Military: Some rich and some broke and damaged?

[libertarian4321]

You seem to equate career military with zero sacrifices. 

I didn't say zero sacrifices.  Yes, military folks have to move every ~3 years or so.  Yeah, it makes it harder to invest in real estate.  There are some other annoyances, as well as some great perks. 

Just because you didn't find anything you personally dealt with to be more than an 'annoyance' does not give you the right to devalue the sacrifices of others, regardless of their combat-service status.  Seriously, that's highly insulting.

When I volunteered at the VA, I'd see combat wounded vets in terrible shape.  Young men (and women, but mostly men) trying to get by with broken bodies who can't work and receive minimal benefits, and having to fight tooth and nail to get many of those.

While Colonel Paper Cut cashes in on $100,000 every year while simultaneously working the system for a 6-figure job with a government contractor which largely consists of peddling influence.

That is the real insult.  Something is very wrong and very unfair with that system, and yeah, it makes me angry.

However, we both know nothing will ever be done to fix the system, so you have nothing to worry about.  So don't be too upset about my rant, it will come to nothing.

[caliq]

You seem to equate career military with zero sacrifices. 

I didn't say zero sacrifices.  Yes, military folks have to move every ~3 years or so.  Yeah, it makes it harder to invest in real estate.  There are some other annoyances, as well as some great perks. 

Just because you didn't find anything you personally dealt with to be more than an 'annoyance' does not give you the right to devalue the sacrifices of others, regardless of their combat-service status.  Seriously, that's highly insulting.

When I volunteered at the VA, I'd see combat wounded vets in terrible shape.  Young men (and women, but mostly men) trying to get by with broken bodies who can't work and receive minimal benefits, and having to fight tooth and nail to get many of those.

While Colonel Paper Cut cashes in on $100,000 every year while simultaneously working the system for a 6-figure job with a government contractor which largely consists of peddling influence.

That is the real insult.  Something is very wrong and very unfair with that system, and yeah, it makes me angry.

However, we both know nothing will ever be done to fix the system, so you have nothing to worry about.  So don't be too upset about my rant, it will come to nothing.

I'm not sure why you think I'm benefiting from the military retirement/pension system.  DH only did 5 years in the Marines, and was royally screwed over by both his command and the VA, to the point of having diagnoses changed while in service in order to avoid medical separation, and being given a general under honorable conditions rather than honorable discharge because of events related to his disability, and then given a 10% rating after 2 years waiting on the VA, when he deserved (and eventually appealed to get) 80%.  He did not serve in combat, but I am 100% positive that his stateside service caused his disability, and I say that knowing that I am incredibly well educated on the etiology of his condition (see previous comments regarding my education/field).  We have fought tooth and nail to get the benefits he deserved, and we have another very difficult fight coming up (discharge upgrade).  Trust me, I am well aware of how the system screws over the people who need it most and actually my FIRE plans involve pretty hefty advocacy on this subject. 

I was insulted by your insinuation that people who didn't serve in combat were only mildly inconvenienced by their military service and don't deserve the benefits they earned.

[libertarian4321]

You seem to equate career military with zero sacrifices. 

I didn't say zero sacrifices.  Yes, military folks have to move every ~3 years or so.  Yeah, it makes it harder to invest in real estate.  There are some other annoyances, as well as some great perks. 

Just because you didn't find anything you personally dealt with to be more than an 'annoyance' does not give you the right to devalue the sacrifices of others, regardless of their combat-service status.  Seriously, that's highly insulting.

When I volunteered at the VA, I'd see combat wounded vets in terrible shape.  Young men (and women, but mostly men) trying to get by with broken bodies who can't work and receive minimal benefits, and having to fight tooth and nail to get many of those.

While Colonel Paper Cut cashes in on $100,000 every year while simultaneously working the system for a 6-figure job with a government contractor which largely consists of peddling influence.

That is the real insult.  Something is very wrong and very unfair with that system, and yeah, it makes me angry.

However, we both know nothing will ever be done to fix the system, so you have nothing to worry about.  So don't be too upset about my rant, it will come to nothing.

I'm not sure why you think I'm benefiting from the military retirement/pension system.  DH only did 5 years in the Marines, and was royally screwed over by both his command and the VA, to the point of having diagnoses changed while in service in order to avoid medical separation, and being given a general under honorable conditions rather than honorable discharge because of events related to his disability, and then given a 10% rating after 2 years waiting on the VA, when he deserved (and eventually appealed to get) 80%.  He did not serve in combat, but I am 100% positive that his stateside service caused his disability, and I say that knowing that I am incredibly well educated on the etiology of his condition (see previous comments regarding my education/field).  We have fought tooth and nail to get the benefits he deserved, and we have another very difficult fight coming up (discharge upgrade).  Trust me, I am well aware of how the system screws over the people who need it most and actually my FIRE plans involve pretty hefty advocacy on this subject. 

I was insulted by your insinuation that people who didn't serve in combat were only mildly inconvenienced by their military service and don't deserve the benefits they earned.

I didn't mean to be especially insulting to those who didn't serve in combat.

Especially since I would be insulting myself to do so. :)

And yeah, working to get benefits through the disability system can be a PITA, so I sympathize with you on that.  I used to volunteer to help vets and their families with the paperwork.  It could be like banging your head against a wall sometimes.

[caliq]

You seem to equate career military with zero sacrifices. 

I didn't say zero sacrifices.  Yes, military folks have to move every ~3 years or so.  Yeah, it makes it harder to invest in real estate.  There are some other annoyances, as well as some great perks. 

