Military Pensions - Are They Too Much?

http://www.military.com/news/article/are-military-pensions-too-generous.html?ESRC=dod.nl

basically, a restructuring of pensions may happen, as the feds look for ways to trim the fat.

I like how the article mentions an internet poster's comment which states, if pensions are cut, congress needs to go first. :smt023

enough killing off the middle class...make those fat cats suffer too

 

NO. Of course they are not to generous for people who risk their lives on a daily basis.

Jeebus. Raise the corporate tax rate, raise the rate on people making over 250K a year. Don't cut the pension of some military personnel.

And yeah, cut Congressional pensions first.

 

i really hope it doesn't come to that (cutting the mil benefits)

if it does, i think that'll just be another nail in the coffin for this country..especially if congress et al doesn't take a hit too

 

Seriously, combat troops? A 401K? How fucking stupid is that?

We have an all volunteer army, and a good benefits package is one of the things which gets people to volunteer. Yeah, like someone's going to put their ass on the line with people shooting at them so they can watch their savings disappear in a stock market downturn caused by the actions of stockbrokers, bankers and the military industrial complex over profits??

 

Nothing will happen without protest. Is anyone organizing some kind of march I want to go

 

i know

this type of activism i would support because it's ridiculous that someone would even consider to do this

and yes military benefits aren't that bad. Family healthcare, housing allowances, PX discounts, etc, etc. It's the least we can do as a nation for our armed forces. Look up the salaries of congress et al, and see how fat their benefit packages are. I understand they have an important job, but seriously I think they're somewhat disposable considering the fact that many people would rather be a part of congress, than join the military.

 

Some seriously ridiculous percentage of our active military make so little that they qualify for food stamps. I find that horrifying.

 

it's no secret that entry-level military wages aren't great unless you're an officer. I remember postings up on campus back in 2000, that were advertising platoon leadership classes for students, with an expected starting salary of 35k/yr. Now, I think starting pay for an 0-1 is around the 45-50kish range, not to mention a higher housing allowance than entry-level enlisted. I think you'll see a class-divide between enlisted guys making 20k and the officers, if the benefits issues was really pushed. Enlisted guys making squat shouldn't have reduced anything (but as we know, the poor get fucked in the end). They need to pay attention to the officers if they HAD to make cuts.

They want college-educated people to be attracted to the force, so that they can reap the benefits of having them around. So, they compete with other sectors wage wise. That's the whole rationale behind that.

 

Am I too old to enlist? Lol

 

the better question is..

do you want to be a 37 year old private?

 

I'm college educated I should be able to rise through the ranks a little faster kid lol

 

With a degree you could get into the officer corps if there are openings.

 

My friends and I from AIT were talking about this a couple weeks ago. Fuckin lame shit.

 

Admittedly, I haven't read the article. However, my knee-jerk reaction is how this situation differs from others in Federal and local government system?

Specifically, there's much debate currently about limiting the pensions of retired local government workers who're able to retire with overly generous pensions and medical benefits, and walk into a job the next day, often in the same office, at the same of higher pay and begin to qualify for a second pension, all at the cost to tax payers.

In the case of the military, it's probably a non-issue unless you're a higher level officer, captain and above. But, IMO, it seems that it's something that should at least be up for review, along with Federal and local government jobs as well.

 

Except for the post office :smt003, most government jobs outside the military don't include people shooting at you.

 

At the risk of being politically incorrect, similar peril exists for police officers and firemen. You also must realize that you accept those risks when you decide to enter those careers. In such an assessment it shouldn't matter if it's defense of country or community...yes? Otherwise, the issue becomes clouded with thoughts of patriotism rather than equity.

The reality is also that few of the highest ranking officials in any of those careers face peril at their rank.

 

Absolutely applies to police and firefighters. I'm not in favor of cutting their pensions either.

The article stated that only 17% of the military stay in long enough to get a pension, which is 20 years. So we're really not talking about a huge number of people, either, and I'd assume the majority of them were probably officers, though I don't have evidence of that. Those who started out as 2nd Lieutenants probably faced fire on their way up in times of war, I'd suspect.

Not that many enlisted stay in 20 years, from what I've read.

 

i know you're not comparing the lives of service members, particularly those on the front, to police officers and firefighters, that get to return to their homes every night.

but hazard/combat pay make up for the shortcomings of being deployed to afghanistan or iraq i guess.

 

college educated private

not a better sight

:mrgreen:

 

As I stated, some careers are riskier than others. All of those men and women understand those risks when they make their career choices.

I would favor reviewing the pensions in all of those areas. If someone is able to retire with full benefits at 45 or 50, then walk into jobs and essentially double dip, then I think there should be reviews of the pensions. Does it mean that you cut their first pension, perhaps not, but it might mean that there second pension is affected.

Obviously, I wouldn't limit this to those service areas either. We have plenty of other non-military government jobs that should be reviewed as well.

Again, it just strikes me as inequitable and I don't like to see anyone taking advantage of a system, because it means that others must lose in the system.