new cuts to military pensions.

[shamelessHedon]

http://militaryspouse.com/articles/house-votes-124k-out-of-my-spouses-military-retirement/?pageNum=1

[Don Voice]

whaaaa! whaaaaa!

Instead of a "promised percentage rate for COLA" they're now going to use a process that actually reflects increases in cost of living! The horror! I can't believe that the military is going to receive some reduction in benefits like the rest of federal employees have for the past four years!!!

The pay freeze, sequestration (furloughs), and shutdown have taken a big bite out of every other fed's pocketbook so why would military personnel expect to be above the fray when it comes to cutting costs?

[Left]

because congress hasnt taken the cuts first? :D lead by example?

[Boz86]

Instead of a "promised percentage rate for COLA" they're now going to use a process that actually reflects increases in cost of living! The horror! I can't believe that the military is going to receive some reduction in benefits like the rest of federal employees have for the past four years!!!

That's an interesting statement. Got a citation/source for it?

Every article I've read says they're capping the pension raises at 1% below COLA. Nothing mentioned of a different, more accurate way of calculating cost of living, but rather using the government's standard inflation measure and reducing that by a fixed percentage.

[2527]

I'm quite angry about this because I can't go back and reduce my 6 1/2 years in combat zones, putting on a gas mask for real, the mortar attack, the time away from my family in Saudi Arabia, Bosnia, and Iraq, and my nightmares, but they can reduce my pension.  They can go fuck themselves.

[livetogive]

If I finish 20 I doubt my pension will be as promised today.  Defined benefit retirements haven't been funded well enough and aren't sustainable in their current form.

I'm not counting on anything from uncle Sam...

[MoneyCat]

Everyone has to make "sacrifices", except for rich people because they are creating jobs by stashing their tax cut money in Switzerland and the Caymans.

[Lackland]

It's pretty weird to find out that soldiers (and sailors and airmen and Marines) who have put their lives on the line are stuck with the same public employee pension nightmares as teachers, firemen and petty bureaucrats like myself.

[Mazzinator]

whaaaa! whaaaaa!

Instead of a "promised percentage rate for COLA" they're now going to use a process that actually reflects increases in cost of living! The horror! I can't believe that the military is going to receive some reduction in benefits like the rest of federal employees have for the past four years!!!

The pay freeze, sequestration (furloughs), and shutdown have taken a big bite out of every other fed's pocketbook so why would military personnel expect to be above the fray when it comes to cutting costs?

Civilian retirement standards don't apply to the military, which entails far more arduous service conditions: 20 to 30 years of hazardous duty, frequent moves, extended family separations, overseas service, long hours of overtime without extra pay, forfeiture of many personal freedoms most civilians take for granted, and an "up-or-out" promotion system. The vast majority of military members face forced departure from service before age 50, with no vesting before 20 years.

[2527]

The bigger point is our economy is bigger than it has ever been, and the bottom 99% are getting squeezed while the top 1% are getting richer than ever.

[MrsPete]

My husband and I were talking about something very similar this morning:  I'm concerned about potential changes to my teacher pension.  I genuinely can see it both ways:

From my point of view (and the military staff/spouses would share this train of thought):  We signed on for a certain deal.  We agreed to work for low wages, to inconvenience our families, and to tie ourselves to this job for X number of years.  The pay-off for these sacrifices was to be a moderate pension that would last the rest of our lives.  Now that we're mid-way through the process, they want to take away benefits that they've promised.  Hands off, buddy.  I've earned these benefits. 

From their point of view:  The money just isn't there.  People a generation ago made promises to new, incoming workers, and they assumed that society would remain stable.  They didn't anticipate the recession, didn't anticipate the increase in social programs across society, didn't count on technology making so many jobs obsolete, didn't count on the number of children in middle and upper-class families decreasing so that quality workers are harder to find.  (Personally, I say that I couldn't have anticipated those things either -- but isn't that why we hire financial experts?  To see problems coming a mile away?)  Keeping the promises made a generation ago is impossible -- unless we overburden the next generation, which is also unacceptable.

