PDA

View Full Version : Retirement Changes (Maybe REDUX isn't a bad choice now)



WALLY3430
08-10-2011, 03:16 AM
With the release of the proposal for military retirement changes by the Defense Business Board, it seems cutting costs in this area isn't any longer taboo. The fact that a couple plans have been brought forth in as many years and our current "debt issues" continue to spiral out of control, it looks like military benefits are no longer off limits. We WILL see changes in our retirement system at some point and it won't be for our benefit. There'll be no 60% at 20 years because "we understand what our service members have endured". So, whatever retirement "changes" are made, it would be a good bet to say they will not be as cushy as they are now.

As a preemptive measure for those of you "in the zone", it may not be a bad idea to take another look at the REDUX program. Ya, it sucks compared to High 3 IMHO, but High 3 may not be around much longer. At your 14 1/2 to 15 year mark, you should receive an email asking you if you would like to enroll in the REDUX program. If you don't reply, it will automatically default your choice to High 3. But if you elect REDUX, I "believe" you must sign a form stating your intentions---which is also signed by a couple other people involved in the process. My point is, you're signing an official document saying that you elect the REDUX program which entitles you to at least 40% at 20 years. It would make it that much harder for the government to "breach the contract" it made with you. Considering the plans that are being proposed now and the possibility of "partial grandfathering" or "no grandfathering", you could look at your REDUX paperwork as your "Get out of Jail Free" card. This is assuming that one of the two plans proposed gets pushed through Congress in their present form (highly unlikely), and the timing retirement election lines up. Just saying, it may not be a bad idea to keep the REDUX plan opened and minimized on your desktop....so to speak. Thoughts??

Tak
08-10-2011, 03:25 AM
they have been trying to cut this FOREVER...it will not come to pass...
http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/67xx/doc6715/78-CBO-013.pdf

WeaponsTSGT
08-10-2011, 03:32 AM
I've heard a lot of talk, and I tend to believe there will be people who are grandfathered. I can't imagine someone being at 17 years and they are told there retirement is no longer valid.

grimreaper
08-10-2011, 04:52 AM
With the release of the proposal for military retirement changes by the Defense Business Board, it seems cutting costs in this area isn't any longer taboo. The fact that a couple plans have been brought forth in as many years and our current "debt issues" continue to spiral out of control, it looks like military benefits are no longer off limits. We WILL see changes in our retirement system at some point and it won't be for our benefit. There'll be no 60% at 20 years because "we understand what our service members have endured". So, whatever retirement "changes" are made, it would be a good bet to say they will not be as cushy as they are now.

As a preemptive measure for those of you "in the zone", it may not be a bad idea to take another look at the REDUX program. Ya, it sucks compared to High 3 IMHO, but High 3 may not be around much longer. At your 14 1/2 to 15 year mark, you should receive an email asking you if you would like to enroll in the REDUX program. If you don't reply, it will automatically default your choice to High 3. But if you elect REDUX, I "believe" you must sign a form stating your intentions---which is also signed by a couple other people involved in the process. My point is, you're signing an official document saying that you elect the REDUX program which entitles you to at least 40% at 20 years. It would make it that much harder for the government to "breach the contract" it made with you. Considering the plans that are being proposed now and the possibility of "partial grandfathering" or "no grandfathering", you could look at your REDUX paperwork as your "Get out of Jail Free" card. This is assuming that one of the two plans proposed gets pushed through Congress in their present form (highly unlikely), and the timing retirement election lines up. Just saying, it may not be a bad idea to keep the REDUX plan opened and minimized on your desktop....so to speak. Thoughts??

Well first, it will have to make it through Congress, and as long as people like us make our feelings know through organizations such as AFSA, it's going to be a hard sell as long as the House is controlled by Republicans. If it were still being run by Pelosi and her crew, I'd be sweating it.

But don't you just love how their trying to sell it? Saying that the current system is not fair blah, blah, blah. A bunch of statistical, bean counter garbage. Like where they say something of the effect that 76% of people get out between 20 and 25 years. Well duh, remind be what HYT is for a TSgt and MSgt? They couldn't stay in longer than that if they wanted to.

