Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 156

Thread: House Panel Backs Major Military Retirement Overhaul

Hybrid View

Previous Post Previous Post   Next Post Next Post
  1. #1
    Senior Member Stalwart's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    Annapolis, MD
    Posts
    1,055
    Mentioned
    4 Post(s)

    House Panel Backs Major Military Retirement Overhaul

    Military Times: http://www.militarytimes.com/story/mili ... /26127857/

    [quote]House lawmakers will back a dramatic overhaul to the military retirement system as part of the fiscal 2016 defense authorization bill, including a 401k-style investment plan and an end to the 20-year, all-or-nothing retirement model.

    Plans call for the new retirement system to be in place by October 2017. They come despite concerns of some veterans groups that the commission recommendations won't entice enough troops to stay to or past the 20-year mark.

    House Armed Services Committee leaders also will mandate better financial literacy training for troops, improved access to child care on military bases and consolidate the current 30 Reserve component duty statuses to six.

    Those moves are all aspects of recommendations made earlier this year by the Military Compensation and Retirement Modernization Commission. But for now, the lawmakers are not backing potential Tricare and commissary system changes, two other controversial measures in the commission report.

    Rep. Mac Thornberry, R-Texas, chairman of the House Armed Services Committee, said he believes the moves as a whole will strengthen the fighting force.
    "This is the sort of change that isn't going to save a lot of money, but it's designed to attract and keep up the quality of talent in the military," he said.

    He also indicated there is support for similar moves in the Senate, which will have to sign off on all of the proposed House changes.

    The retirement changes would affect only future enlisting troops. Those currently serving would have the choice to opt into the system, but would not be required to do so.
    The 20-year retirement plan has served as a major military recruiting tool for decades, offering service members a sizable pension while still in the prime of their working years.
    But critics have noted that few troops are able to take advantage of the system. Commission members noted that 83 percent of troops don't stay for 20 years, and leave the service with no real retirement plan.

    The new proposal would solve that, offering a 401k-style investment account with government contributions and matches that troops could take with them whenever they leave the military.
    Plans call for an automatic federal contribution of 1 percent of troops' basic pay to their Thrift Savings Plan accounts, with matching contributions up to 5 percent of basic pay — offerings that mirror private sector employee benefits.

    The new retirement system also would offer lump-sum "continuation pay" for members who stay beyond 12 years of service and the traditional pension plan for those who reach 20 years.
    However, payouts at the 20-year mark would be reduced from the current 50 percent of basic pay to 40 percent, which raised concerns among critics.

    To counter that, Rep. Joe Heck, R-Nev., chairman of the committee's personnel panel, said lawmakers will allow government matches to TSP accounts to continue past 20 years, a wrinkle not included in the compensation commission's plan.

    Lawmakers also will dump complex lump-sum retirement payout options recommended by the commission in favor of a simpler plan. But the remainder of the new retirement outline will stay.

    The House lawmakers will mandate that Pentagon officials offer a path within six months to implement the new retirement plan. But they set October 2017 as a firm target to have the new system in place.

    Heck and Thornberry both said they think that will give all sides enough time to work through any potential problems, and calm outside fears about unexpected downsides.
    The Republican leaders also said that will give military officials enough time to put in place new financial literacy training for troops, so they better understand how the investment savings accounts will work and the risks involved.

    The White House is scheduled to offer its own analysis of the commission recommendations April 30, after the full armed services committee marks up its version of the authorization bill.
    Thornberry said he is confident that the rest of his congressional colleagues will see the benefits of the plan. Heck said members of his panel already have voiced strong support for a change.

    "For too long, if you didn't serve 20 you left with nothing," Heck said. "This plan recognizes the service of everyone."
    The most important six inches on the battlefield is between your ears.

  2. #2
    Banned sandsjames's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Texas
    Posts
    6,984
    Mentioned
    18 Post(s)
    As long as it's grandfathered then I don't have a problem. New enlistees will know what they are getting themselves into.

    Not to the same extent, but changes have happened before and were only partially grandfathered. In, I believe, 1980 and 1987 that affected the "high 3" or "final 3" and they weren't completely grandfathered. First termers did not get grandfathered.

    I guess we'll just have to see what happens.

  3. #3
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    May 2013
    Posts
    851
    Mentioned
    2 Post(s)
    While not a fan of a 401K that would completely replace our current pension, the House Bill is susprisngly pretty well balanced. Reduce the current pension to 40% AND have a TSP with matching funds!

    My only issue, however, is that this new retirement benefit will be easier to incrementally reduce in the future, especially the matching funds. "Well, in these tough economic times, we will 'just' reduce the matching funds from 5% to 3.5% for the next three years, blah, blah, blah." Then, as time goes on the matching goes away completely. I can see it now.
    Last edited by FLAPS, USAF (ret); 04-25-2015 at 12:11 PM.