No good answer exists. 

I heard in conversation the other day that Virginia is making a change to teachers' pensions that is rather moderate:  Their teachers can still retire /collect a full benefit after 30 years (30?  I don't claim to have the details right -- just pay attention to the concept), but they cannot begin to collect until they're 62.  So, for example, I'll be 55-56 when I hit 30 years and am qualified to collect my pension.  I can quit teaching at that point, and my benefit will "be mine", but I cannot begin collecting 'til I'm 62.  I suspect we'll see more things like this.  It's unfair to the workers who bought into the old deal, but it's better than losing the benefit altogether. 

However, the single best line on this whole thread is about Congress failing to lead the way with sacrifices of their own.  I'd vote for any candidate who'd run on the platform "IMPEACH CONGRESS" -- promise to clean house, fire every one of those stinkers, take away their cushy benefits (earned after what?  Two years?  Four years?) and start afresh with new laws -- especially laws that would limit Congressional terms, benefits, and power.  It's not an easy job, and I don't begrudge them a decent salary, but NOT a salary that is so far out of the realm of the average American worker, even before all the benefits of pensions, medical benefits, even haircuts and shoe shines for life! 

It's pretty weird to find out that soldiers (and sailors and airmen and Marines) who have put their lives on the line are stuck with the same public employee pension nightmares as teachers, firemen and petty bureaucrats like myself.

Well, the pensions are not really the same.  A career military man can enter the service at 18 and retire at 38 after 20 years.  A teacher must put in 30 years (though it varies from state to state).  That's 50% more time served.   

[Don Voice]

That's an interesting statement. Got a citation/source for it?

No, I do not. And I should have done a little more reading before making my statements. It looks like you're right from what I've seen, they want to reduce COLA to 1% below CPI. This isn't all that different from the proposal to tie COLA for regular feds to the chained-CPI, which everyone has been up in arms.  But this military proposal makes even less sense as it's so arbitrary.

But, my larger argument is that if civilian pensions are on the table, so should military pensions.

[Left]

My question is why is there outrage at people who have pensions? It's part of their package benefits that they agreed upon when they started working :S Kind of like stock options in the private company world... We aren't demanding CEO's and management or even forcing them to give up their stock options because their company is failing/going into debt... They just keep them until the end...

How would people suddenly feel if the public said, lets take away the 401k because they are tax sheltered and instead put the money to reduce the deficit? Pensions were paid into the same as 401ks were paid into, by hardwork and sweat. Monetary value aside because that with salary are agreed upon when they hired on

It's pretty weird to find out that soldiers (and sailors and airmen and Marines) who have put their lives on the line are stuck with the same public employee pension nightmares as teachers, firemen and petty bureaucrats like myself.

Well, the pensions are not really the same.  A career military man can enter the service at 18 and retire at 38 after 20 years.  A teacher must put in 30 years (though it varies from state to state).  That's 50% more time served.

um... a teacher's job doesn't require them to face combat. Sure not every soldier sees combat, but the fact is that they could. A teacher in their normal job roles, do not face that

[davisgang90]

Well, the pensions are not really the same.  A career military man can enter the service at 18 and retire at 38 after 20 years.  A teacher must put in 30 years (though it varies from state to state).  That's 50% more time served.

My 20 years to earn a pension don't include summers off.  Instead they included multiple deployments away from my family into harm's way.

[umterp1999]

Well, the pensions are not really the same.  A career military man can enter the service at 18 and retire at 38 after 20 years.  A teacher must put in 30 years (though it varies from state to state).  That's 50% more time served.

My 20 years to earn a pension don't include summers off.  Instead they included multiple deployments away from my family into harm's way.

Thanks for you service to our country.  But get out of here with that.  Those of us in public education do not "get summers off".  We basically get furloughed for the summer, every year, as we don't get paid when we don't work.  In my school district we work 200 days.  We get paid for 200 days.  Further more most of us spend our summers taking courses (often at our expense) just to keep certification and keep up with the ever changing federal guidelines, such as common core. 