Just because you didn't find anything you personally dealt with to be more than an 'annoyance' does not give you the right to devalue the sacrifices of others, regardless of their combat-service status.  Seriously, that's highly insulting.

When I volunteered at the VA, I'd see combat wounded vets in terrible shape.  Young men (and women, but mostly men) trying to get by with broken bodies who can't work and receive minimal benefits, and having to fight tooth and nail to get many of those.

While Colonel Paper Cut cashes in on $100,000 every year while simultaneously working the system for a 6-figure job with a government contractor which largely consists of peddling influence.

That is the real insult.  Something is very wrong and very unfair with that system, and yeah, it makes me angry.

However, we both know nothing will ever be done to fix the system, so you have nothing to worry about.  So don't be too upset about my rant, it will come to nothing.

I'm not sure why you think I'm benefiting from the military retirement/pension system.  DH only did 5 years in the Marines, and was royally screwed over by both his command and the VA, to the point of having diagnoses changed while in service in order to avoid medical separation, and being given a general under honorable conditions rather than honorable discharge because of events related to his disability, and then given a 10% rating after 2 years waiting on the VA, when he deserved (and eventually appealed to get) 80%.  He did not serve in combat, but I am 100% positive that his stateside service caused his disability, and I say that knowing that I am incredibly well educated on the etiology of his condition (see previous comments regarding my education/field).  We have fought tooth and nail to get the benefits he deserved, and we have another very difficult fight coming up (discharge upgrade).  Trust me, I am well aware of how the system screws over the people who need it most and actually my FIRE plans involve pretty hefty advocacy on this subject. 

I was insulted by your insinuation that people who didn't serve in combat were only mildly inconvenienced by their military service and don't deserve the benefits they earned.

I didn't mean to be especially insulting to those who didn't serve in combat.

Especially since I would be insulting myself to do so. :)

And yeah, working to get benefits through the disability system can be a PITA, so I sympathize with you on that.  I used to volunteer to help vets and their families with the paperwork.  It could be like banging your head against a wall sometimes.

Well apologies for misunderstanding you then :)  If you don't mind me asking, did you volunteer with a specific organization?  I wanted to start doing something like that now but I couldn't find anything on DAV's website about it and gave up/got distracted. 

I had to educate the Comp & Pen doctors and the disability rating people on DH's disability, to the point of writing out a five page explanation going through the biological basis of it, stuff about each symptom and its' impact on his life/working ability, including citations to scientific literature and educational NIH booklets and such...it was such a headache but I'm so glad I did it.  I can't imagine what it's like for people without the ability to do something like that -- I'm sure that's the point at which a lot of people just quit.  I'd really like to be able to help other people since I've spent so much time figuring out how the system works -- don't want to waste all my new knowledge/skills!

[Nords]

I was insulted by your insinuation that people who didn't serve in combat were only mildly inconvenienced by their military service and don't deserve the benefits they earned.

I prefer to reflect on my years of service which helped preserve his right to voice those insinuations.  For everything else there's the forum's "Ignore poster" feature.

As for paper cuts and lard butts, I'll say it again:  military pay is based on the risks you take, and a willingness to volunteer for the unpopular jobs, and not so much on what actually happens.  I agree that disability compensation is too low and too cumbersome to navigate, and it needs to be better.  But you're going to get the military that you're willing to pay for, and I would prefer not to boost (any further) the financial incentives that motivate people to volunteer for combat.  We need servicemembers who find ways to accomplish the mission without shootin' things up. 

I'd rather have a military so small that the State Department is actually forced to do the international relations and civil affairs missions that now seem to be defaulted to the military.  And heaven forbid the military disability system could be so expensive that even Congress hesitates to pay for war.

[caliq]

Calqie - for volunteer ops: You sometimes have to contact your local DAV chapter for info. Otherwise the best place to find volunteer gigs is thru a VA hospital or  clinic. They usually have an office with a toll free number that will give you a list of volunteer activities they are looking for.

Thanks! I'll contact the local DAV.  Our local VA volunteer coordinator failed to return several calls a month or two ago so he's on my shit list....

[Gin1984]

Yes, I can follow the issue of lacking financial discipline. I'm obviously very ignorant on military matters. Doesn't the most dangerous assignment merit a higher reward ... both honorary and financial? Don't those injured in action get a higher pension or something? For what some of those guys went through in one week, they should be set up for life.

A pension is different from disability.  I don't know the ins and outs of pensions because my husband only did 5 years, but I believe a pension is taxable and is actually reduced dollar for dollar by any VA disability payments received, which aren't taxable. 

VA disability rates are not really enough to live on without being pretty mustachian unless you get 100%, which is fitting considering the number, but 90% disabled only pays out a little over half of what 100% does; see  http://www.benefits.va.gov/compensation/resources_comp01.asp

It's VERY hard for a veteran to get designated as 100% permanently and totally disabled.  I believe there is a Congresswoman who was a helicopter pilot and crashed/was shot down -- she has multiple amputations and does not get 100% disability. 

To add a personal anecdote:
My husband has an incurable neurological disorder that doesn't respond to medications.  It affects his sleep, muscle control, and causes hallucinations, plus other stuff, and he was told at 29 that it's unsafe for him to drive at all.  Given where we live and the career the Marines trained him for, working is not really an option until he can get training/education in a new field that will allow him to work remotely from home.  The maximum allowable rating from the VA for his disorder is 80%, and they initially gave him a 10% rating.  This is a fairly common occurrence -- veterans get low ratings after years of waiting for an answer and end up giving up because the appeals system is overwhelming.  Cynical people like to say it's because the VA doesn't want to pay out, so they give everyone a lowball rating initially and hope you aren't savvy enough to appeal properly.  The only reason my husband's rating was increased is because I'm studying molecular and cellular biology and am highly interested in neuroscience -- I was able to dive very deeply into the scientific/medical literature surrounding his disability, educate myself on it well beyond any VA doctor we've ever spoken to, and make the case for its' impact on his quality of life and ability to work.  That's not something that most veterans or their caregivers can do, which leads to the 'destitute disabled veteran' situation that you see frequently in the media.  The homelessness and suicide statistics among veterans in the US are appalling :(

Agreed!

