk to you after you've spent a few years away from your spouse and/or kids. :-)

[booyah]

And I'm well aware these are recommendations....notice I said "think tank" and "study," plus I work at the Pentagon....
But these sorts of studies are getting more notice....there will be an overhaul, it's just a matter of when and how much.

[Dory1988]

I love how you think the "uncertainties" are limited to those who are dual mil. Thank you for cheapening what I'm going through as I can't find the job I need in order to live with my husband though. Because I almost wasted my entire college education once, I'm living across the country from my husband but a little old civilian wife like me couldn't possibly understand that. If something like this were to go through in the next few years and only those with 10+ years were grandfathered in I'd still encourage my husband to stay in until retirement. 40% of base pay after 20 years of service is still WAY more than he'd be getting after 20 years service anywhere in the civilian world. There, he'd be getting nothing except whatever we chose to save up ourselves over the years. Good for him if he can get that much.

[Dory1988]

Also, if they're "cutting AD benefits" do you really think they wouldn't do the same thing in the reserves?

[basilosaurus]

I'm totally OK with people not collecting until 60. Retiring at 37 or 41 is admittedly absurd. While it would be awesome, and we do talk about how it would free us to have enjoyable but lower paying jobs, it's really quite unnecessary.

[krista]

I would also be ok with not collecting until later, as long as you could stay in until that point. But unfortunately, the current rank structure doesn't support that.
I'm also ok with increases in Tricare costs. Right now it's $450 a year, correct? Many families pay twice that per month. I'm actually in favor of increasing Tricare costs for AD as well.
The talk of changing the retirement system has been worrisome for a while. I'm just glad my husband has enough years in that any changes will hopefully not affect him.

[basilosaurus]

Nov 16, 2012 11:58:18 GMT -5 krista said:

I would also be ok with not collecting until later, as long as you could stay in until that point. But unfortunately, the current rank structure doesn't support that

Why? Do you think people are unable to get another job after retirement?

The people who have the best scam going are the guys who retire on Friday and come back to work on Monday in the same job but as a contractor. Nice gig.

[audette]

The report is recommendations from a think tank. At this point, that's all they are. It's not the first time recommendations to slash retirement and tricare have been proposed by a think tank, so I'm not going to get too stressed out yet.

But, it's worth mentioning that substantial changes/reductions to the benefits in any form are going to make people rethink their decision to stay in the military. It changes the basic elements of the equation people look at when considering their service (or lack thereof).

Certainly, if DH was no longer to received as generous a retirement, we'd seriously consider throwing in the towel, and pursuing my career more fully. I could easily earn enough to provide for the both of us and children, particularly if I could pick where I got to live, and DH spent some time being the trailing spouse...


I do think it's short-sighted to reduce benefits this way, because I feel it will drive off the exact people the military wants to retain - those who are most successful in the military are likely also quite capable of being successful outside the military, and I think they'll realize the disparity in compensation for what is asked of them in the military. This is why I think that the extreme set of recommendations will never come to pass. A modified variation on them, however, might be seen as a lesser evil.


I'll admit I know very little about Tricare after retirement. I know it exists, and that it has user fees similar to private insurance, but I also am under the impression that these fees are substantially lower than other insurance options. So, I can't speak much to it.

I wonder, to some extent, how the Affordable Care Act, and potential future modifications to it will impact the costs for Tricare.

[krista]

Nov 16, 2012 12:22:35 GMT -5 basilosaurus said:

Nov 16, 2012 11:58:18 GMT -5 krista said:

I would also be ok with not collecting until later, as long as you could stay in until that point. But unfortunately, the current rank structure doesn't support that

Why? Do you think people are unable to get another job after retirement?

The people who have the best scam going are the guys who retire on Friday and come back to work on Monday in the same job but as a contractor. Nice gig.

Not everybody has that opportunity. Sure, it happens. I left active duty and came back to work the next day in civilian clothes. But that's certainly not the norm for higher ranking officers that retire after 20-24. My husband will likely retire as the Chief Financial Officer for an Army medical center. There's no way he's going to be able to keep that job as a contractor. So he'd like to keep it as an AD officer as long as possible. But again, the rank structure doesn't allow it.