[Mazzinator]

From MrsPete:

From my point of view (and the military staff/spouses would share this train of thought):  We signed on for a certain deal.  We agreed to work for low wages, to inconvenience our families, and to tie ourselves to this job for X number of years.  The pay-off for these sacrifices was to be a moderate pension that would last the rest of our lives.  Now that we're mid-way through the process, they want to take away benefits that they've promised.  Hands off, buddy.  I've earned these benefits.

Agree!!

If changes need to be made to any pensions, do it to the newly hired. So they can decide, before accepting the job, if the benefits/pension are worth it.

[eyePod]

Everyone has to make "sacrifices", except for rich people because they are creating jobs by stashing their tax cut money in Switzerland and the Caymans.

Don't forget that they get exemptions from the US Gov since they financed all of the politicians campaigns!

[davisgang90]

Well, the pensions are not really the same.  A career military man can enter the service at 18 and retire at 38 after 20 years.  A teacher must put in 30 years (though it varies from state to state).  That's 50% more time served.

My 20 years to earn a pension don't include summers off.  Instead they included multiple deployments away from my family into harm's way.

Thanks for you service to our country.  But get out of here with that.  Those of us in public education do not "get summers off".  We basically get furloughed for the summer, every year, as we don't get paid when we don't work.  In my school district we work 200 days.  We get paid for 200 days.  Further more most of us spend our summers taking courses (often at our expense) just to keep certification and keep up with the ever changing federal guidelines, such as common core.

Sorry.  You get summers off without pay.  I get to move every 2-3 years, ensuring I can protect the American dream of home ownership, just not participate.  The constant moves don't make the spouse's career options all that great either. 

The previous poster was whining complaining about how military get a pension after only 20 years vice 30 for a teacher.  Some serious apples to oranges comparison there.

[brewer12345]

Well, the pensions are not really the same.  A career military man can enter the service at 18 and retire at 38 after 20 years.  A teacher must put in 30 years (though it varies from state to state).  That's 50% more time served.

My 20 years to earn a pension don't include summers off.  Instead they included multiple deployments away from my family into harm's way.

Thanks for you service to our country.  But get out of here with that.  Those of us in public education do not "get summers off".  We basically get furloughed for the summer, every year, as we don't get paid when we don't work.  In my school district we work 200 days.  We get paid for 200 days.  Further more most of us spend our summers taking courses (often at our expense) just to keep certification and keep up with the ever changing federal guidelines, such as common core.

Sorry.  You get summers off without pay.  I get to move every 2-3 years, ensuring I can protect the American dream of home ownership, just not participate.  The constant moves don't make the spouse's career options all that great either. 

The previous poster was whining complaining about how military get a pension after only 20 years vice 30 for a teacher.  Some serious apples to oranges comparison there.

Were you drafted?  I am guessing you voluntarily chose this career, no?

[shamelessHedon]

If changed need to be made to any pensions, do it to the newly hired. So they can decide, before accepting the job, if the benefits/pension are worth it.

Agreed 100% 

[Villanelle]

whaaaa! whaaaaa!

Instead of a "promised percentage rate for COLA" they're now going to use a process that actually reflects increases in cost of living! The horror! I can't believe that the military is going to receive some reduction in benefits like the rest of federal employees have for the past four years!!!

The pay freeze, sequestration (furloughs), and shutdown have taken a big bite out of every other fed's pocketbook so why would military personnel expect to be above the fray when it comes to cutting costs?

If you think the military hasn't seen a reduction in their overall benefits, you are mistaken.

Military life has grown increasingly difficult in myriad ways.  Work hours increased, manpower cut, equipment breaking and unavailable, longer deployments, medical for overseas spouses trimmed, tons of base programs and resources cut... the list goes on and one.  This would be *far* from the first cut. 

