Monday, February 1, 2010

Scrapping Military Retirement Why Not Scrap Military Pensions, And Pay More Money To Military People?

Why not scrap military pensions, and pay more money to military people? - scrapping military retirement

My idea is that after a length of 6 to 8 years of service, members of a sharp increase and a pension guaranteed by the government to invest in themselves to obtain because the pension plan. It may take up to 50% of their salary. Also do not use mandatory in retirement, but the mandatory age of 60 years for persons under the E-7, under O-4, and WO, with no mandatory retirement. For those with a disability, Tri-Care and the Veterans Health Administration and Tri-Care plan / any military medical facility at the age of 60 (Tri-care are full medical, dental and vision, Veterans Administration are connected to the service).

10 comments:

Ally said...

I do not know if I like your idea to pay or not, but the minimum age for retirement for sixty would not work for several reasons. First, the army has to do with the promotion of experience, qualified members. When I ask people to one years twenty to thirty more are not only covered the promotion rate is too low, there are people down in jobs that are more than qualified, because their range distribution is not allowed to go higher. I am thinking in particular of competition, unless I see that the agents would be happy with a rate of promotion, either. Second, the military, it should be safe for the members of the majority, not half or a minority. It is sad that our bodies decrease as we age. So I do not see a general who has attained the age of 50 to 55. These people are the exception not the rule. The army is physically demanding, and the human body tends to start to break with this treatment, even before 30 or even 60! There are many other medical problems in old age, as well, SUCH, such as heart and lung problems, osteoporosis and poor visibility (by laser surgery of all time, can be corrected especially with age). Every person should at any age with medical treatment by the army into consideration - the amputees, people with knee problems seemingly inevitable (my right, it starts, until recently, the work), hearing problems, vision problems, starting with the day to day computer screens. There are any number of physical side affects that can be directly attributed to the test, military, and should not have to wait 60 years until you have time to compensate for the absence of good physical health to the service of his country.

papo9112... said...

To ask .... What is your MOS. If there were a series of 11 ... Grief is not a baby.

My world said...

Not a good idea. I agree that military pay, pension and benefits should be considered, hard and tight, but the idea did not work.

It is a serious pay increase after 6-8 years? Why? Why not after 10 years? So, you're on the hill. Why not 15? Then, on the descent?

Gov't There is a pension plan in force. It is now "High 3". This means that I, the highest average received my 3 years active service. What works for me. My pension is not enough to pay my mortgage, and it is more than many of my colleagues had civilian never received.

TSP is online and working well. I have investments for 2 years and have enough savings. I have also invested in me, so I G2G.

Mandatory retirement at age 60? No way. No one will stay in the Army than ever before, even if they are there, plus "solid". TIS 20 -30 years and finished. As for the obligatory after a certain area, which already exists. If you do notDo not move, you move.

Tri-Care and the VA are already in place for the care of veterinarians, veterinary ANY, regardless of whether they have a service connected disability or not. We also have the soldiers and sailors.

Perhaps a little more research would have been good prior to the posting of this question.

RunningO... said...

Before he would support an idea what I want to be sure that the majority of military members approved. Not be in active military duty, that Congress would be very reluctant to make changes without massive support from the military, including the military.


Googleplex, so I think he was entitled to that opinion.

JAMES11A said...

Believe it or not, some service members (or their wives) money. Then, would fall after 20 years or more difficult, the service member nothing.

Good idea though.

TOPKICK said...

I regret that the hunting dog

googlepl... said...

Let's see what happens 20 years for a $ $ on the line, then ask this question.

Q-burt said...

Frankly, I wanted to know what you smoke.

I was there 14 years and hard work in the civilian as a person, as. If you are 10 to 16 hours work per day (seven days per week depending on season) display, move at least 10 times in 20 years, field trips, etc. There is no reason to go beyond 20 The system is very good. One change would force training, which for many services.

frogspea... said...

I agree with Google.

Forgiven said...

While I respect your opinion - you paint himself as a real idiot. I am a captain in active service, my a ** on the line in Iraq.

How will people in the army long enough to keep his father became NCOs and officers into retirement without? These people live their lives and stay longer to get a pension ... If this is not possible to go, and would find a civilian job, so that their future would be secured and lost valuable experience.

Just because you have not done a good job) and its own budget and limit the choices career (15 years in prison and 5 active duty and not entitled to the same pension as the duty of the AD (Active everyone in the Change to race served) does not mean that we are the way we operate.

Thank you for your service 20 years, but you know in the business from day one. Then you can find your *****' in and a job!

Post a Comment