Any of you guys in it for the long haul read this?
Unconfigured Ad Widget
Collapse
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Millitary retirement proposal
Collapse
X
-
Hmm,
From all the long-timers I've spoken to, the 20-year retirement was the gold standard for a well served career. It was quite the incentive. I don't understand why they want to change it now.WTB: Winchester /Miroki 1895 .30-06; No1. Mk. III SMLE .303 British; M96 Swedish Mauser 6.5x55mm; M39 Finnish Mosin 7.62x54r; S&W 625 .45 ACP; Glock 17.I purge the wicked. The impious madness must end. I shall be the instrument of Armageddon. It has gotten out of hand... -
Holy cow!
You guys need to call your congresspeople right away. I retired under the "old" system, 50% at 20. The whole idea of doing 20 in the military is to get a decent retirement w/benefits at a younger age than the civilian world. If these changes take place, you will have to soldier on well into your 50's to get a decent retirement.
The way it's supposed to work is you give the military your best years, 20 to 40, and, as somebody else recently said "write them a blank check for up to and including your life". You agree to not only risk your life, but consent to work as many hours as demanded without overtime, live like a hobo in the field, spend months or years in places far from home and family, put up with lunacy of a high order, and in general be abused at the whim of those in charge. In return, if you make it thru, Uncle Sam takes care of you and pays you some cash for the remainder of your life. What makes this plan especially appealing is one can retire young enough to still find another career.
Reserve retirement is not such a good deal, but still was better than nothing. It is appealing to those who did a few years active and wanted to join the Guard or Reserves. Although no pay or benefits are issued until age 60, Many reservists were faithful troops for 30-plus years of service. In essence, the Gov't now wants to put everybody on the reserve retirement plan.
While many can make the 20-year mark, far less will make the 30 year finish line. 20 years in the combat arms almost always results in at least some disabilities, and the wear and tear on your body at 20 years is significant. Take into account that it gets much harder to make rank past E-7, and height/weight and PT standards get tougher to maintain as one ages, the end result of the new plan = less retirees.
There have been continual erosions and equivocations of our retirement benefits, and the fact that people are living longer has the Gov't very worried.
You guys that are in now need to ensure you watch out for changes in the retirement system. Don't let the Gov't renege on the promises they made to you.Last edited by 11Z50; 02-18-2008, 7:51 AM.Comment
-
And yet somehow the retirement system for congress critters and politicians never get touched upon. I think we need to bring the truth into the light and let all citizens know how we are getting screwed by their retirement system.
Damn politicians need to be on social Security like us poor common folks first before they get to decide these things for others. Kill the sacred cow.... let them eat pig like the rest of us.
As for Military retirement, its a great deal and I think a true incentive to help sustain a career choice.Comment
-
Like 11Z50, I retired under the 50@20 system. He's absolutely correct, all you guys who are still in need to be jumping up and down on your congress critters desk about this.
And it isn't just the retired pay. I didn't see anything in the article about medical care, or other benefits. If they make you a "grey area" retiree, all that gets you is an ID card and PX priviledges until you are 60.
Besides, didn't they already change the retired pay for people who entered the service after 1986 or something like that?"Did I say "republic?" By God, yes, I said "republic!" Long live the glorious republic of the United States of America. Damn democracy. It is a fraudulent term used, often by ignorant persons but no less often by intellectual fakers, to describe an infamous mixture of socialism, miscegenation, graft, confiscation of property and denial of personal rights to individuals whose virtuous principles make them offensive." - Westbrook PeglerComment
-
It depends, if you had a break in service, they do a calculation for those who re-enlisted after 1986 but I can't recall the 4 letter acronym and too lazy to check my LES right now (starts with a B)
The brutal truth of the matter, is that the piggy bank is going to break somewhere between 2010 and 2020, watch and see. Military service for all but Col and up was never a big financial winner from back in the day all the way till now but it's going to get real ugly soon.Always in trouble for daring to point out that the emperor has no clothes.Comment
-
I gotta say again that this very notion completely SUX! When a person volunteers and is accepted it is a two-way agreement. I agree to serve loyally and without question, and the Gov't agrees to take care of me. If, while "in" I am killed, wounded or disabled, the Gov't agrees to take care of me. In return, I agree to charge that hill and kill the enemy.
If, upon mutual agreement, I agree to make it a career, and the Gov't agrees they need me, I stay for 20. I learn skills and progress thru the ranks. I mentor, train, discipline and generally raise as my own hundreds of troops. I risk life and limb on multiple operations. I do my job.
When the time comes, I take my leave and should fully expect the military to uphold their sacred promise, just as I held mine for 27 years. Not quite so....
The free medical ain't free, you have no dental and optical coverage. And although you can file for compensation for your service connected disabilities, they deduct your disability pay from your retirement. (they are trying to fix this) Benefits promised are always a hassle, unless you absolutely insist on getting what you have coming to you.
But nevertheless, there have been improvements, and those come at a cost.
You younger troops need to join together to insist on the 20/50 plan. Your service and dedication should not go unrecognized, and especially nowadays, your service will likely result in injury that will affect the remainder of your life.
20 years of faithful service should be the standard for military retirement. Should one choose to serve longer, and there is a need, there are provisions for that. But generally, if one is over 50 and still in the Infantry, or most jobs in the military, he is lying to himself and his Gov't.
20's enough. Any more than that and you become a General Officer Politician (or a lackey thereof) and no longer a citizen-soldierLast edited by 11Z50; 02-20-2008, 8:35 PM.Comment
Calguns.net Statistics
Collapse
Topics: 1,861,690
Posts: 25,084,140
Members: 355,415
Active Members: 5,224
Welcome to our newest member, scentedtrunk.
What's Going On
Collapse
There are currently 3634 users online. 53 members and 3581 guests.
Most users ever online was 65,177 at 8:20 PM on 09-21-2024.


Comment