[MrsPete]

I have to agree with those who say that within any profession you can find something similar:  Some people who are rich and on top of their game, while others are broken and damaged.  I'm a teacher, and I definitely see it. 

Our job is certainly not a high-paid profession, yet if you were to walk down the hallways you'd see some teachers who "present well" -- that is, they're well-dressed, positive, and enjoy their jobs.  You'd find others who are miserable, and it shows.  You can find some who have their finances under control and are steadily saving for the future; whereas others loudly bemoan the five days remaining 'til payday.  You can find some teachers who do their best with their problem students, and if they aren't completely successful, at least they've given it their best shot, while others throw their hands up and don't really try to help their less-than-motivated students.

I think it's human nature:  Some people are winners, while others are losers. 

[Kriegsspiel]

I'd rather have a military so small that the State Department is actually forced to do the international relations and civil affairs missions that now seem to be defaulted to the military.  And heaven forbid the military disability system could be so expensive that even Congress hesitates to pay for war.

Totally agree. I think a good rule of thumb is "if you can't kill your way out of the problem, it probably shouldn't be given to the military."

[CommonCents]

The notion that officers are overpaid "paper pushers" is ignorant and silly, and more than a little offensive.

Tell that to DH, whose hearing is going from all those years of flying a helicopter. Our friends who are permanently injured from helo crashes would object to the notion that officers are "paper pushers", as would our dead friends if they were, you know... not dead. 

When he gets to 20+, IMO, DH will have earned every penny of that pension.  Do we need to do better by our injured vets?  Absolutely.  But DH is making far less than his civilian counterparts.  The pension is simply delayed compensation and when looked at that way, it isn't quite the same obscenely large check you make it out to be, libertarian.

An O-6 with 30-years service $131,000 per year (base pay only, this does not include all the other perks- BAS, BAQ, etc). 

If he retires at age 52, he'll collect roughly $100,000 per year, every year, for the rest of his life (likely to be 3 decades or so), for doing absolutely nothing.  Not to mention the extraordinary benefits retired military get- free medical, education benefits for the soldier and his family, and all the rest, which can be worth tens of thousands more every year. 

In short, a military retirement for an officer is worth MILLIONS of dollars.

I'm a former military officer, so I'm not "anti military."  But I'm also a tax payer, and given the size of our bloated military, that is a huge (and some would say unsustainable) burden. 

But for now, I'm not calling to cut the size of the pot, just redistribute it more fairly to those who truly sacrificed, rather than those who hung around for a long time and were merely inconvenienced.

But what do you mean by truly sacrifice? Many officers, as well as enlisted, are in the front line of combat. They are in every field of combat on air, land, and sea taking the same risks as their enlisted counterparts.

Even in peacetime officers and enlisted sacrifice a great deal.  Long patrols and deployments are common, Often in dangerous conditions. People like Nords ride inside nuclear bomb a thousand feet under the sea for months at a time. People fly helos into hurricane force winds in the black of night to rescue people in 50 foot seas. People go to the aid of other countries in times of natural disaster. Fight piracy to keep transportation waterways safe, and smugglers of various contraband, including humans, weapons, drugs, etc... to keep the country safer. The list goes on and on.

Theses are people who are working in dangerous conditions on a daily basis. Who are gone for months or even years at a time and rarely see their families. People who work 24/7 with little downtime. These are officers as well as enlisted.

+1

There’s a few issues with your idea of who has "truly sacrificed".

One is the slippery slope.  Is it really only those in combat who lost their legs that you think ought to qualitfy for disability?  What about someone who lost their legs in an explosion at sea (not in combat)?  What about the guy that lost only one leg?  What about the woman that still has her legs, but lost functional use?  And so on.

Next, as Spartana notes, just because you weren’t in combat doesn’t mean you didn’t serve in dangerous and risky areas and sacrifice in many ways.  Take my dad.  He falls under this one in Spartana’s list: “Fight piracy to keep transportation waterways safe, and smugglers of various contraband, including humans, weapons, drugs, etc... to keep the country safer.” 

• So he could have been killed by Haitian immigrants trying to get into the country or Columbian drug runners.  (At one point, he held the record for the top 9 of 10 drug busts ever in the US - number one was a warehouse.  Two years in a row he had top 10 drug busts for that year.  This creates a target – and to this day, he refuses to write a book about his experiences because he’s worried about that target.)
• He captained 4 ships (serving on two more I think).  This means he was out at sea for up to 6 months at a time, minimum of 3 months.  Missed my high school graduation (as valedictorian), my brother’s eagle scout ceremony, my parents 25th anniversary, Christmas, Birthdays…  When my brother broke his arm within a few days of moving to Michigan, my mom got to figure out where the hospital was by herself, babysitting for my sister and I in a new town.  Just like she was super excited to teach all of us how to drive and in all other ways hold down the home fort. 
• The sea is dangerous, even if not in combat.  He went out to rescue the dumbasses who went out when they shouldn’t.  Have you seen, read or heard of the Perfect Storm?  According to my dad (who captained the actual CG ship that did the rescues), it’s perhaps the one time that Hollywood under did the danger and how bad it was out there.
• We “got” to move every 2-3 years.  I lived 9 places before I turned 18.  Used that actually as the subject for the obligatory “diversity” admissions essay I had to write for a few law schools.  There are some fun aspects to it – seeing the country, learning to ski in Alaska, for example, and then there are the unfun aspects to it (such as living in Alaska…, or always leaving behind friends in the days before email could keep you at least slightly connected, always needing to fight to get into the advanced classes in each new school district, being far from family, etc.)
• Of course, when he wasn’t out to sea, he was one of those despicable desk jockeys you think don’t earn their retirement pay.  There’s a large range between combat and desk bound, and the things about the military is that you are likely bouncing around between more and less dangerous/difficult positions.  Yet, even as a desk jockey, he did things like work 80 hour weeks, gave up vacation time constantly, and stayed up for three days straight coordinating a search for Alaskan Air flight 261 survivors.

