Bye Bye Military Retirement
- Thread starter Tooth
- Start date
- Joined
- Mar 3, 2010
- Messages
- 21
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 0
- Dental Student
I guess this doesn't really present any more info than what we've already heard in the news, but it's good to see the actual proposal (thanks Tooth).
I think that with current events (debt crisis deal, the new congressional "super-committee", planned drastic military spending cuts over next 10 years, etc.) this proposal has a chance of getting passed by Congress the first time.
Despite that, there is a better chance it won't pass Congress this go-around, and a new proposal will have to be drafted later. Regardless, if it doesn't happen soon, it will definitely happen later.
Personally, I think this plan over time will compromise our ability to fight on the front-line (infantry, armor, artillery, aviation, etc.). Those few who decide to put their lives on the line (repeatedly) need a better incentive to stick around than "increased contributions in a combat zone." Senior leadership in these branches will take a big hit as very few will stick around. As the quality combat leadership disappears over the years, so will the quality of our fighting force.
On the dental side, I would expect either increased multi-year retention bonuses, or significant matching (for dental officers). That wouldn't happen immediately though if this proposal passed. But without increases somewhere else I just don't see that many new dental officers choosing to stay around for the long-haul.
I think that with current events (debt crisis deal, the new congressional "super-committee", planned drastic military spending cuts over next 10 years, etc.) this proposal has a chance of getting passed by Congress the first time.
Despite that, there is a better chance it won't pass Congress this go-around, and a new proposal will have to be drafted later. Regardless, if it doesn't happen soon, it will definitely happen later.
Personally, I think this plan over time will compromise our ability to fight on the front-line (infantry, armor, artillery, aviation, etc.). Those few who decide to put their lives on the line (repeatedly) need a better incentive to stick around than "increased contributions in a combat zone." Senior leadership in these branches will take a big hit as very few will stick around. As the quality combat leadership disappears over the years, so will the quality of our fighting force.
On the dental side, I would expect either increased multi-year retention bonuses, or significant matching (for dental officers). That wouldn't happen immediately though if this proposal passed. But without increases somewhere else I just don't see that many new dental officers choosing to stay around for the long-haul.
- Joined
- Mar 11, 2005
- Messages
- 736
- Reaction score
- 111
- Points
- 4,841
- Non-Student
It's official. There is no economic advantage to stay with the military because there is now no retirement plan. What a joke. "We'll match your contributions!" into the stock market. Let me tell you, I have a lot of faith in the stock market right now.
This is going to cost the military dearly. I love how they demonize the current retirement system calling it unfair because 83% of military personnel will never collect retirement. That means they only have to pay retirement to 17% of us. Not a bad deal for them right? Then they say that paying retirement to that 17% is still too expensive. We gotta make more cuts. Then they say it's our fault because we're living too long. This is a punch in the face as they rip our wallets out and raid our retirements. Nice work Washington. Good luck with this.👎
Last edited:
- Joined
- Mar 3, 2010
- Messages
- 21
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 0
- Dental Student
I don't think it's official yet. I just read that the proposal hasn't even crossed Defense Secretary Panetta's desk yet. He thinks he will see the proposal next month.
http://www.armytimes.com/news/2011/...-interview-benefits-iraq-deployments-081911w/
Panetta said he wants to grandfather todays retirement pensions for current troops, even if budget pressures force changes for future recruits.
People who have come into the service and put their lives on the line, been deployed to the war zones, fought for this country, and who have been promised certain benefits as result of that Im not going to break faith with whats been promised to them, Panetta said. Now, does that mean that stops you from making any changes? No, because obviously you can grandfather people in terms of their benefits, and then look at what changes you want put in place for those who decide to become a part of the volunteer force in the future.
My interpretation is that change is coming, but it might not affect those already in. I would imagine the proposal needs his approval before it goes to Congress. With elections coming soon, it will be interesting if Congress or the "Super Committee" even chooses to address this issue now.
- Joined
- Feb 1, 2008
- Messages
- 4,032
- Reaction score
- 62
- Points
- 4,691
- Location
- Bethesda, MD
- Resident [Any Field]
It's official. There is no economic advantage to stay with the military because there is now no retirement plan. What a joke. "We'll match your contributions!" into the stock market. Let me tell you, I have a lot of faith in the stock market right now.
I love how they demonize the current retirement system calling it unfair because 83% of military personnel will never collect retirement. That means they only have to pay retirement to 17% of us. Not a bad deal for them right? Then they say that paying retirement to that 17% is still too expensive. We gotta make more cuts. Then they say it's our fault because we're living too long. This is a punch in the face as they rip our wallets out and raid our retirements. Nice work Washington. Good luck with this.👎
🙁 Is this a joke? I was actually planning on finishing my time in the military (14 years) after dental school, thought the retirement would be fairly good.
Guess it's time to seriously consider other options. I feel bad for those still in, and with a lot of time invested (10+, less than 20). On the bright side, if you can become fully disabled you get to keep the old retirement system!
- Joined
- Mar 11, 2005
- Messages
- 736
- Reaction score
- 111
- Points
- 4,841
- Non-Student
Yes I was exaggerating truth. It's obvious that it's still in the proposal stages. What is official is that the attack on the retirement system has stepped into overdrive. We shouldn't downgrade the seriousness of what this PowerPoint does tell us though...that while the current retirement system still exists, it surely won't exist in twenty years. I keep hearing everyone say that we're going to get grandfathered in but don't see any of that in the proposal. Personally, Panetta's words don't inspire any confidence in me. This is a PR nightmare and Panetta has to say something about it to try to ease everyone. Good luck with that Panetta...but I wasn't born yesterday.
My problem with the military has been the same all along. I cannot complain about an "all volunteer" force, but when they are offering huge incentive bonuses to reenlist, and with a questionable job market, why would one want to leave the service. Is this keeping a "volunteer force" or is this now a "All American mercenary force". Now, they complain the retirement is costing too much. I still think conscription would have saved them more money in the end (and maybe one less war), but that is political suicide these days. So, bank you're retirement on a US invested TSP when the financial advisors are saying, "get out of the US market". You'll be lucky to retire on 25%. Will the current reservists who are staying on for the 30-year retirement stay?...I doubt that. This is a good way to drastically reduce military numbers and decrease military costs without affecting the military industrial complex. This is good for the complex which needs some serious revamping, bad for the personnel. I feel for you guys. More power to you all that stay in.