Apparently, only 1 person on this board has any time served in the military, so that should tell you all you need to know.

Golther
08-10-2011, 05:01 AM
Honestly if there is partial or no grandfathering in for the retirement changes, I think that a lot of people will be jumping ship when their enlistment is up. Guess what though, the AF won't have to do force reduc...eerr I mean force shaping anymore. There will not be many people around to do the work. Then suddenly massive bonuses for initial and re-enlistments, which will cost them more in the end because of a bunch of 4 and out taking 60,000 a pop. Wow what a vicious circle, when it turns out again that we have too many people.

F16TSgt
08-10-2011, 06:26 AM
[QUOTE=Golther;463118]Honestly if there is partial or no grandfathering in for the retirement changes, I think that a lot of people will be jumping ship when their enlistment is up.


I could see this happening if the job market wasnt complete garbage. When I told my father about about this retirement proposal, he said that while it may not be the best thing, at least I'll still be getting a paycheck for the next few years.

redd
08-10-2011, 09:55 AM
I for one will be jumping ship if I'm not grandfathered in. Then I'll turn around and do the same job working as a contractor, hell probably on the same base for more money. I love the AF and I really would like to retire but I'm not going to get screwed in this deal.

KhansRequiem
08-10-2011, 12:19 PM
Here's my thought:

Retention dives immediately
Promotion Rates for those still in skyrocket
Decent chance of making General Officer, live in studio apartment, keep money in mattress, save urine in jars.

Ranger
08-10-2011, 12:30 PM
Well first, it will have to make it through Congress, and as long as people like us make our feelings know through organizations such as AFSA, it's going to be a hard sell as long as the House is controlled by Republicans. If it were still being run by Pelosi and her crew, I'd be sweating it.
Don't single out just the Democrats that would pass this. This mirrors the “Wisconsin Effect” that Republican Tea Party ideology attempts to spread across America. If they can to get rid of the pension plan that we get, and then they can argue that no public employee should get a pension.

Isn't it interesting how they're trying to sell it, "Fairness is a key factor, Spencer said. Along with saving the Pentagon money, the new plan offer significant retirement benefits to the roughly 83 percent of troops who leave service before reaching 20 years." But those 83 percent know that when they get out under the current system.

And how did they decide that 16.5 percent contribution should be used, and what keeps them from in the future to reducing that to say 5 percent, because 16.5 percent will, “undermine future war-fighting capabilities”?

I agree that we really need to make our dissatisfaction known to our representatives no matter what political party.

Golther
08-10-2011, 01:47 PM
I for one will be jumping ship if I'm not grandfathered in. Then I'll turn around and do the same job working as a contractor, hell probably on the same base for more money. I love the AF and I really would like to retire but I'm not going to get screwed in this deal.

This ^^^^^^^ There are too many jobs which make it possible to do this. The thing is the experience will be gutted out of the AF.

BRUWIN
08-10-2011, 02:10 PM
Our congress will never agree on anything so look for the debt trigger to be utilized. Once that happens don't think for a minute that being grandfathered will be a consideration. The trigger was installed because our government knows they have no balls to make an actual decision so when the trigger is pulled they'll simply blame each other since under the bill nobody will have to take direct blame. As far as the DoD does...when the trigger is pulled they'll have no option but to cut retirement benefits to stay alive and they'll look like the bad guys.

This is Obama Leadership 101...they are pros at this.

Venus
08-10-2011, 02:14 PM
If these retirement changes go through the whole USAF will start looking like AETC when it comes to flightline mx. All you will have is E-1 thru E-4 doing all the crap jobs with a bunch of civilians WG's or contractors doing all the work on the planes. Lackland would have to expand just to keep up with the constant USAF turnover plus you would not have a NCO corp with any corporate knowledge. This will be the end of the all volunteer military.

RetSNCO
08-10-2011, 02:49 PM
The media has everyone spun up to polarize the nation along political lines. Don't fall for it. The #1 driving factor to reduce your pension comes from the same people who always want to cut your benefits, whether it be a .3% pay raise, Tricare, retirement, etc. Those people are the generals and high level civilians who run the Pentagon. They always want to cut people and benefits first. They are addicted to expensive weapon systems that will never be used and often don't work to begin with. See the $350 million/per tag on the F22 as an AF example. If the AF could make a deal to cut 25% of your pay to fund another 100 F22s, what do you think they would do?

Politicians listen to these Pentagon leaders. They sometimes go against the grain (see C17 program), but it is usually only for election purposes. You want to talk to the people trying to hijack your pension? Start with the Chiefs of Staff and work your way down the stars. You can make budget reductions by cutting weapons or people; the Pentagon will always choose to cut people & benefits.

FLAPS
08-10-2011, 03:32 PM
Our congress will never agree on anything so look for the debt trigger to be utilized. Once that happens don't think for a minute that being grandfathered will be a consideration. The trigger was installed because our government knows they have no balls to make an actual decision so when the trigger is pulled they'll simply blame each other since under the bill nobody will have to take direct blame. As far as the DoD does...when the trigger is pulled they'll have no option but to cut retirement benefits to stay alive and they'll look like the bad guys.

This is Obama Leadership 101...they are pros at this.

You're spot on with your prediction about the debt trigger. Making no deal is the best way to deflect blame, thus increasing chances of reelection. Unfortunately for us, Panetta and the JCS members have all stated that an additional $500 billion in cuts would decimate the military. Get ready to be decimated...

WALLY3430
08-10-2011, 03:33 PM
Our congress will never agree on anything so look for the debt trigger to be utilized. Once that happens don't think for a minute that being grandfathered will be a consideration. The trigger was installed because our government knows they have no balls to make an actual decision so when the trigger is pulled they'll simply blame each other since under the bill nobody will have to take direct blame. As far as the DoD does...when the trigger is pulled they'll have no option but to cut retirement benefits to stay alive and they'll look like the bad guys.

This is Obama Leadership 101...they are pros at this.

I think you nailed it Bruwin....I see this scenario playing out. We'll still have our "Libya incapable F-22" though....

USN - Retired
08-10-2011, 03:53 PM
, it's going to be a hard sell as long as the House is controlled by Republicans. .

The proposed changes to the military retirement plan actually sound like something the Republicans will heartily embrace.

BRUWIN
08-10-2011, 07:05 PM
The media has everyone spun up to polarize the nation along political lines. Don't fall for it. The #1 driving factor to reduce your pension comes from the same people who always want to cut your benefits, whether it be a .3% pay raise, Tricare, retirement, etc. Those people are the generals and high level civilians who run the Pentagon. They always want to cut people and benefits first.

It's not that they want to cut benefits...but when faced with massive cuts they always say they will. It's a political move on behalf of the DoD. They know congress will fund enough to continue retirement benefits but now we've run out of options. If the trigger is realized than the DoD will now have too drastically alter retirement...the debt bill really gives them no choice and Congress comes out smelling ok because the debt trigger offers the DoD no guidance on how or what they will cut.

If you want my opinion many benefits need to be cut. I've been saying for years that it has been getting out of hand. The new GI bill and TA is my biggest gripe...and I'm freakin using it! When i first came in we didn't have all this crazy spending.

Mark my words. Retirement will get cut...and the exodus will begin. For all intense purposes it is what it is.

KhansRequiem
08-10-2011, 07:11 PM
It's not that they want to cut benefits...but when faced with massive cuts they always say they will. It's a political move on behalf of the DoD. They know congress will fund enough to continue retirement benefits but now we've run out of options. If the trigger is realized than the DoD will now have too drastically alter retirement...the debt bill really gives them no choice and Congress comes out smelling ok because the debt trigger offers the DoD no guidance on how or what they will cut.

If you want my opinion many benefits need to be cut. I've been saying for years that it has been getting out of hand. The new GI bill and TA is my biggest gripe...and I'm freakin using it! When i first came in we didn't have all this crazy spending.

Mark my words. Retirement will get cut...and the exodus will begin. For all intense purposes it is what it is.

+1 for the tie ins from the Pet Peeve thread!

Shrike
08-10-2011, 07:25 PM
It's not that they want to cut benefits...but when faced with massive cuts they always say they will. It's a political move on behalf of the DoD. They know congress will fund enough to continue retirement benefits but now we've run out of options. If the trigger is realized than the DoD will now have too drastically alter retirement...the debt bill really gives them no choice and Congress comes out smelling ok because the debt trigger offers the DoD no guidance on how or what they will cut.

If you want my opinion many benefits need to be cut. I've been saying for years that it has been getting out of hand. The new GI bill and TA is my biggest gripe...and I'm freakin using it! When i first came in we didn't have all this crazy spending.

Mark my words. Retirement will get cut...and the exodus will begin. For all intense purposes it is what it is.
There goes my moral.

;)

RetSNCO
08-10-2011, 07:49 PM
It's not that they want to cut benefits...but when faced with massive cuts they always say they will. It's a political move on behalf of the DoD. They know congress will fund enough to continue retirement benefits but now we've run out of options. If the trigger is realized than the DoD will now have too drastically alter retirement...the debt bill really gives them no choice and Congress comes out smelling ok because the debt trigger offers the DoD no guidance on how or what they will cut.

If you want my opinion many benefits need to be cut. I've been saying for years that it has been getting out of hand. The new GI bill and TA is my biggest gripe...and I'm freakin using it! When i first came in we didn't have all this crazy spending.

Mark my words. Retirement will get cut...and the exodus will begin. For all intense purposes it is what it is.

I disagree, the exodus won't begin. They will drop stop-loss immediately to prevent everyone from leaving. That is the only thing they could do to prevent about 30% of the force from leaving right away. Officers would only have to put in 6 months notice and I bet most would immediately. A lot of people will walk away and you will end up with a military where people serve either 6 years or 30 years, no in between. It is just not worth it.

Agree a lot of things could be reduced and I'm betting next month's retirement check they will be. In the next 2 years, you will see the Tricare fee come back to life. This year was a compromise to increase it by the the cost index, but that will change. Your future Tricare fee will probably quadruple, meaning you pay a month's retirement to not get an appointment anyway. I'm betting things like TA go away. PCS freezes. You name it. If you are at 20, i'd retire now before they find a way to screw you too.

Measure Man
08-10-2011, 08:18 PM
I disagree, the exodus won't begin. They will drop stop-loss immediately to prevent everyone from leaving. That is the only thing they could do to prevent about 30% of the force from leaving right away. Officers would only have to put in 6 months notice and I bet most would immediately.

I don't think there would be any immediate exodus anyway. Under the proposal, guys with 10 or 15 years in, would still get 10 or 15 years worth of retirement, but they'd still have to get to 20 to get it. So, those folks would by and large probably stay.


A lot of people will walk away and you will end up with a military where people serve either 6 years or 30 years, no in between. It is just not worth it.

After the plan fully cycles through, I think you are right on the mark here. There would be nothing "special" about 20 years anymore...so there would be nothing special about getting close, or half-way...I think you'd see guys at 12, 14 or 16 years getting out a lot more than you do now. You'd still have guys coming in first term for the same reasons they do now...education, travel, get outta po-dunk, etc....then you'd still have the guys that just love it and want to stay 30 and be E-9 because it makes them feel good about themselves, etc.

It's those 10+ years guys that are just clawing to make 20 that you'd lose....I haven't decided yet if that's good thing or a bad thing.

I also, am not so sure how much of a money saver this is...as someone mentioned, now EVERYONE would get some retirement benefit, instead of just the 17% or so that make it to 20.


Agree a lot of things could be reduced and I'm betting next month's retirement check they will be. In the next 2 years, you will see the Tricare fee come back to life. This year was a compromise to increase it by the the cost index, but that will change. Your future Tricare fee will probably quadruple, meaning you pay a month's retirement to not get an appointment anyway. I'm betting things like TA go away. PCS freezes. You name it. If you are at 20, i'd retire now before they find a way to screw you too.

Tricare for retirees is probably gonna die at some point. Tricare Dental already costs what private insurance does.

The new model is going to be, military service is expected to only be a starter career, not a life plan.

Measure Man
08-10-2011, 08:19 PM
For all intense purposes it is what it is.

Well played.