Third, the retirement pay is part of the overall compensation package, a benefit which in part compensates for a reduced pay package.  (And no, he and others like him weren’t medicore, libertarian4321, just because they chose to stay in and serve their country for 20-30 years.  He turned down a quite lucrative and unsolicited offer when we were young, apparently.)

This is not to say I don’t think we could shrink the military.  But I strongly disagree with some of the assumptions/assertions you make, which appear to be based on the subset of friends you have, some of whom you apparently don’t think are “entitled” to their earned retirement pay so you think others aren’t.

*****

Ok, so I asked my dad about his disability.  We were both right.  He has four 10% disabilities: Hearing, hand, heart (which probably ought to be higher considering how close he came to dying and how much it restricts his activities now, but it is what it is), and spondylosis, which I mentioned above (commonly seen in professional athletes getting hit all the time…apparently being thrown repeatedly into bulkheads during bad weather is the same as a linebacker hitting you all the time).    It doesn’t add to 40% disability – instead it’s 10%+(90%*10%)+(81%*10%)+(72.9%*10%)=34.39%.  (10%+9%+8.1%+7.29%=34.39%)  That is then rounded off because they do round 10% figures as you said….and it is rounded down to 30% rather than up to 40%.  So four 10% disabilities = 30%.

[act0fgod]

There is something seriously wrong with our military that makes desk bound paper pushing officers rich, while the infantryman who lost both legs is left with little to show for his service.  If it were up to me, I'd REDUCE the retirement benefits from those who "stick around" for 20 years and massively increase the benefits for the guys who get wounded actually fighting.

Let me start by saying I agree with a lot of your opinions on the military.  Then let me say you are wrong and hopefully not intentially misleading regarding the infantryman who lost both legs getting less than the retired Col Lard Butt (unless he is also getting some disability pay).

Here is my understanding of the scenario you describe:
Infantryman lost both legs in war and is therefore eligible for combat-related special compensation disabilities (qualifications found here: http://www.afpc.af.mil/library/factsheets/factsheet.asp?id=9622).
Infantryman elects to separate from the military (if they want to stay on active duty they have that option as there is a special clause allowing war wounded to stay on active duty).
Infantryman is rated 100% disabled (schedule of ratings here: http://www.benefits.va.gov/warms/docs/regs/38CFR/BOOKC/PART4/S4_71a_table_2.doc)


Here's how I calculate the monthly pay for the infantryman:
Worst case scenario they were only in for 2 years and medically retired as an E3:  Military retirement pay ends up being nothing because the VA payment is greater.
VA payment of $2,906.83 (assuming no dependents http://www.benefits.va.gov/COMPENSATION/resources_comp01.asp#BM03)
Some sort of small combat-related special compensation estimate $100
Because they lost both legs they are also entitled to Special Monthly Compensation of $3,617.02 (Using code L below the knee and can use prosthesis http://www.benefits.va.gov/warms/docs/regs/38CFR/BOOKC/PART4/S4_71a.doc)
There is also going to be a Traumatic Service Group Life Insurance payment between 25k and 100k
In addition there are multiple VA grants the veteran will be entitled to 14k for ramps 50k for home construction as two examples.
There are also various charities that will provide support.
You mentioned Col Lardbutt is probably getting paid to do consulting work (nevermind the required skills/qualifications to do that work).  There are many double amputees that could potentially have significant additional income.  Look up the fees of some motivational speakers or salaries for individuals who are successful fundraisers (or even Congresswoman Duckworth mentioned below - who also stayed in the military after her injuries).

As I calculate it the infantryman is paid $6623.85 tax free dollars in addition to the multiple one time payments.  If they had more years of service the payments would obviously go up.  That means they are paid over 75k per year tax free which likely means they are taking home more than Col Lard Butt is after taxes.

To Caliq who said the Congresswoman Tammy Duckworth is getting less than 100%, I believe you are mistaken.  A double amputee is 100% disability as seen in the 5104-5011 ratings.  You can find articles about her berating a vet who was awarded a 30% disability.  Those articles mislead the reader to believe she gets very little by highlighting a comment where she discusses a single injury of hers that is rated at only 20% after multiple surgeries and she feels it should be more than the guys 30% for his foot.

All that being said is it enough for the double amputee?  That's an individual question to be debated. 

My second job in the military was working the disability evaluation system in the Washington DC area.  I can tell you it was very emotional and political.  Disability is a tough thing, especially in careers where there is increased wear and tear on the body.  From my perspective trying to determine the cause of a breakdown can be very challenging, since age will result in breakdown anyway.