[booyah]

FMFWife, scrounge up some self-esteem, put on your big girl panties and stop being a victim. The fact remains that in dual-mil couples, if the AF me to report to X base and my husband to Y base, we spend the next 2-4 years apart. That is different than a civilian spouse who is looking for a job but still has a choice she can make without being court-martialed for desertion.

I have to agree with Audette, if they severely modify retirement, it will drive away the best and brightest. Frankly, if I know I can take my government contracting experience to Wiley Rein and make $250,000 doing the same work I do now, I'd leave the military if there wasn't a sweet pension at the end. Then I don't have to stress about where we are living in a year, if we'll find a good school system, a good daycare, and if my kids will have both their parents in the same household.

[Dory1988]

I really don't have a choice. I almost didn't get hired and was told so by the manager because of being out if my field for 2 years. 2 years that I wouldn't have been out of the field had my husband not been stationed in BFE. Thanks though I'm thoroughly confident in how well I can do my job and fully believe whomever doesn't hire me is missing out. It's not a matter of BGP's. It's a matter of I love what I do and don't want to risk wasting my college education again. So like I said don't cheapen what I'm going through because "I don't have to do it" cause really in my situation I do have to. But again thank you for assuming you know all about what it's like to be a civilian spouse.

[ilovelamp]

...people don't only serve to get retirement. Some people actually want to serve.

[audette]

Nov 16, 2012 14:11:14 GMT -5 @booyah said:

FMFWife, scrounge up some self-esteem, put on your big girl panties and stop being a victim. The fact remains that in dual-mil couples, if the AF me to report to X base and my husband to Y base, we spend the next 2-4 years apart. That is different than a civilian spouse who is looking for a job but still has a choice she can make without being court-martialed for desertion.

I think you might be a bit harsh here. Yeah, the non-mil spouse doesn't get orders sending us somewhere else away from our spouse, but that doesn't mean we're always free to make the types of decisions that you are implying.

Being a trailing spouse is tough. It's tough in the civilian world, it's tough in the military world. Unfortunately, the military really doesn't care about the trailing spouse, whereas most civilian companies at least keep the spouse in mind when they are shuttling an employee around for work.

FMF isn't "being a victim", she's doing her level best to maintain a career in a situation that inherently makes it damned difficult to do so. At least as dual military, there is hope that you both can be stationed at the same place, even if it's a not-ideal location.

Have you honestly never wondered why so many military spouses are not employed outside the home? It's certainly not because they all _want_ to be at home.


And, bringing it back to the original topic of the thread - the effects on the trailing spouse's career is also part of the calculation to consider when looking at the full compensation offered by the military.

[Dory1988]

Oh and you have the choice too...to get out at the end of your next enlistment and not have a job so maybe you should take your own advice and not play the victim since its that easy to give up something you worked hard for and spent thousands of dollars on.

Eta: I take this back. Audette is right. We're all just trying to make lemonade out of lemons sometimes.

[Dory1988]

Ilovelamp does make a good point...

[audette]

Nov 16, 2012 14:42:09 GMT -5 ilovelamp said:

...people don't only serve to get retirement. Some people actually want to serve.

True. And for some, that desire overrides other concerns. For others, it might not be enough.


DH definitely gets a level of satisfaction from serving. And that would be part of any consideration we would make regarding his continuing service. It's not exactly something we can put a number on, but it does sway the argument in favour of staying in (were reductions in benefits to happen). How much it sways that argument will be different for every servicemember.

[amaristella]

Nov 16, 2012 14:11:14 GMT -5 @booyah said:

FMFWife, scrounge up some self-esteem, put on your big girl panties and stop being a victim. The fact remains that in dual-mil couples, if the AF me to report to X base and my husband to Y base, we spend the next 2-4 years apart. That is different than a civilian spouse who is looking for a job but still has a choice she can make without being court-martialed for desertion.

Are you saying that being a dual military couple isn't also a choice?

[NomadicMama]

Changes need to be made, the current system is very expensive. That said, changes can be made and implemented in a manner that is not detrimental to those who have made career and financial plans based in the current system.

I agree that requiring TRICARE recipients to pay co-pays or some sort of cost sharing is a good idea. In civilian life, health coverage is expensive and, sadly, for some, a luxury.