[Lackland]

If you think the military hasn't seen a reduction in their overall benefits, you are mistaken.

Military life has grown increasingly difficult in myriad ways.  Work hours increased, manpower cut, equipment breaking and unavailable, longer deployments, medical for overseas spouses trimmed, tons of base programs and resources cut... the list goes on and one.  This would be *far* from the first cut. 

Hey, the American people have spoken. Collectively, they don't want to pay any more for ANYONE who works for the government in any capacity, and preferably want to pay less than they are paying right now. I work for a certain malfunctioning western state and resist the temptation to roll my eyes when I hear civil Fed employees complaining about an increase of their pension contribution to HALF of what I have to pay into mine. I could be angry that they're complaining about getting burned more than I am getting burned or I could point out that the conservatives have won, and their assault on "unnecessary" government spending is making a career or a life serving the common good in any capacity less and less worth it.

So I'll do that. My point is that military personnel and civil servants are both getting screwed because they both happen to be stuck with different variations on the same retirement mechanism: old-school government pensions threatened by a tax-hating public, enabled by politically ascendant ultra-conservatives. Doesn't it make more sense to recognize that we're all suffering from the same problem here, instead of arguing about who has it worse?

[davisgang90]

Well, the pensions are not really the same.  A career military man can enter the service at 18 and retire at 38 after 20 years.  A teacher must put in 30 years (though it varies from state to state).  That's 50% more time served.

My 20 years to earn a pension don't include summers off.  Instead they included multiple deployments away from my family into harm's way.

Thanks for you service to our country.  But get out of here with that.  Those of us in public education do not "get summers off".  We basically get furloughed for the summer, every year, as we don't get paid when we don't work.  In my school district we work 200 days.  We get paid for 200 days.  Further more most of us spend our summers taking courses (often at our expense) just to keep certification and keep up with the ever changing federal guidelines, such as common core.

Sorry.  You get summers off without pay.  I get to move every 2-3 years, ensuring I can protect the American dream of home ownership, just not participate.  The constant moves don't make the spouse's career options all that great either. 

The previous poster was whining complaining about how military get a pension after only 20 years vice 30 for a teacher.  Some serious apples to oranges comparison there.

Were you drafted?  I am guessing you voluntarily chose this career, no?

/SGT Hulka voice/ Uh, son, there ain't no draft no more /end Hulka.

Any other questions?

[chasesfish]

This thread got political real fast.  Regarding the COLA, inflation is already a government produced number and fully open to manipulation (hey, exclude food and energy, even though retirees need both)

I actually appreciate having a site like MMM so I can ignore all this garbage about "income inequality" and "1%" class warfare.  Earn money, save money, learn about investing, and do shit yourself instead of paying other people to do it. 

I am firmly convinced "the top" earn and have a disproportionate amount of income and wealth because most people in the US are stupid with money.  They'd rather line up in front of a walmart and fight for a television instead of reading a book about stock or real estate investing. 

Quite a few of those "top 1%" are just like all of us on this board, just a bit older and kept investing as a hobby and earn passive income.

[davisgang90]

Well said, I get real tired of the class warfare bullshit.

[MrsPete]

um... a teacher's job doesn't require them to face combat. Sure not every soldier sees combat, but the fact is that they could. A teacher in their normal job roles, do not face that

Hey, I'm not saying the jobs are equivalent.  I'm saying that the pension requirements are not identical, which is what someone else suggested. 

My 20 years to earn a pension don't include summers off.  Instead they included multiple deployments away from my family into harm's way.

True, I have six weeks off in the summer; most people tend to think it's much more.  And my life is the exact opposite of deployment:  I am tied to the state.  Twice my husband has been offered a job in another area, and we've chosen to stay because I'm too far into my pension to quit.  However, if you want to compare benefits, do note that you receive housing, medical, and additional education without cost -- things for which I pay out of pocket.  Each of us chose our respective jobs, hopefully, with our eyes open and a healthy respect for what we'd give and receive in their fulfillment.  I don't deny for one minute that you're earning every penny of your benefits. 

Again, I'm not saying we're the same in any way -- I was just responding to the person who says we're earning the same pension for the same work.  We're not. 

If changes need to be made to any pensions, do it to the newly hired. So they can decide, before accepting the job, if the benefits/pension are worth it.

I agree, and not just because of "I'm already in the club" mentality.  When you're hired under certain expectations and -- like me -- you have over 20 years in, it's not fair to change the rules.

However, there's another issue:  If you tell the newly hired person that he's not getting the same pension I'm getting -- that is, if you're taking away a big bite of his compensation -- you're going to have to pay him a larger paycheck.  Personally, I wouldn't have a problem with one pay scale for "existing employees" and a second, higher pay scale for new hires who enter after <insert date  here>. 

[Nords]

I'm working up a post on this, but here are two links from SamClem and Powerplay over at E-R.org to help summarize the legislation:
http://walter.thehill.com/sites/default/files/amendment1_0.pdf
http://budget.house.gov/uploadedfiles/bba2013summary.pdf

Senator Levin is already suggesting that this needs to be discussed before it's implemented:
http://www.armytimes.com/article/20131213/NEWS/312130018
I would like to think that this will be amended when the next session convenes, but I suspect that it's going to take longer than we think. 

I think about half of the military frustration stems from the previous impression that (1) this was going to be negotiated in committee and discussed by the full sessions of both houses, which now seems to be off the table, and (2) those currently serving (or retired) would be grandfathered.  As the media soundbite goes, "They just shot Grandpa". 

Some of us are old enough to remember the military's REDUX retirement system, which was in place for over a decade before DoD and Congress realized what they'd done to retention.  Maybe they figure retirees have already made their retention decision so DoD & Congress don't have to worry?  Frankly, I don't understand whether this is even legal.  This reminds me of the Tricare For Life lawsuit that went all the way to the Supreme Court before it was finally resolved.  MOAA and dozens of other military advocacy organizations are already cranking up the Congressional e-mail campaigns, and most of the incumbents are up for re-election next year. 

Between 2002-2014, the military retirement COLA has added 32.1% to my pension.  I'll have to do a little more spreadsheet math to figure out what the cumulative total would be if this REDUX-like system had been in effect in 2002.

The real lesson to take from this demonstration of political risk is that if your retirement planning can be knocked off the rails by just one of these surprises, then you need a better plan.

whaaaa! whaaaaa!
Instead of a "promised percentage rate for COLA" they're now going to use a process that actually reflects increases in cost of living! The horror! I can't believe that the military is going to receive some reduction in benefits like the rest of federal employees have for the past four years!!!
The pay freeze, sequestration (furloughs), and shutdown have taken a big bite out of every other fed's pocketbook so why would military personnel expect to be above the fray when it comes to cutting costs?

Y'know, I spent over two-thirds of my adult life defending your First Amendment rights to express those thoughts.  Just like the police and the firefighters and the paramedics, you get exactly the military that you're willing to pay for.

You're welcome.

[ThisIsBananas]

Not only did this turn political real fast, it turned into a complainy pants "my life is harder than yours" conversation, which is a load of shit, because that is not what this community is about.

Pension cuts shmenshion cuts.  The pension system is outdated, Ive been in favor of a match into the TSP for a long while.  Youre right, it would be bullshit if they took your pension away 12 years into your career, but nowhere in my contracts was I guaranteed what the COLA would be in retirement.    Want to know what else is Bullshit, the good old boy system prevalent in all branches where if you just manage to hang on long enough unlce sam has to pay you for the rest of their life, so we have all these e7s & o5s whose last meaningful contribution was a long ass time ago, just hanging out on staff waiting for "retirement" where they will enter some other overly fattened part of the military industrial complex for larger wages.   Also, for all of those of you who want to parade around how hard military service is, most(not all) of you are probably fobbits anyways, then quit, really, if its that bad just quit, thank you for your service, goodbye.  If your military service was contingent on a 2.3% cola and not a 1.3% cola, well I dont know what to tell you.