As mentioned some people are financially savvy some are not.  Many of these infantrymen are not financially savvy.  I saw individuals receive payments from non-profits or the TSGLI and buy BMW's and Benz's despite my (and others) recommendations not to.  No amount of money is going to keep that type of individual from financial ruin.  That is why there are so many stories of professional athletes and high level entertainers going bankrupt.  Financial literacy isn't a given.

What I do know is both individuals (Col Lard Butt and Infantryman) should have understood the situations they were getting themselves into.  Life is about choices and understanding the repercussions/consequences of those choices.  Unfortunately many across all aspects of life are unable to comprehend repercussions/consequences.

[davisgang90]

If he retires at age 52, he'll collect roughly $100,000 per year, every year, for the rest of his life (likely to be 3 decades or so), for doing absolutely nothing.  Not to mention the extraordinary benefits retired military get- free medical, education benefits for the soldier and his family, and all the rest, which can be worth tens of thousands more every year. 

This is wrong too.  An 06 retiring last year after 30 years of service will earn $86,816 before taxes, not $100,000 as you stated. 

(http://militarypay.defense.gov/mpcalcs/Calculators/FinalPayHigh3.aspx?calcType=h3)

You seem to play pretty fast and loose with the facts there COL Lardbutt CPT Complainypants.

[caliq]

To Caliq who said the Congresswoman Tammy Duckworth is getting less than 100%, I believe you are mistaken.  A double amputee is 100% disability as seen in the 5104-5011 ratings.  You can find articles about her berating a vet who was awarded a 30% disability.  Those articles mislead the reader to believe she gets very little by highlighting a comment where she discusses a single injury of hers that is rated at only 20% after multiple surgeries and she feels it should be more than the guys 30% for his foot.

That's exactly where I got that impression about the Congresswoman  -- thanks for clarifying :)

[Villanelle]

You seem to equate career military with zero sacrifices. 

I didn't say zero sacrifices.  Yes, military folks have to move every ~3 years or so.  Yeah, it makes it harder to invest in real estate.  There are some other annoyances, as well as some great perks. 

But all of us who have served in the military know that there are plenty of folks who get those fat pensions who never suffered any real hardship.  Desk bound officers who, even today, never came near any real combat despite serving 20 or 30 years.  In the peace-time army, this is far more common.

It just seems out of wack for these guys to be reaping huge benefits, while wounded soldiers  suffer far more and get far less in return. 

I just think that given the limited funds, the greatest benefits should go to those who suffered the most- those horribly wounded or killed in combat, not chair bound desk jockeys who just "put in their time."

Call me a radical, but I'd rather see 10 PFCs with no legs get extra money every year than have Col. Lard Butt get $100k per year in retirement pay (for doing absolutely nothing).  With all due respect to Colonel Butt, I'm quite sure those 10 PFC's sacrificed far more than he did.
Maybe cut Colonel Lard Butt's retirement pay from $100,000 to $50,000 (Hell, he won't need it, he's probably going to be raking in money from some defense contractor).

And yeah, I know all the current Colonel Lard Butt (Ret.) types won't stand for that, nor will those still in the military and hoping to cash in in the near future.  So any proposal to distribute more money to those who really sacrificed, versus those who just hung around for a long time, would only be applicable to future military folks.

Um, if that Col put in 26 years, his base pay today would be $10738.mo or$128,856/yr.  He'd get 2.5% for each year of service, or 65%.  Which is $83,756, well shy of your $100,000 figure.   (ETA:  I see this has been covered.)

Also, if you claim you aren't bitter and don't have an axe to grind, for future reference, calling someone Col. Lard Butt is probably not the best approach.  If you can't get through a debate without name calling, it's pretty clear you are anything but unbiased.

[Chuck]

For what it's worth, I'm going to throw my hat in for the "Career Military Culture is Wasteful and Often Shitty" side of this debate.

For enlisted personnel, what Libertarian4321 is describing was present in spades at my Bn. And I was a Marine. We puff ourselves up on the idea that we weed out the weak and fat and lazy.

Yet the only senior NCO's I worked for (with exceptions numbering in the single digits) were useless, outdated and poorly versed in our field. They clung on to the military for that 20 year pension and free Tri-Care. The Cpls and Sgts were responsible for 100% of the technical work, and our superiors weren't even good as a knowledge resource. If I ever had a question that I couldn't research an answer for, I had to call one of several contractors that my Bn paid to be SMEs. Why did my SNCO's even exist then?

And don't say Management, because that's what we had officers for. I'm actually pretty sympathetic to officers. They get a lot of shit in the technical fields like Intel for being technically worthless... but that isn't their job. They exist in nearly all incarnations as accountable management. That is extremely valuable in a world where millions of dollars of equipment and human lives are on the line. You need someone who can be fired and punished for failure if the mission goes wrong, and if those people (often scapegoats) want to have exclusive clubhouses with no girls enlisted allowed and more money then so be it.

But Senior NCOs... fucking worthless and the true waste of money in my opinion and experience. 

Now, about that retirement. It needs to go away. It is expensive, and it is motivating the lowest denominator to stay in long past their usefulness to Corps and Country. 401k style matching for the win. Say... 10-15%, and more can be offered an incentive to vital personnel so they will reenlist. That wau those that leave after 4, 6, 10 or 15 years still have a contribution to their retirement equible to their service. However, there won't a be an all-or-nothing shitfest that encourages the best to leave and the mediocre to stay.

[Villanelle]

For what it's worth, I'm going to throw my hat in for the "Career Military Culture is Wasteful and Often Shitty" side of this debate.

For enlisted personnel, what Libertarian4321 is describing was present in spades at my Bn. And I was a Marine. We puff ourselves up on the idea that we weed out the weak and fat and lazy.