WeaponsTSGT
08-10-2011, 11:04 PM
I don't think there would be any immediate exodus anyway. Under the proposal, guys with 10 or 15 years in, would still get 10 or 15 years worth of retirement, but they'd still have to get to 20 to get it. So, those folks would by and large probably stay.



After the plan fully cycles through, I think you are right on the mark here. There would be nothing "special" about 20 years anymore...so there would be nothing special about getting close, or half-way...I think you'd see guys at 12, 14 or 16 years getting out a lot more than you do now. You'd still have guys coming in first term for the same reasons they do now...education, travel, get outta po-dunk, etc....then you'd still have the guys that just love it and want to stay 30 and be E-9 because it makes them feel good about themselves, etc.

It's those 10+ years guys that are just clawing to make 20 that you'd lose....I haven't decided yet if that's good thing or a bad thing.

I also, am not so sure how much of a money saver this is...as someone mentioned, now EVERYONE would get some retirement benefit, instead of just the 17% or so that make it to 20.



Tricare for retirees is probably gonna die at some point. Tricare Dental already costs what private insurance does.

The new model is going to be, military service is expected to only be a starter career, not a life plan.

The only reason I believe it will change with newly enlisted is because from what I've read this is a program that is contributed throughtout your career. How do you take a guy at 18 years, say we have a new retirement system that you should of been paying into for the last 18 years? I don't see this happening.

VFFSSGT
08-11-2011, 12:53 AM
I don't think there would be any immediate exodus anyway. Under the proposal, guys with 10 or 15 years in, would still get 10 or 15 years worth of retirement, but they'd still have to get to 20 to get it. So, those folks would by and large probably stay.



After the plan fully cycles through, I think you are right on the mark here. There would be nothing "special" about 20 years anymore...so there would be nothing special about getting close, or half-way...I think you'd see guys at 12, 14 or 16 years getting out a lot more than you do now. You'd still have guys coming in first term for the same reasons they do now...education, travel, get outta po-dunk, etc....then you'd still have the guys that just love it and want to stay 30 and be E-9 because it makes them feel good about themselves, etc.

It's those 10+ years guys that are just clawing to make 20 that you'd lose....I haven't decided yet if that's good thing or a bad thing.

I also, am not so sure how much of a money saver this is...as someone mentioned, now EVERYONE would get some retirement benefit, instead of just the 17% or so that make it to 20.



Tricare for retirees is probably gonna die at some point. Tricare Dental already costs what private insurance does.

The new model is going to be, military service is expected to only be a starter career, not a life plan.

I have always thought that I would never see retirement benefits. When someone makes that inevitable point about staying around to get the retirement benefits...I always said yeah, great while thinking that it won't be there when I get there.

Agreed that I don't see the new plan saving much, if any, money. Like you noted, everyone will be getting something now instead just the few that make it to 20. Personally, I think they would do better to push retirement off to 25 or 30 years of service (and change HYT respectively). Don't see the need to make such drastic changes that likely won't save much, when a simple change from 20 to 25 or 30 would definitely save some money.

Measure Man
08-11-2011, 01:52 AM
The only reason I believe it will change with newly enlisted is because from what I've read this is a program that is contributed throughtout your career. How do you take a guy at 18 years, say we have a new retirement system that you should of been paying into for the last 18 years? I don't see this happening.

yes, my understanding is that a guy w/ 18 years would still get 18 years worth of the old retirement system...

I still panic, yet, though...it's very unpopular for politicians to take away military benefits...so this may just be DOD's way of scaring politicians into leaving the defense budget alone.

Ty45
08-11-2011, 02:16 AM
If you think this idea will all of a sudden be implemented are CRAZY. It will start with only NEW recruits who enlist after a certain date. No grandfathering will need to be done and no mass exodus' will happen. Our leaders are dumb but not that DUMB. This sh*t has been talked about in nearly the exact same way since the fall of the old soviet union. Don't get your panties in a bunch, you will be all right.