[fiveoh]

I'm not in the military but this is why I'm not relying on social security at all.  I feel bad for you military guys partly thru a career.  They should at least grandfather you in to the current plan and have the new one for new recruits. 

[davisgang90]

Not only did this turn political real fast, it turned into a complainy pants "my life is harder than yours" conversation, which is a load of shit, because that is not what this community is about.

Pension cuts shmenshion cuts.  The pension system is outdated, Ive been in favor of a match into the TSP for a long while.  Youre right, it would be bullshit if they took your pension away 12 years into your career, but nowhere in my contracts was I guaranteed what the COLA would be in retirement.    Want to know what else is Bullshit, the good old boy system prevalent in all branches where if you just manage to hang on long enough unlce sam has to pay you for the rest of their life, so we have all these e7s & o5s whose last meaningful contribution was a long ass time ago, just hanging out on staff waiting for "retirement" where they will enter some other overly fattened part of the military industrial complex for larger wages.   Also, for all of those of you who want to parade around how hard military service is, most(not all) of you are probably fobbits anyways, then quit, really, if its that bad just quit, thank you for your service, goodbye.  If your military service was contingent on a 2.3% cola and not a 1.3% cola, well I dont know what to tell you.

It's about more than the COLA (without which, a pension declines significantly in value).  There has been a significant erosion of benefits for years in the military.  As for the "good old boy" system you describe, that has become less and less an option as all the services are drawing down in numbers.  Your disparaging the service of others based on your experience is petty and childish.

[chasesfish]

I was so pissed off that this turned into top 1% garbage that I forgot to give my opinion.

The pension change should really only effect the new hires (or in the case of a COLA, at least employees not yet vested/retired).  This is what you signed up for when you agreed to employment.


I don't have always think the same about Union pensions, when often the employees collude together to raise their wages and pension above market and bankrupt he employer,

[PeachFuzzInVA]

I think the underlying problem is though, that we can't afford these benefits now, much less 10 - 20 years into the future. Look at all the municipalities that have already had to file bankruptcy due to the overwhelming burden of public pensions: Detroit, Stockton, San Bernardino, Jefferson County...the list could go on, but you get the picture. Meredith Whitney predicted 3 years ago we'd see 50-100 sizable municipalities go bankrupt, so we may just be at the tip of the iceberg to this point. Don't forget, bond markets (just like any other market) are easily spooked so financing could become harder and harder to obtain for these municipalities with large unfunded liabilities. Would you rather do nothing to trim those liabilities and hope that her and many other analysts are wrong, or do you think it makes more sense to go ahead and take the bull by the horns and do something now that could stave off disaster in the future?

[2527]

A couple people on this thread stated they were tired of class warfare discussions.  I happen to disagree with them.  I am tired of discussions that pit one working class (and by that I mean a person who works for his or her income) group against another working class group.  People who don't have pensions against people who do have pensions.  People who have access to health insurance against people who don't.  Endless debates about whether waiters and waitresses deserve to get tipped 15 or 20%.

Our economy is bigger than it has ever been and the only people who are experiencing that is the top 1% and I just don't think that is right.

[Boz86]

But, my larger argument is that if civilian pensions are on the table, so should military pensions.

The difference in this case is they're changing the civilian pensions going forward (grandfathered) while applying the military to all current recipients (non-grandfathered).

Trying to avoid the vitriol that this thread deteriorated into, I will opine that the U.S. military needs to change it's system. And it's not going to be easy. The services have different manpower needs (e.g. Marines need a much younger, mostly lower ranking force due to their relatively lightly armored infantry concept, the Navy has a more broad requirement of age due to the very technical nature of it's ships, the Army leans more towards the Marine model, the Air Force towards the Navy). A change in the compensation system will need to take those differences into account.