Yet the only senior NCO's I worked for (with exceptions numbering in the single digits) were useless, outdated and poorly versed in our field. They clung on to the military for that 20 year pension and free Tri-Care. The Cpls and Sgts were responsible for 100% of the technical work, and our superiors weren't even good as a knowledge resource. If I ever had a question that I couldn't research an answer for, I had to call one of several contractors that my Bn paid to be SMEs. Why did my SNCO's even exist then?

And don't say Management, because that's what we had officers for. I'm actually pretty sympathetic to officers. They get a lot of shit in the technical fields like Intel for being technically worthless... but that isn't their job. They exist in nearly all incarnations as accountable management. That is extremely valuable in a world where millions of dollars of equipment and human lives are on the line. You need someone who can be fired and punished for failure if the mission goes wrong, and if those people (often scapegoats) want to have exclusive clubhouses with no girls enlisted allowed and more money then so be it.

But Senior NCOs... fucking worthless and the true waste of money in my opinion and experience. 

Now, about that retirement. It needs to go away. It is expensive, and it is motivating the lowest denominator to stay in long past their usefulness to Corps and Country. 401k style matching for the win. Say... 10-15%, and more can be offered an incentive to vital personnel so they will reenlist. That wau those that leave after 4, 6, 10 or 15 years still have a contribution to their retirement equible to their service. However, there won't a be an all-or-nothing shitfest that encourages the best to leave and the mediocre to stay.

This sounds very fair, except I'm not sure it wouldn't end up being much more expensive in the end. With less incentive to stay in longer term, it seems like there would need to be more significant bonuses offered in order to keep people on in leadership roles.  So there would be a situation where junior service members were getting a TSP match, making their employment more expensive than it is now, and the savings in smaller retirement packages for more senior members would be offset by the large bonuses that would be necessary to keep them around. 

And how does an amazing retirement if you stay until 20 encourage the best to leave?  I don't understand that logic.  If anything, I'd say i is the contrary.  the best can get great jobs with better pay in the civilian world.  Why would they stay in if there wasn't a huge carrot at the end of the 20 year stick?  If they are great, they can do great in the civilian world, which means the military needs to offer something to compete with larger civilian paychecks and a generally more attractive and stable civilian lifestyle. If that something isn't a very nice pension, then it is just going to have to be more pay or more bonuses, which means more expense.

The retirement benefits are a retention program.  If bailing at 12 years gets and then going civilian (with a civilian retirement package for 8 years afterwards) is about the same as bailing at 20, you are going to be hard pressed to get many people to stay until 20. 

[2527]

If the military changed its 20 year retirement plan, EVERYTHING else about the military would have to change too.  How assignments are handled, how promotions work, how hard you can work people, how you retain people when the going gets rough.  Literally, everything would change. 

[Nords]

Well if they do away with pensions then at least pay overtime. Lets see...A person has been underway on a ship or on deployment in a combat unit 24/7 for a year. Lets see...that's.... $$$$$$$. Officers can remain salaried :-)!

I dimly remember that shipyard employees who volunteered to go out on submarine sea trials would get triple overtime for eight hours per day, plus per diem.  We crew always wanted a vote on which shipyard employees we'd like to force to come out on sea trials with us so that they'd show a little more concern for the quality of their work.

If the military changed its 20 year retirement plan, EVERYTHING else about the military would have to change too.  How assignments are handled, how promotions work, how hard you can work people, how you retain people when the going gets rough.  Literally, everything would change. 

I hear you, but that was not the case with REDUX in 1986.  The only real changes after it was implemented were (1) retention plummeted (especially after the Cold War ended and the drawdown began) and (2) in 1999 the program had to be gutted in favor of CSB/REDUX.

I think that the military commission studying the retirement system is doing an important job of starting a dialogue, but I also think that gridlock and entrenched interests will prevail.  It also sounds as though some of the options being considered are so complicated to analyze that even the CPAs and CFPs are confused.

[retired?]

Without responding to any particular post, I will put forth the idea that the overall package from being an officer is part of what draws people who are militarily inclined, but wouldn't join if the net package were worth less.

Generally speaking, I don't think the military or government are efficient at using funds.  But, the military does have to compete with the private sector and other parts of the public sector for people to fill the roles.  Are we paying too much?  To answer that, I'd ask if we are turning away people who want to be officers, i.e. there is more supply than demand.  With too many applicants in the private sector, the employer can choose to lower pay or raise the bar on qualifications.

It is akin to the comment that teachers are not paid well enough.  A lot of people willingly go into teaching.  The full package of more time off, general job security, benefits, etc. are considered. (this is an entirely different question of whether we should pay teachers more so that we have better qualified people in those roles).

It's the good old capitalist market of free exchange.

[Siobhan]

I can say without the pension/medical my husband wouldn't be in still...hands down.  He adores what he does but he and I are both tired of the schedule, and with his "skills' he could pretty much walk into any contractor or pen testing firm in our area and get a job...he routinely receives offers.

I earn as much as he does gross (he wins after taxes) and I am in charge of 2 people, don't deploy, work from home whenever I want to (and worked from home strictly for 3 years due to a PCS move), wear jeans and tshirts to work, get the same 30 days of vacation time a year (which my vacation time is like his and involves constant email checking) and work about (average) 10 hour days, 5 days a week.

