Military pensions unaffordable? Like to hear some retired vets on this

[rambone]

What if i was to tell you that that the first Veteran Pensions were set up in 1776, to take care of Revolutionary War vets that were wounded. In 1818 it was changed to allow anyone who served for more than 9 months to get a pension.

Pensions enacted by Congress for American Revolutionary War Veterans

I think letting them get private insurance is still the better course, by far.

Even if George Washington himself started the Givernment mentality. Look where it has led, when you teach people, generation after generation, that government is your provider.

 

[INRanger]

Private insurance wouldn't work. Soldiers don't get paid enough as it is, they could never afford the premiums on an insurance plan that would cover what they do. Ask any LEO who has looked into private health insurance(not connected to Dept.) its crazy expensive. Add on the risks soldiers face in training alone never mind guaranteed joint deterioration and hearing loss and that one thing, whats it called? Oh! I got it! Combat.

 

[ATOMonkey]

I don't think 20 year pensions are big issue, overall, but they are an issue that needs to be addressed.

My opinion... Grandfather in everyone who was already contracted with a 20 year pension.

Increase the pay scale to accurately reflect what a guy with gobs of experience and qualification in a very narrow field should be paid (includes enlisted and officers), and let them manage their own retirement.

Strictly philosophically...if you're in it for the money, then you're a merc. It's called service for a reason. I don't think anyone would stop defending his home, just because he wasn't going to get a pension, right?

Realistically, I know that everyone needs to eat (and more) and people should be fairly compensated for their work, and that our current combat arms are too complicated for use by a part time soldier, marine, sailor, or airman.

So, catch 22.

 

[Kitty]

How about this - yes it might (and probably does) need to be looked over and reformed but this should be at the BOTTOM of the "to cut" list not the top.

 

[badwolf.usmc]

I don't think 20 year pensions are big issue, overall, but they are an issue that needs to be addressed.

My opinion... Grandfather in everyone who was already contracted with a 20 year pension.

Increase the pay scale to accurately reflect what a guy with gobs of experience and qualification in a very narrow field should be paid (includes enlisted and officers), and let them manage their own retirement.

Strictly philosophically...if you're in it for the money, then you're a merc. It's called service for a reason. I don't think anyone would stop defending his home, just because he wasn't going to get a pension, right?

Realistically, I know that everyone needs to eat (and more) and people should be fairly compensated for their work, and that our current combat arms are too complicated for use by a part time soldier, marine, sailor, or airman.

So, catch 22.

In the military, pay is determined by time in service & your grade. So someone who has loads of "experience" gets the same pay as someone who has little "experience". Unless you want to change how the military pay system works, the only way to pay someone more for more experience is in the forms of enlistment bonuses, and they are being cut by people who want to save money & reduce the debt.

I serve in the military because it is what i want to do with my life and it is important to me. However, I'm not going to do it for free. I expect to get paid and compensated. If that makes me a mercenary then i would like to see who would join the military for free. I don't see anybody laying down their time, sweat, blood or sanity for their country, for free.

Current combat systems are not too complicated for reservist to use, it is that reservists don't to get to use them as much as active duty does. I've been on both sides of the fence and can attest the difficulties of each side.

 

[adam]

and that our current combat arms are too complicated for use by a part time soldier, marine, sailor, or airman.

 

[ATOMonkey]

I think that people will fight for their freedom, or life, without any regard to compensation. I do agree that people are much less...enthusiastic, let's say...to fight for a country without due compensation.

That's not a dig at service members, that's just my way of saying that we fight wars that we have no business fighting. I don't blame anyone for wanting to be compensated for taking another man's risk. It is what it is.

I would imagine that being a pilot or fire control officer would require a full-time commitment. That's an awful lot of responsibility to place on a part timer.

There is also the matter of logistics to take into account. There are many jobs that need more than weekend warriors to keep the military machine running. I suppose we could outsource that... Still, it all comes down to the point that there will always be full time job requirements and it's a bit silly to think that someone would work full time for free.

That's why I will always have difficulty reconciling my philosophical ideal with the reality of the sitution. There's just too many exceptions.

BTW, I think the pay system works just fine, I just think it's too low for some jobs. Even when you consider that people are paid to learn their skill, it's still a VERY narrow field.

There are some people who soldier for free though. The Indiana Guard Reserve is one example.

 

[gunowner930]

Nobody is strictly in it for the money, because more money can always be made elsewhere. Everybody recieves the same pay based on rank and time in service, it's not that much, especially in the enlisted ranks. I made more money per hour at Burger King in 2004 than I did as an E-3 deployed to Iraq in 2006. Most members of the Armed Forces are already working well below market value. If we want people to stay in the military then you have to compensate them, especially if they get married and start having families. I agree with Kitty, the military should be the last place to look to cut wages and/or benefits.

Here's the current monthly gross payscale. E=enlisted O=officer W=warrant officer

2011 Military Pay Scale Chart - for Army, Navy, Air Force and Marines

 

[gunowner930]

That's why I will always have difficulty reconciling my philosophical ideal with the reality of the sitution. There's just too many exceptions.