Booyah, I'm sorry that things look difficult for you and your family, in the coming year. But you don't have the market cornered on military life challenges. When I chose to marry my DH, I basically gave up my career. Due to frequent moves (we move, on average, every 13 months), deployments (we are in the midst of DH's second year-long deployment since 2009), and some non-military related issues, I have not earned a paycheck in nearly five years. Talk about a hit to our finances and our retirement funds. But it was my choice to marry a soldier, just as it was your choice to marry (and procreate with) a fellow service member. This is not a contest to see who has it worse.

[beans]

Nov 16, 2012 14:11:14 GMT -5 @booyah said:

FMFWife, scrounge up some self-esteem, put on your big girl panties and stop being a victim.

what with the what now??

I think there is a victim tone coming out your posts as well, here. sooo.... Plus you also sound really condescending, which doesn't help your cause.

Reality is that budgets in our world need to be cut. But no one "wants" it to be their thing that is cut. But the thing is, *everything* is someone's thing. Yes, it would suck. And I say that as someone trying to get into the military and will probably be someone effected by something like this.

I totally agree with Sibil. IMHO it is not necessary for people to receive military "retirement" pay at 43-45 (possibly lower than that) especially when you look at life expectancies increasing. Lots of my relatives have lived to be almost 100. So then we're looking at someone getting retirement benefits for almost 50 years (especially seems unnecessary when those people aren't really "retired" for the most part). Very expensive when you look at it like that. I don't think they should (or will) pull the rug out from people and change it, but I see the benefit of changing the system, so that the system can stay afloat long term.

This isn't the first time this recommendation has been made, and it won't be the last. But politically, these issues are really delicate and politicians don't want to be the bad guys on shit like this.

[brandienee]

I absolutely agree with Audette.

God, is it bad that I kind of wish that "the powers that be" would do something to discourage H to continue his career in the Air Force? Maybe this is the "middle of deployment" talk, but frankly I am sick of it. And no, I won't pull up my "Big Girl Panties" and deal. Like Audette said about a lot of military, MH could do so much better in the civilian world than he would in the Air Force. He is brilliant. But he wants to serve his country. While I am merely a civilian, H hasn't lived in our house for over a year with deployments and TDY's. I think his longest stint at home this year has been in between deployments which was 3 weeks long. I would lie if I said that I am strong enough to deal with another 14 years of this crap. Also, I would LOVE to stay in one place for more than a few years. To be able to establish my career, God, if only. Man, even to have lasting friendships and be a part of a community would be amazing.

Signed
The girl who is dreaming of her 40's and has had a little too much wine tonight.

ETA: Sorry, I am venting my pent up rage...

[booyah]

Nov 16, 2012 10:54:30 GMT -5 Dory1988 said:

I love how you think the "uncertainties" are limited to those who are dual mil. Thank you for cheapening what I'm going through as I can't find the job I need in order to live with my husband though. Because I almost wasted my entire college education once, I'm living across the country from my husband but a little old civilian wife like me couldn't possibly understand that. If something like this were to go through in the next few years and only those with 10+ years were grandfathered in I'd still encourage my husband to stay in until retirement. 40% of base pay after 20 years of service is still WAY more than he'd be getting after 20 years service anywhere in the civilian world. There, he'd be getting nothing except whatever we chose to save up ourselves over the years. Good for him if he can get that much.

Okay, maybe I was a little harsh on her....the tone in her response didn't sit well with me with the "little old civilian wife" etc. I didn't think I had said anything against civilian spouses, so it really rubbed me the wrong way. Regardless, I don't think this post is/should be limited to dual-mil, single-mil families. Each of us will make a choice based on compensation and other reasons for serving (I know we all choose to serve, but frankly none of us is doing it for free.) And to the poster who asked "isn't dual-mil also a choice?" YES! And that is why I'm frustrated and considering separating. Right now I have an active duty service commitment and can't, but as soon as that is over I'm highly considering separating. And the point for me is....if the pension is no longer there - I'm definitely out. Right now I am white-knuckling it through each assignment and deployment cycle, hoping to God that we aren't separated for more than a year at a time and my 3 babies don't go for years without their father who loves them dearly. I will continue this as long as I can stomach it, but frankly if there is no pension in 10 years, I will not deal with this uncertainty and stress. I know I won't get a comparable pension in the outside world (I worked there before) but my salary would over double from what I make right now, so it would balance. I like the military, I really do. But it's a give and take, and if the military asks more than I'm willing to give (live apart for years), then I'll leave, and if there is no pension it is a very easy choice.

[Dory1988]

My response to you was in reference to your response to Stan when you told her she didn't know how it was and made it seem like being a civilian spouse is so easy and you have it so much worse. No where was my tone poor little old spouse. I'm anything but meek and poor woe is me on a daily basis.

ETA: what I'm trying to say your attitude toward Stan was the reason behind my extremely sarcastic use of the "poor little old wife like me line".

[iluvmytxrgr]

I side eye anyone who reads Army/AF/Navy Times and sees it as an actual source of real information.

Look, times are tough. Everyone has to take a hit somewhere. If it means not collecting a retirement check until age 60, ok. When I joined, I had every intention of retiring. Thanks to health and other issues, it didn't work out that way. However, my husband will, God willing. If he retires at 20 years, he'll be 40. He can retire, get another job and retire from that at 60. That's two retirement checks for him. I just started back to school. I plan to teach when I'm done. I have plenty of time to work and be able to get another retirement check. Sixty isn't exactly old. Three retirement checks plus benefits sets us up fairly well.
If you and your husband both retire from the military, have second careers and retire from them, that's four retirement checks you have coming in plus retirement benefits. Start saving or investing here and there and you'll be able to live well for that time. I don't see anything to bitch about.

[thegooser]

I agree that we would lose a lot of good talent by drastically reducing benefits, although some small tweaks could be made and it would still be ok.

Take me and DH. I have a doctorate and work in a specialty medical field, and I'm currently AD. I don't plan to serve 20; this is just to give my career a good jump start and it pays well enough that DH can go back to school. The 40k/yr loan repayment MAY be enough to convince me to stay on one more term. But when I weigh that against 2 possible deployments right when my H and I are in a place to start baby making, the decisions get really tough. I don't want to dodge a deployment with pregnancy. I don't want to deploy once I have kids. But that loan repayment would wipe away 20 years' worth of $400/mo payments, which would benefit my family. Is really hard to know what to do.

DH is getting a medical degree and has 10 years of infantry under his belt. He plans to re-join once he has his degree in order to go back for the pension (his field is critically undermanned and is not affected by force shaping). However, the idea of deployments, TDYs, and living away from family for a huge chunk of our kids' childhoods is a lot to sacrifice. No way he would do it without a hefty retirement on the table.

We are both examples of talent who would walk away from the military if the benefits were even a tiny bit less. We are both barely hanging on as it is. The military wouldn't lose the wayward 18 year olds with no other real employment options, we would lose the service members with less painful employment options to put food on the table.

That said, I would be fine with a small co-pay and not getting retirement benefits until age 60. We really don't need it before then. However, I don't think it should be later than 60 because the military can wreck your body and people who served tend no have more aches and pains, making employment into old age more challenging.

Flame away if you like. Just trying to put personal experience into the debate since this topic is highly relevant in my life.

[basilosaurus]

Nov 20, 2012 9:06:59 GMT -5 iluvmytxrgr said:

I side eye anyone who reads Army/AF/Navy Times and sees it as an actual source of real information.

LOL That was my first thought but I let it slide

[thechupacabra]

Nov 20, 2012 14:13:43 GMT -5 Stan said:

Nov 20, 2012 13:39:12 GMT -5 thegooser said:

I agree that we would lose a lot of good talent by drastically reducing benefits, although some small tweaks could be made and it would still be ok.

Take me and DH. I have a doctorate and work in a specialty medical field, and I'm currently AD. I don't plan to serve 20; this is just to give my career a good jump start and it pays well enough that DH can go back to school. The 40k/yr loan repayment MAY be enough to convince me to stay on one more term. But when I weigh that against 2 possible deployments right when my H and I are in a place to start baby making, the decisions get really tough. I don't want to dodge a deployment with pregnancy. I don't want to deploy once I have kids. But that loan repayment would wipe away 20 years' worth of $400/mo payments, which would benefit my family. Is really hard to know what to do.

DH is getting a medical degree and has 10 years of infantry under his belt. He plans to re-join once he has his degree in order to go back for the pension (his field is critically undermanned and is not affected by force shaping). However, the idea of deployments, TDYs, and living away from family for a huge chunk of our kids' childhoods is a lot to sacrifice. No way he would do it without a hefty retirement on the table.

We are both examples of talent who would walk away from the military if the benefits were even a tiny bit less. We are both barely hanging on as it is. The military wouldn't lose the wayward 18 year olds with no other real employment options, we would lose the service members with less painful employment options to put food on the table.

That said, I would be fine with a small co-pay and not getting retirement benefits until age 60. We really don't need it before then. However, I don't think it should be later than 60 because the military can wreck your body and people who served tend no have more aches and pains, making employment into old age more challenging.

Flame away if you like. Just trying to put personal experience into the debate since this topic is highly relevant in my life.

I am not 18 with no other employment options. I have a full time job that could lead to me being a business owner in 5/10 years. My boss has offered to put me on that path. I am still trying to serve. My boss makes six figures.

I did change my mind that everyone should be hardcore true believers. We do need medical professionals in the service, and there aren't enough crazy 'Merica lovers for that. ETA: True believers in things like servant leadership, just war, et cetera. Not only 'Merica, though that stuff holds hands with my America loving. JIC. Sometimes I forget not everyone knows what I mean and think I'm just loony loving 'Merica.

But it would be nice if I weren't competing with 22 year old college grads who were only joining for the stability, to whom servant leadership means absolutely nothing.

Sorry, for just popping in here but I bounce around from board to board.

Why can't there be a balance? I don't think it is entirely self-serving or indicative of poor leadership capability to want a decent benefits package. Not only are some SMs taking a cut in pay, but their spouses are losing out on career advancement opportunities as well.

I also wonder if changing current recruitment strategies would help decrease our defense budget. I take issue with the fact that in the past decade the Military has been sold as just another way to pay for your education. I realize this has changed a bit in the last five years, but not to the extent that it should.

I would like to see what we pay to train and house these SMs who serve for 3-5 years, and what it costs to provide the GI Bill benefits for them. I have also heard several NCOs mention that the Military has shifted toward serving the Junior Enlisted rather than retaining leadership and that doesn't seem like a great strategy overall. Is it really beneficial to invest more in new recruits, or to retain experienced SMs?

You can totally call me out on this if I'm all wrong, it's just something I've been thinking about lately. This thread just provided a place for my brain to spew

[amaristella]

Chupacabra I don't have much to say on recruitment strategies, but in my humble opinion and just from what I've seen personally I don't really feel like the military has any trouble retaining experienced service members (in general, maybe it differs from MOS to MOS). I think it's always been much more of a challenge and probably always will be to bring in enough junior enlisted to run things smoothly.

So what that means to me is that the distribution of SMs according to rank is sort of pyramid shaped and personally that's how I feel that it should be. In the civilian world I've seen structures that are more or less column shaped, sometimes even more of an inverted pyramid and I just don't believe that it's efficient. Is a drastic benefit cutback the best way to encourage force shaping? Certainly not. But I agree with others that the plan outlined in the OP would likely never make it through without some major tweaking.

[Dory1988]

My husband has always been a believer in taking care of your junior enlisted as am I because it is important and necessary. If we don't train young people, take care of them, and encourage them to stay in who will be taking the role of the senior enlisted in 20-30 years? Will it be a bunch of bitter individuals who feel the same way about taking care of junior enlisted and are only in because of the financial benefit or a bunch of people who are excited about the military and what it has done for them, willing to share their knowledge and motivate the younger generation?

And since this holds true in the civilian world I'll give you an example. I'm a respiratory therapist. In general, at my hospital, we get treated like we're no better than a child who needs to be told what to do 24/7. I did not go in to my field to be treated like that. Our manager does not stand up for us regardless of how dissatisfied with our jobs we are because he wants to keep his kushy manager position so he won't rock the boat in our defense. At least 50% of the department is looking for employment elsewhere and the other 50% will admit they're only there because they're so close to retirement. Imagine if our military were built like that because our leaders didn't have a servant's attitude and take care of the junior enlisted.

[thechupacabra]

Stan- I feel like I didn't word part of that in a way I should have. The people I know personally who are upset with the way the Military has changed wrt the lower ranks are not complaining because they don't want their men taken care of. But that there is a lack of accountability and independence that is expected of them, they feel they need to be "soft" with them or they'll be in trouble with their superiors.

I agree that changes need to be made and I agree Tricare and contracting could stand to see cuts.

Stella- I know not everyone can be a leader, and shouldn't. I will say my experience is pretty limited to only a few MOSs so this probably contributes to how I view this issue.