Now him, he's gone 6 plus months out of the year, has a company of people under him of which he has been responsible for not only THEIR well being, but that of their families as well, deploys to parts of the world even the regular Army doesn't want to go to, routinely works 7 days a week for 16 hours a day (sometimes more) while gone and a minimum of 10 while here (usually much more).  His "desk jockey officer" job has him routinely jumping out of planes at 15-35 THOUSAND feet in the air, even when NOT in combat to retain skills, which let me tell you, is just awesome on his knees, we should just buy stock in the company that makes Ostio BiFlex, let me tell ya.  All the choppers and generators and ranges have given him the hearing of a 60 year old.  And he's responsible for 10's of millions of dollars in equipment and resources. 

For this he actually gets paid LESS then his NCO's since officers aren't able to receive most of the special pays and bonuses that the NCO's do in this environment, even though they have the same training and do most of the same missions.

So, before you start harking on lazy officers, realize that one mold does not fit all, and that there are many units out there that will not tolerate supposed "laziness" 

[2527]

Well if they do away with pensions then at least pay overtime. Lets see...A person has been underway on a ship or on deployment in a combat unit 24/7 for a year. Lets see...that's.... $$$$$$$. Officers can remain salaried :-)!

I dimly remember that shipyard employees who volunteered to go out on submarine sea trials would get triple overtime for eight hours per day, plus per diem.  We crew always wanted a vote on which shipyard employees we'd like to force to come out on sea trials with us so that they'd show a little more concern for the quality of their work.

If the military changed its 20 year retirement plan, EVERYTHING else about the military would have to change too.  How assignments are handled, how promotions work, how hard you can work people, how you retain people when the going gets rough.  Literally, everything would change. 

I hear you, but that was not the case with REDUX in 1986.  The only real changes after it was implemented were (1) retention plummeted (especially after the Cold War ended and the drawdown began) and (2) in 1999 the program had to be gutted in favor of CSB/REDUX.

I think that the military commission studying the retirement system is doing an important job of starting a dialogue, but I also think that gridlock and entrenched interests will prevail.  It also sounds as though some of the options being considered are so complicated to analyze that even the CPAs and CFPs are confused.

I'm not saying it would be bad to change the retirement system or the related changes would all be bad, but everything would change.  It is an interesting thought experiment, and would be interesting to observe.   Logically, it would be as good as, or better than, FERS.  Of course, since I'm retired, I don't really care, as long as they don't renege on the  deal they made with me. 

[CommonCents]

I'm not saying it would be bad to change the retirement system or the related changes would all be bad, but everything would change.  It is an interesting thought experiment, and would be interesting to observe.   Logically, it would be as good as, or better than, FERS.  Of course, since I'm retired, I don't really care, as long as they don't renege on the  deal they made with me.

That's always the issue with changing retirements because they usually want to change the deal you've already made.  Normally, you can't just walk up to someone and change contract terms, e.g. say "hey I know we agreed you'd fix my car for me at a rate of $20/hr but now that you're almost done I'm just going to pay you $15/hr instead."  I'm in the state retirement system (almost 3 years in, need 10 to vest) and it's ridiculous to me that I can agree and perform on my side, but they can change the terms on me anytime up to 9.99 years.  (And at 10, they can change the terms - but I could choose to leave and still get the current terms when I hit the appropriate years to start collecting.)

[Villanelle]

I'm not saying it would be bad to change the retirement system or the related changes would all be bad, but everything would change.  It is an interesting thought experiment, and would be interesting to observe.   Logically, it would be as good as, or better than, FERS.  Of course, since I'm retired, I don't really care, as long as they don't renege on the  deal they made with me.

That's always the issue with changing retirements because they usually want to change the deal you've already made.  Normally, you can't just walk up to someone and change contract terms, e.g. say "hey I know we agreed you'd fix my car for me at a rate of $20/hr but now that you're almost done I'm just going to pay you $15/hr instead."  I'm in the state retirement system (almost 3 years in, need 10 to vest) and it's ridiculous to me that I can agree and perform on my side, but they can change the terms on me anytime up to 9.99 years.  (And at 10, they can change the terms - but I could choose to leave and still get the current terms when I hit the appropriate years to start collecting.)

I think there needs to be some kind of grandfathering.  Basing it on time served under each system makes sense.  It isn't ideal, but it is better than changing everything.  So if someone did 10 years under the current system and 10 years under a new system (let's say the scrapped everything and just did a TSP match), they would get 25% of base pay on retirement at 20 years, because that is half of what they'd have gotten if their entire time was old system, and they served half their time in old system.  And they'd have 10 years of TSP match.  Or 10 years/50% of some new plan that maybe delays pay until 55, or whatever. 

[Nords]

I think there needs to be some kind of grandfathering.  Basing it on time served under each system makes sense.  It isn't ideal, but it is better than changing everything.  So if someone did 10 years under the current system and 10 years under a new system (let's say the scrapped everything and just did a TSP match), they would get 25% of base pay on retirement at 20 years, because that is half of what they'd have gotten if their entire time was old system, and they served half their time in old system.  And they'd have 10 years of TSP match.  Or 10 years/50% of some new plan that maybe delays pay until 55, or whatever.

Every retirement change of the last 30+ years (and probably longer than I'm aware of) has included grandfathering.

When Congress messed with military retiree COLAs in 2013, MOAA mobilized a social-media world record around #KeepYourPromise with over 250,000 individual tweets and Facebook posts to members of Congress.  It was so viral (and so vituperative) that even Congress became aware that there was a problem.

So I think DoD and the legislative branch understand that any changes have to be grandfathered.  There will be screwups along the way, and it won't be pretty, but it will be grandfathered.