It's important to remember that those serving in the military are not comparable to the lazy douchebags "working" at the Department of (insert whichever bureaucracy we don't need) that only work 3-4 days a week, get every stupid holiday off, get paid $60,000+ with full benefits, and a pension plan.

 

[badwolf.usmc]

There are some people who soldier for free though. The Indiana Guard Reserve is one example.

I wouldn't call what the IGR does soldiering.

 

[steveh_131]

Also, there are approx. 1oo billion, chinese, and about 3 billion, AMERICANS, so they still, can match us .....

There are approximately 1,292 commas in each of your posts and approximately 3,4oo,2o1 completely fictional made-up numbers. Seriously, did you just now make up those numbers and try to pass them off as fact?

 

[Blackhawk2001]

I wouldn't call what the IGR does soldiering.

Yes - and no. Although they aren't under arms, the IGR does some of the things the Guard can't afford the resources to do otherwise. IGR volunteers were working in the Pre-Deployment processing center at Cp Atterbury, doing jobs for free that DoD or the Indiana Guard would have had to pay a soldier to do if they weren't there volunteering. IGR folks volunteer for security and traffic details that need to be done, but would take up the time of traditional M-day Guardsmen. They are serving/continuing to serve. The Air Force has the Civil Air Patrol, which does essentially the same sorts of things, although the CAP has an actual mission to perform SAR and Relief missions. They also don't get paid.

 

[Blackhawk2001]

I don't think 20 year pensions are big issue, overall, but they are an issue that needs to be addressed.

My opinion... Grandfather in everyone who was already contracted with a 20 year pension.

Increase the pay scale to accurately reflect what a guy with gobs of experience and qualification in a very narrow field should be paid (includes enlisted and officers), and let them manage their own retirement.

Strictly philosophically...if you're in it for the money, then you're a merc. It's called service for a reason. I don't think anyone would stop defending his home, just because he wasn't going to get a pension, right?

Realistically, I know that everyone needs to eat (and more) and people should be fairly compensated for their work, and that our current combat arms are too complicated for use by a part time soldier, marine, sailor, or airman.

So, catch 22.

Actually, the only difference between full-time and part-time soldiers is who is paying their main paycheck. Guardsmen/Reservists have to maintain the same standards as Active Duty soldiers in their specialties. The difference in performance, when there is one, is the amount of funding available for training-to-standard. The other difference, nowadays, is that because in some Reserve units troops tend to stay together for long periods of time, they bring a lot of experience and varied skills (acquired outside the military) and have developed procedures and teams over the years which can make up for any lacks in their training compared to Active Duty units.

For example, though, Reserve Aviators (pilots and crewmembers) are trained to the same standards and have to meet the same flying hour requirements as Active Duty crews. There used to be a wide variance in combat readiness due to less-stringent training requirements and less money going to the Guard/Reserve, but that changed after Gulf War I when the Army realized that over half of Army Aviation was Guard/Reserve.

At the beginning of Gulf War II, train-up periods for Reservists were three months; now, due to most everyone having been deployed at least once already, pre-deployment training has been reduced to about six weeks (last I heard).

These days, there isn't a whole lot of difference between Active Duty troops and Guard/Reserve Troops; most everyone has "seen the elephant" and units preparing to deploy are equipped the same way as first-line Active Duty units - and are expected to perform the same jobs in the same way.

As someone upthread said, military pensions may become an issue, but they should be the last item on the table, not the first.

 

[edsinger]

I am not for this at all. I did not stay for 20 years but I thought about it. It was my choice. However, if one must change it, then start EVERYWHERE else. This is bullShi$t to even consider it. Troops are already paid less than minimum wage if hours worked are counted. I can think of many other places to cut first, starting with government union workers.

 

[warriorbob]

the fact is when someone in the military gets to the retirement age they might not be in the physical condition to go and work another job for 40+ years. We give our sweat, tears, blood, limbs, and some cases lives so the american people can live thier overly sheltered lives. The ignorance of the American civilian is sickening to me most of the time. And hearing stuff like this bothers me greatly especially when there are many other "fats" that could be cut first. And also because of our service we may develope conditions that may affect us from having another job that we will have to deal with the rest of our lives.

 

[warriorbob]

Personally I think there should be no such thing as "government retirement/pension." Pay the government employees their wage. Let them invest it as they please. Its their responsibility to plan for the future, not the taxpayers'.

What sense does it make for someone to work for 20 years and then receive a government pension for the next 40, or even 60 years? Its all a ponzi scheme. Not much better than Social Security.

many that have served 20+ years may not be able to get another job because of issues developed while protecting the sheep. And many physical/mental injuries will not be covered by private insurance.

 

[steveh_131]

many that have served 20+ years may not be able to get another job because of issues developed while protecting the sheep. And many physical/mental injuries will not be covered by private insurance.

I suppose that's something to consider when making career choices. You know, free market and all.

 

[88GT]

I would counter that there should not be any type of retirement or pension, government or civilian, that would include 401k. Did the founding father's have 401ks? They seemed to do pretty well for themselves.

Why civilian? Isn't that just another imposition of your desires on somebody else? If I as a business owner want to provide my employees with a pension/retirement funds, what business of it is yours?

And the founding fathers all died with massive amounts of debt.