There's another lesson here: if you're counting on any government to maintain course and speed on anything your plan is hope. Hope is not a plan.



 

[CommonCents]

I heard in conversation the other day that Virginia is making a change to teachers' pensions that is rather moderate:  Their teachers can still retire /collect a full benefit after 30 years (30?  I don't claim to have the details right -- just pay attention to the concept), but they cannot begin to collect until they're 62.  So, for example, I'll be 55-56 when I hit 30 years and am qualified to collect my pension.  I can quit teaching at that point, and my benefit will "be mine", but I cannot begin collecting 'til I'm 62.  I suspect we'll see more things like this.  It's unfair to the workers who bought into the old deal, but it's better than losing the benefit altogether. 

My state govt does this already.  As best I can recall (it's more complicated than described here - in part because for people hired less than 1 month after me the rules and ages change slightly), here's how it works:

• At 10 years, I vest.  They can't change my pension at this point, cutting my benefits. 
  
• There is a chart, that sets out what % of my current salary I would receive, if I retired at X year and Y age.  I don't get my full benefit until 30 years and age 62.  (I started here at 32 so it's one and the same for me.)  I can retire at 20 years at any age with a reduced benefit.  I only recently learned I can retire sooner, at 15, if I wait to collect until certain age (it's not much, like 10-15% of my salary).
• It's NOT indexed to inflation.  (This really hurts a lot of people that don't realize they are losing ground each year.)
• It's not complete "free" (I use this term very loosely, because I am paid significantly less than I would be at a comparable job.  It's part of my benefits package.) For this, I pay approximately 10% of my salary each year.

[Left]

hm on the whole pension thing... for people striving to retire early... do you really intend to stay long enough to get a pension?
I can understand the draw to it, but well... I don't understand the draw to actually be tied to it if you can become FI without it.

just to bring it back to MMM and all :D but yeah...

[Honest Abe]

My teacher's pension prevented (hopefully) any future crises by changing the game for people coming in. I started 10 years ago, I can retire with 60% salary at 55yo/30 years or 62yo/20 years. My contributions are 3% pre-tax for 10 years, then that's it.

However, new hires as of the last few years get 60% salary at 62yo/30 years and (here's the big one) they must contribute 6% for their entire career. This is a huge change, and the younger guys aren't getting anywhere near the deal we did. But they're honoring the deal they made with us going in, and new people know what they're signing up for.

[davisgang90]

Our economy is bigger than it has ever been and the only people who are experiencing that is the top 1% and I just don't think that is right.

Who exactly are the 1% in your mind?  I know the Occupy Wall street folks popularized the term, but I'd like you to explain who they are and how no one else is benefiting from our larger economy.

[2527]

1% of the population is people with incomes of about $350,000 and net worths of about $5M.   The own a larger share of the nation's wealth than at any time since statistics have been kept and the vast majority of the increase in the economy goes to them.

[Mazzinator]

hm on the whole pension thing... for people striving to retire early... do you really intend to stay long enough to get a pension?
I can understand the draw to it, but well... I don't understand the draw to actually be tied to it if you can become FI without it.

just to bring it back to MMM and all :D but yeah...

For me/us, we just found MMM in April 2013, and my husband has already served active duty for 12 years, leaving us at FIRE in about 8 years from now.

We were looking at military retirement to live on and our stache as a bonus/supplement..but now i guess it should be the other way around...

[Leggo]

Honestly, as a military member with 17 years in, I'd rather they give me my full pension from my retirement date until age 62, then stop the damn thing altogether.  Why?  Because I have been pouring my money into IRA and TSP, neither of which I can touch until 59.5.  Not so much left at the end of the month in those early years to put into a taxable account.  Sure, now I make enough to contribute to the FI (as opposed to the retirement) accounts, but I'm very late to that game.  My retirement accounts should be quite sufficient by age 60...its the getting there that will be tough.

Anyway, no my livelihood will not hinge on a 1.5% vs. 2.5% COLA increase, just sucks that they're breaking the contract.