  4. #4
    Banned sandsjames's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Texas
    Posts
    6,984
    Mentioned
    18 Post(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by FLAPS, USAF (ret) View Post
    While not a fan of a 401K that would completely replace our current pension, the House Bill is susprisngly pretty well balanced. Reduce the current pension to 40% AND have a TSP with matching funds! My only issue, however, is that this new retirement benefit will be easier to incrementally reduce in the future, especially the matching funds. "Well, in these tough economic times, we will 'just' reduce the matching funds from %5 to 3.5% for the next three years, blah, blah, blah." I can see it now.
    Agree. Changes that happen for those already signed up are wrong.

  5. #5
    Senior Member Stalwart's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    Annapolis, MD
    Posts
    1,055
    Mentioned
    4 Post(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by FLAPS, USAF (ret) View Post
    While not a fan of a 401K that would completely replace our current pension, the House Bill is susprisngly pretty well balanced. Reduce the current pension to 40% AND have a TSP with matching funds!

    My only issue, however, is that this new retirement benefit will be easier to incrementally reduce in the future, especially the matching funds. "Well, in these tough economic times, we will 'just' reduce the matching funds from 5% to 3.5% for the next three years, blah, blah, blah." Then, as time goes on the matching goes away completely. I can see it now.
    Agreed, I would be in favor allowing those already in to opt into the new program. That isn't something I would do personally since at almost 25 years time in service I couldn't put enough into a 401K to match the percentage of lost income from the set pension; but someone at 5 - 10 years ... maybe.
    The most important six inches on the battlefield is between your ears.

  6. #6
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Columbus, ohio
    Posts
    3,337
    Mentioned
    29 Post(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by Stalwart View Post
    Agreed, I would be in favor allowing those already in to opt into the new program. That isn't something I would do personally since at almost 25 years time in service I couldn't put enough into a 401K to match the percentage of lost income from the set pension; but someone at 5 - 10 years ... maybe.
    I agree. Had this been me at my first reinlistment time, i would be for it. Now i am already retired though, i can't see it benefiting me one iota.

  7. #7
    Banned sandsjames's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Texas
    Posts
    6,984
    Mentioned
    18 Post(s)
    401k...lol...nice...gamble with your retirement. That's a safe bet.

  8. #8
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Columbus, ohio
    Posts
    3,337
    Mentioned
    29 Post(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by sandsjames View Post
    401k...lol...nice...gamble with your retirement. That's a safe bet.
    True. Heck issuing US Savings bonds would be safer.

  9. #9
    Senior Member Bos Mutus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2015
    Posts
    1,573
    Mentioned
    11 Post(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by FLAPS, USAF (ret) View Post
    While not a fan of a 401K that would completely replace our current pension, the House Bill is susprisngly pretty well balanced. Reduce the current pension to 40% AND have a TSP with matching funds!
    I agree that this plan does not seem like it is that horrible an idea.

    Seem like it would especially benefit those folks who don't go 20 years and decide to get out at 10 years...at least they won't be leaving empty-handed.

    For those who stay 20+...it would be interesting to see some models run on how a person would've done had this plan been in place for the last 20, 30, 40 years, etc. Would be a nice calculator for someone to develop.

    Seeing as how the real reason for a military retirement overhaul is to save the govt. money...I wonder if this would actually do that....now with all the people who don't make it to 20 still getting a match, and those who do getting a 401K plus a pension...I wonder how that really works out to the govt. saving money.

    My only issue, however, is that this new retirement benefit will be easier to incrementally reduce in the future, especially the matching funds. "Well, in these tough economic times, we will 'just' reduce the matching funds from 5% to 3.5% for the next three years, blah, blah, blah." Then, as time goes on the matching goes away completely. I can see it now.
    Last edited by Bos Mutus; 04-27-2015 at 06:10 PM.
    The Voice of Reason

  10. #10
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    May 2013
    Posts
    851
    Mentioned
    2 Post(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by Bos Mutus View Post
    I agree that this plan does not seem like it is that horrible an idea.

    Seem like it would especially benefit those folks who don't go 20 years and decide to get out at 10 years...at least they won't be leaving empty-handed.

    For those who stay 20+...it would be interesting to see some models run on how a person would've done had this plan been in place for the last 20, 30, 40 years, etc. Would be a nice calculator for someone to develop.

    Seeing as how the real reason for a military retirement overhaul is to save the govt. money...I wonder if this would actually do that....now with all the people who don't make it to 20 still getting a match, and those who do getting a 401K plus a pension...I wonder how that really works out to the govt. saving money.
    Right now, I don't think the gov expects to save any money with this new plan. That said, I also don't expect the promise of 'matching' will be upheld. In fact, I expect sometime in the future they will incrementally reduce matching on those currently serving. What's that leave them, 40% retirement pension...protected (for now) under mandatory spending.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •