military retirees could face pension reductions

[MILK]

Originally Posted by fujimoh

i would cut foods stamps, unemployment, and fire half the federal bureaucrats before i cut military benefits.

Cut the military hardware and base budgets before you even consider cutting soldiers' benefits. There has been an implied contract between the people of the united states and ours soldiers long before any of the entitlement programs were created.

this!!

[derf]

Originally Posted by Trip

I wonder how many of those that are over 20 years are combat vets as well. Like say if clerks have a higher percentage of staying over 20 vs a combat vet that may leave before they even reach 10.

In the last 10 years the number of retirees who are combat vets is probably in the mid to upper 90% range.

One of the things to look at too are the fact that there are a ton of people who started out their careers in combat arms and for whatever reason changed jobs. People with combat arms also have a much higher retention rates than people that start out in non combat arms jobs

[fatbuckRTO]

Originally Posted by derf

In the last 10 years the number of retirees who are combat vets is probably in the mid to upper 90% range.

One of the things to look at too are the fact that there are a ton of people who started out their careers in combat arms and for whatever reason changed jobs. People with combat arms also have a much higher retention rates than people that start out in non combat arms jobs

Fair points. At the same time, a combat vet and a "combat vet" are two totally different things.

Our COP commander who wrote himself a bronze star for, literally, hiding under a rack during a mortar attack* is a "combat vet." The air force desk jockies claiming PTSD for "living through rocket attacks" on Bagram are "combat vets." The combat vets actually fighting the wars probably make up a significantly lower percentage, though I doubt we'll ever know that number because the military bean counters don't make the distinction.

For the record, I am not a combat vet and will never claim to be, even though I'm technically a "combat vet."



*Not how the write-up was phrased. Pure comedy, that write-up... ETA: He'll probably retire a colonel or general, at least.

[Trip]

20 years is a long time to go to qualify for retirement. Some of those guys that have to get out early really qualify for nothing? Some sort of 401k should be an option and give em like the typical 3-5 years to get vested.

[Homeslice]

Originally Posted by derf

In the last 10 years the number of retirees who are combat vets is probably in the mid to upper 90% range.

90% ?

I guess if you count the mere fact of being stationed in a combat theatre, even if it was nowhere near the actual combat

[derf]

Originally Posted by Homeslice

90% ?

I guess if you count the mere fact of being stationed in a combat theatre, even if it was nowhere near the actual combat

If you guys are looking at making the distinction between a combat vet and a trigger puller then I would bet that the number of people who deploy and actually take and return fire is close to 40%. I would also be willing to bet that the 40% who are the trigger pullers are more likely to stay in for a longer period of time

[derf]

Originally Posted by Trip

20 years is a long time to go to qualify for retirement. Some of those guys that have to get out early really qualify for nothing? Some sort of 401k should be an option and give em like the typical 3-5 years to get vested.

Yup if you get out after your 3-5 years there are no monetary advantages, however you do get to keep a number of benefits, plus your military time can be put towards a civilian gov job for both time and pay, as well as education benefits, plus a whole bunch of other stuff.

but yeh you can stay in for any period of time up to 18 years and get out with nothing. Once you hit 18 years you are automatically locked in for the full 20.

And no a 401k would be shit compared to what they are giving me now, the retirement I already worked 14 years towards.

[MILK]

Originally Posted by derf

Yup if you get out after your 3-5 years there are no monetary advantages, however you do get to keep a number of benefits, plus your military time can be put towards a civilian gov job for both time and pay, as well as education benefits, plus a whole bunch of other stuff.

but yeh you can stay in for any period of time up to 18 years and get out with nothing. Once you hit 18 years you are automatically locked in for the full 20.

And no a 401k would be shit compared to what they are giving me now, the retirement I already worked 14 years towards.

Yea I wouldn't want to trade a pension for a 401k. Twenty years isn't that long at all. I'm 41 and have 16 years with my company. No pension, just 401k.

[Cutty72]

Originally Posted by derf

Yup if you get out after your 3-5 years there are no monetary advantages, however you do get to keep a number of benefits, plus your military time can be put towards a civilian gov job for both time and pay, as well as education benefits, plus a whole bunch of other stuff.

but yeh you can stay in for any period of time up to 18 years and get out with nothing. Once you hit 18 years you are automatically locked in for the full 20.

And no a 401k would be shit compared to what they are giving me now, the retirement I already worked 14 years towards.

Everyone also has the option of putting money into the Thrift Savings, which is essentially a 401K.

[shmike]

Originally Posted by Cutty72

Everyone also has the option of putting money into the Thrift Savings, which is essentially a 401K.

Pension + TSP > 401k