Shrike
08-11-2011, 04:24 AM
The only reason I believe it will change with newly enlisted is because from what I've read this is a program that is contributed throughtout your career. How do you take a guy at 18 years, say we have a new retirement system that you should of been paying into for the last 18 years? I don't see this happening.
The .ppt that I saw listed one option as going part old way/part new way for those with up to 10 years in. So if they implement this new sysetem and you were at exactly 10 years TIS, at 20 years you'd be eligible for half of the current system's pension (1/2 of 50%, or 25%) and half of the new system's pension at 57 or 67 or whenever the hell it was.

TJJ
08-11-2011, 09:22 AM
With the release of the proposal for military retirement changes by the Defense Business Board, it seems cutting costs in this area isn't any longer taboo. The fact that a couple plans have been brought forth in as many years and our current "debt issues" continue to spiral out of control, it looks like military benefits are no longer off limits. We WILL see changes in our retirement system at some point and it won't be for our benefit. There'll be no 60% at 20 years because "we understand what our service members have endured". So, whatever retirement "changes" are made, it would be a good bet to say they will not be as cushy as they are now.

As a preemptive measure for those of you "in the zone", it may not be a bad idea to take another look at the REDUX program. Ya, it sucks compared to High 3 IMHO, but High 3 may not be around much longer. At your 14 1/2 to 15 year mark, you should receive an email asking you if you would like to enroll in the REDUX program. If you don't reply, it will automatically default your choice to High 3. But if you elect REDUX, I "believe" you must sign a form stating your intentions---which is also signed by a couple other people involved in the process. My point is, you're signing an official document saying that you elect the REDUX program which entitles you to at least 40% at 20 years. It would make it that much harder for the government to "breach the contract" it made with you. Considering the plans that are being proposed now and the possibility of "partial grandfathering" or "no grandfathering", you could look at your REDUX paperwork as your "Get out of Jail Free" card. This is assuming that one of the two plans proposed gets pushed through Congress in their present form (highly unlikely), and the timing retirement election lines up. Just saying, it may not be a bad idea to keep the REDUX plan opened and minimized on your desktop....so to speak. Thoughts??


Hmm... You got me thinking about it. Might be a good idea to get at least locked into 40%.
Plus I most likely stay past 20 anyway. Dunno. Tough call, I'm coming up on 15 here within the next 5 months

BRUWIN
08-11-2011, 10:56 AM
If you think this idea will all of a sudden be implemented are CRAZY. It will start with only NEW recruits who enlist after a certain date. No grandfathering will need to be done and no mass exodus' will happen. Our leaders are dumb but not that DUMB. This sh*t has been talked about in nearly the exact same way since the fall of the old soviet union. Don't get your panties in a bunch, you will be all right.

OK...you keep thinking that and you'll sleep better....until Nov anyways. Our leaders already have pretty much agreed to it by installing a debt trigger. Now they don't have to agree on anything since the cuts will be automatic if they can't. If you seriously think our leaders are gonna agree on huge spending cuts to things like medicare, social security, and welfare in an effort to protect our retirement benefits you are sadly mistaken.

DWWSWWD
08-11-2011, 01:40 PM
Hmm... You got me thinking about it. Might be a good idea to get at least locked into 40%.
Plus I most likely stay past 20 anyway. Dunno. Tough call, I'm coming up on 15 here within the next 5 months

TJ, Seriously.... don't take the Redux. This retirement scare is the military equivalent of telling the old folks their Social Security checks may not be coming next month. Not saying it won't change, but it's not going to happen for 15 yr guys. Someone pointed out that even in the fat days, retirement overhauls were talked about and always got folks spun up. There are some good calculators out there that can show you how bad an idea Redux is.

FLAPS
08-12-2011, 01:38 AM
This retirement scare is the military equivalent of telling the old folks their Social Security checks may not be coming next month. Not saying it won't change, but it's not going to happen for 15 yr guys.

We are living in an unprecedented political climate right now, and facing debt trigger that will result in $500 billion more in DoD cuts. I think after this happens all bets are off and the 15-yr guys will be impacted. I also predict that current retirees will eventually be targeted for retired pay reductions, but of course, one step at a time. The economy is in dire shape, and I can't imagine where we'll be in 10 years...if there's even a country left.

Luvnlife
08-12-2011, 08:49 PM
TJ, Seriously.... don't take the Redux. This retirement scare is the military equivalent of telling the old folks their Social Security checks may not be coming next month. Not saying it won't change, but it's not going to happen for 15 yr guys. Someone pointed out that even in the fat days, retirement overhauls were talked about and always got folks spun up. There are some good calculators out there that can show you how bad an idea Redux is.
Dont take the REDUX! I took it and regret it, lost about $300 a month from my retirement check. If you do take it then stay in at least 23 to bump up the 40% to 50%. But you'd still lose 1% in COLA.

MisterBen
08-12-2011, 08:57 PM
We are living in an unprecedented political climate right now, and facing debt trigger that will result in $500 billion more in DoD cuts. I think after this happens all bets are off and the 15-yr guys will be impacted. I also predict that current retirees will eventually be targeted for retired pay reductions, but of course, one step at a time. The economy is in dire shape, and I can't imagine where we'll be in 10 years:plane.

The epitome of an optimist. :)

FLAPS
08-13-2011, 12:45 AM
The epitome of an optimist. :)

I guess I read too much about how there is no way we will overcome the amount of debt we will have at that point. If you can find one ounce of evidence that our economy will be better in 10 years, by all means please share!!!

KhansRequiem
08-16-2011, 04:09 PM
by Jim Garamone
American Forces Press Service


8/16/2011 - *WASHINGTON *-- The military retirement isn't going to change any time soon, Defense Department officials said.

"There's no immediate plan to affect retirement," Navy Adm. Mike Mullen told service members at Kandahar Airfield, Afghanistan, July 31.

The chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff said any changes to military retirement should be studied carefully and should be "grandfathered" so the military doesn't break faith with those in the service.

Pentagon officials are reviewing all areas of the defense budget, and the goal of the review is to "inform the decisions and strategies that we have to make," Defense Secretary Leon E. Panetta said Aug. 4.

"So that's going to be key to what decisions we make and what areas we look to for savings," the secretary added.

In support of the department's efficiency initiatives, a small group of Defense Business Board members was tasked to develop alternative plans to the current military retirement system. The group briefed its findings and draft recommendations to the full board during their July 21 quarterly meeting. The full board approved the recommendations, and the group will issue a final report by the end of this month.

The Defense Business Board provides DOD's senior leaders independent advice and recommendations "on effective strategies for the implementation of best business practices on matters of interest to the Department of Defense," according to Pentagon officials.

Meanwhile, a Pentagon spokeswoman said, officials are reviewing the board's recommendations.

"Any recommendation to change the military retirement system must be approached with thoughtful analysis, to include considerations of impacts to recruiting and retention," Eileen Lainez said. "While the military retirement system, as with all other compensation, is a fair subject of review for effectiveness and efficiency, no changes to the current retirement system have been approved, and no changes will be made without careful consideration for both the current force and the future force."

Airborne
08-16-2011, 04:27 PM
Dont take the REDUX! I took it and regret it, lost about $300 a month from my retirement check. If you do take it then stay in at least 23 to bump up the 40% to 50%. But you'd still lose 1% in COLA.
If you dont mind me asking, why did you take the REDUX? It is more or less common knowledge to not take it. Im sure people took you to the side, etc?

BRUWIN
08-16-2011, 04:39 PM
by Jim Garamone
American Forces Press Service


8/16/2011 - *WASHINGTON *-- The military retirement isn't going to change any time soon, Defense Department officials said.

"There's no immediate plan to affect retirement," Navy Adm. Mike Mullen told service members at Kandahar Airfield, Afghanistan, July 31.

The chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff said any changes to military retirement should be studied carefully and should be "grandfathered" so the military doesn't break faith with those in the service.

Pentagon officials are reviewing all areas of the defense budget, and the goal of the review is to "inform the decisions and strategies that we have to make," Defense Secretary Leon E. Panetta said Aug. 4.

"So that's going to be key to what decisions we make and what areas we look to for savings," the secretary added.

In support of the department's efficiency initiatives, a small group of Defense Business Board members was tasked to develop alternative plans to the current military retirement system. The group briefed its findings and draft recommendations to the full board during their July 21 quarterly meeting. The full board approved the recommendations, and the group will issue a final report by the end of this month.

The Defense Business Board provides DOD's senior leaders independent advice and recommendations "on effective strategies for the implementation of best business practices on matters of interest to the Department of Defense," according to Pentagon officials.

Meanwhile, a Pentagon spokeswoman said, officials are reviewing the board's recommendations.

"Any recommendation to change the military retirement system must be approached with thoughtful analysis, to include considerations of impacts to recruiting and retention," Eileen Lainez said. "While the military retirement system, as with all other compensation, is a fair subject of review for effectiveness and efficiency, no changes to the current retirement system have been approved, and no changes will be made without careful consideration for both the current force and the future force."

Keep in mind...he's briefing this at Kandahar where everybody listening has a weapon. It's a great example of Knowing your audience.

Luvnlife
08-16-2011, 05:53 PM
If you dont mind me asking, why did you take the REDUX? It is more or less common knowledge to not take it. Im sure people took you to the side, etc?
When I took it it had just been implemented. Back then no one took me aside or said dont do it, it was still new and seemed like a good idea to me at the time. I had hit my 15 year mark and had some debt that I wanted to pay off before I retired so I figured that I'd take it and I would stay in till 23 so that I would get back the 10% I lost by taking the REDUX. Well fast forward 5 years later and I didnt want to stay till 23, I just wanted to retire and enjoy it. At least for me, hitting 20 and retiring felt like I was finally FREE, I could do whatever I wanted, when I wanted. So basically I lost about $300 a month in retirement by taking the REDUX.

Though, by paying off all my debt with the REDUX "bonus", I was able to be financially prepared to retire at 20 as a TSgt and not have to go out and get a job. I live the same lifestyle as I did when I was in. Looking back I think I would have still been able to do it if I hadnt taken the REDUX. Live and learn. :thumb

iceeis
08-16-2011, 06:38 PM
Though, by paying off all my debt with the REDUX "bonus", I was able to be financially prepared to retire at 20 as a TSgt and not have to go out and get a job. I live the same lifestyle as I did when I was in. Looking back I think I would have still been able to do it if I hadnt taken the REDUX. Live and learn. :thumb

I took it a few years ago for the same reason. I figured I'd rather start repairing my credit at 15 years so when I retire at 20 (or so) I'll be on stronger financial ground. I wouldn't reccomend most people take the REDUX payment unless you have an immediate need for it.

As far as the proposed plans, I don't understand why paying everyone retirement is going to save money. I agree with everyone else that the Air Force will become very hollow in the middle (SSgt- MSgt) because the reason why most people put up with years 12-20 is the promise of retirement. Hell, I would have gladly gotten out at 15 instead of putting up with the last 3 miserable years.

I view my retirement as compensation for all the stress and extra work I put in for the past 20 years. I don't think many civilian workers would put up with all the shift work, B.S., and deployments. I don't regret joining the Air Force, but I certainly can't wait to leave.

TJJ
08-18-2011, 09:06 AM
Yeah I know, redux isn't the best of idea's. But times change, just thinking it might be best to "hedge" my bet.

Yes they have came out and said "no change any time soon" What does that mean to you 1,2 years or 10? What if the economy gets even worse?

FLAPS
08-18-2011, 10:27 AM
Yeah I know, redux isn't the best of idea's. But times change, just thinking it might be best to "hedge" my bet.

Yes they have came out and said "no change any time soon" What does that mean to you 1,2 years or 10? What if the economy gets even worse?

And what if we find at the end of the year that the DoD has to cut $500 billion more in 10 years on top of the current $400 billion cut? Panetta, JCS members, and many others in DoD have stated repeatedly that this would decimate the military. The next several months will be very telling...

Luvnlife
08-19-2011, 12:26 PM
If anyone is considering taking the REDUX make sure you have a plan for the money. And by plan I dont mean I plan to buy a flat screen TV, XBOX, a motorcycle and put a down payment on a BMW either.

Use the money to pay off some debt or invest it (which may not be a good idea either).

fufu
07-17-2013, 04:21 AM
Redux still sucks,
Don't be swindled
By the man.

HEY! RFD, quit bumping ancient fucking threads!