[Villanelle]

I think there needs to be some kind of grandfathering.  Basing it on time served under each system makes sense.  It isn't ideal, but it is better than changing everything.  So if someone did 10 years under the current system and 10 years under a new system (let's say the scrapped everything and just did a TSP match), they would get 25% of base pay on retirement at 20 years, because that is half of what they'd have gotten if their entire time was old system, and they served half their time in old system.  And they'd have 10 years of TSP match.  Or 10 years/50% of some new plan that maybe delays pay until 55, or whatever.

Every retirement change of the last 30+ years (and probably longer than I'm aware of) has included grandfathering.

When Congress messed with military retiree COLAs in 2013, MOAA mobilized a social-media world record around #KeepYourPromise with over 250,000 individual tweets and Facebook posts to members of Congress.  It was so viral (and so vituperative) that even Congress became aware that there was a problem.

So I think DoD and the legislative branch understand that any changes have to be grandfathered.  There will be screwups along the way, and it won't be pretty, but it will be grandfathered.

I think so too.  I know there are people who object to even that and see it as a broken promise, but to me it seems pretty reasonable.  Given how long this stuff generally takes, I suspect DH will be out before any of it materializes, but we've talked about it and neither of us would feel he was screwed if something like this happened. 

But there is a crowd that feels they took that reinlistment, stayed past initial commissioning commitment, etc., based on the current policy, and that they should be grandfathered in for their entire time in service, based on the rules when they started.  I can't say I don't see any of their point, but a % style grandfather seems like a decent compromise.  It would start to show at least some savings almost immediately, rather than 20+ years from now when todays youngest service members finally cycle out, and yet it does keep the promise for the time before the promise changed.  lol 

[CommonCents]

I think there needs to be some kind of grandfathering.  Basing it on time served under each system makes sense.  It isn't ideal, but it is better than changing everything.  So if someone did 10 years under the current system and 10 years under a new system (let's say the scrapped everything and just did a TSP match), they would get 25% of base pay on retirement at 20 years, because that is half of what they'd have gotten if their entire time was old system, and they served half their time in old system.  And they'd have 10 years of TSP match.  Or 10 years/50% of some new plan that maybe delays pay until 55, or whatever.

Every retirement change of the last 30+ years (and probably longer than I'm aware of) has included grandfathering.

When Congress messed with military retiree COLAs in 2013, MOAA mobilized a social-media world record around #KeepYourPromise with over 250,000 individual tweets and Facebook posts to members of Congress.  It was so viral (and so vituperative) that even Congress became aware that there was a problem.

So I think DoD and the legislative branch understand that any changes have to be grandfathered.  There will be screwups along the way, and it won't be pretty, but it will be grandfathered.

I think so too.  I know there are people who object to even that and see it as a broken promise, but to me it seems pretty reasonable.  Given how long this stuff generally takes, I suspect DH will be out before any of it materializes, but we've talked about it and neither of us would feel he was screwed if something like this happened. 

But there is a crowd that feels they took that reinlistment, stayed past initial commissioning commitment, etc., based on the current policy, and that they should be grandfathered in for their entire time in service, based on the rules when they started.  I can't say I don't see any of their point, but a % style grandfather seems like a decent compromise.  It would start to show at least some savings almost immediately, rather than 20+ years from now when todays youngest service members finally cycle out, and yet it does keep the promise for the time before the promise changed.  lol

I can try explaining the issue from my state perspective at least.  Let's say I sign on and work just shy of 10 years when the rules change, at the "halfway" mark.  This means:

- I took a job that paid me less than I would on the open market.  (For me at least, the difference when I took my job was ~$50k, however, some of that can be attributed to working fewer hours.)  If you add in the retirement package, that decreases the amount of the discrepancy, which is something I considered on accepting the job. 
- I am not paying into Social Security because I'm to get this "great" retirement package (quotes are because mine at least is not indexed to inflation, and because by getting a pension, I lose most of the benefit of my prior +40 quarters of paying into Social Security due to WEP).  If the rules change on the retirement package change, I can't back up and say, well I want a redo-over too, and I want social security then instead!

The issue is that I relied on the promise to make certain decisions about my career.  I can't ever go back and get the more pay, the promotions, the seniority at a different job.  So why should my employer be able to go back on what was promised on their end?  If I screw up budgeting at home, I can't go back to my employer and demand more money so I can balance my personal budget - it has nothing to do with the quality or quantity of my work.  Budget correctly in the first place, and if you don't, spread the pain over everyone receiving the government benefits (by raising taxes if needed), not just a select few.  (And then suffer the consequences of being voted out of office if need be.)

If I offer to pay you $100 for crossing the bridge and when you get halfway say "nevermind I'm only going to pay $50" - it's not fair to average the two prices given you're halfway across, and get to $75 for a payment as a compromise.  You're flipping halfway across!  Going back or going forward, you're pretty much stuck - there's not a good option.  (Particularly as you might not have agreed to cross for $75.)  That's why breaking promises in order to change retirement rules halfway through and "averaging" still seems pretty shitty to me and not a compromise.

[Villanelle]

You get paid as promised for the time that promise was in effect.  Not horrifyingly unfair.  Also, it isn't a surprise to anyone in the military who was paying any attention at all that things could change. 

I agree it isn't ideal, but I don't think it's utterly unfair, either.  And it certainly is a compromise.  It might not the the compromise you like, but i is a compromise as both sides are giving something.  The service member is giving up the 20 yr retirement he thought he had and the DoD is giving no longer doing the current 20 year retirement program at all.

[rothnroll]

If they make any changes to the retirement system it shouldn't effect those currently in. At least when they made changes in the past it was that way.

I find it very concerning to reduce benefits and make the very people who have sacrificed the most pay for the wars they fought.