[SnackDog]

Pensions for all workers have been progressively disappearing the last 100 years or so. It is too bad that people take jobs in hopes of guaranteed pension benefits because in most cases they won't realize them. The best savings plan is your own!

[chasesfish]

Pensions for all workers have been progressively disappearing the last 100 years or so. It is too bad that people take jobs in hopes of guaranteed pension benefits because in most cases they won't realize them. The best savings plan is your own!

This...is the spirit of MMM.  Don't go work your ass off today for the promise of future rewards.  Get paid, invest yourself, and take control of your life.

[Villanelle]

If you think the military hasn't seen a reduction in their overall benefits, you are mistaken.

Military life has grown increasingly difficult in myriad ways.  Work hours increased, manpower cut, equipment breaking and unavailable, longer deployments, medical for overseas spouses trimmed, tons of base programs and resources cut... the list goes on and one.  This would be *far* from the first cut. 

Hey, the American people have spoken. Collectively, they don't want to pay any more for ANYONE who works for the government in any capacity, and preferably want to pay less than they are paying right now. I work for a certain malfunctioning western state and resist the temptation to roll my eyes when I hear civil Fed employees complaining about an increase of their pension contribution to HALF of what I have to pay into mine. I could be angry that they're complaining about getting burned more than I am getting burned or I could point out that the conservatives have won, and their assault on "unnecessary" government spending is making a career or a life serving the common good in any capacity less and less worth it.

So I'll do that. My point is that military personnel and civil servants are both getting screwed because they both happen to be stuck with different variations on the same retirement mechanism: old-school government pensions threatened by a tax-hating public, enabled by politically ascendant ultra-conservatives. Doesn't it make more sense to recognize that we're all suffering from the same problem here, instead of arguing about who has it worse?

I most certainly was not arguing about who has it worse.  I was responding to a post that did so, and that claimed military has not seen any cuts.

[golfer44]

Well, the pensions are not really the same.  A career military man can enter the service at 18 and retire at 38 after 20 years.  A teacher must put in 30 years (though it varies from state to state).  That's 50% more time served.

My 20 years to earn a pension don't include summers off.  Instead they included multiple deployments away from my family into harm's way.

Thanks for you service to our country.  But get out of here with that.  Those of us in public education do not "get summers off".  We basically get furloughed for the summer, every year, as we don't get paid when we don't work.  In my school district we work 200 days.  We get paid for 200 days.  Further more most of us spend our summers taking courses (often at our expense) just to keep certification and keep up with the ever changing federal guidelines, such as common core.

Is the salary you agreed to reflected upon those 200 days of work? Or do you only get 54.8% of it? If the former, you don't have much of an argument to stand on here.

Also many, many careers require continuing education at the employee's expense.

[captainawesome]

Most of us didn't sign up for the pension, but it is something that helped keep the tough times in perspective.  It also helped a lot of us shape how we were investing.  If it were to change late in a career, it would definitely throw some things off. 

It is sad to me the number (or lack of) decision making congressional members who have a direct tie to the military, through their own service or service of a son or daughter.  I don't think they would be so quick to make these sort of changes.

On the other hand they could however dump the F-35, which would save a good chunk of change....

[Undecided]

Most of us didn't sign up for the pension, but it is something that helped keep the tough times in perspective.  It also helped a lot of us shape how we were investing.  If it were to change late in a career, it would definitely throw some things off. 

It is sad to me the number (or lack of) decision making congressional members who have a direct tie to the military, through their own service or service of a son or daughter.  I don't think they would be so quick to make these sort of changes.

On the other hand they could however dump the F-35, which would save a good chunk of change....

I note the adjective "decision making," but at least in 2012, veterans were more common in Congress than in the population overall, so I'm not sure that's a wish that's likely to gather a lot of support. Of course, you had a long period of time where veterans were a huge percentage of Congress, sometimes a solid majority if I recall correctly, and where veterans benefits were hugely protected.