CBSNews: Radical overhaul of military retirement eyed

[Springfield]

Sigh. A number of threads presently or recently dealing with everything under the sun when it comes to taxes and this is the one you guys want to debate about them? Really? Something that was,until now,considered a "sacred cow",is being looked at for change and could have some very long reaching consequences,(depending on what they decide to do),and you guys want to talk about the rich,middle class taxes. :doh:

That's why they call it the Tailgate... and your posts don't count.

[mardi gras skin]

The middle class are sacrificing in other ways. Sacrificing hell... they are suffering. Good hard working Americans are losing their jobs and homes. They get less medicaid, less medicare, less SS. This has been happening at the same time the ultra rich are making more money than ever and paying less taxes.

Not asking more from the richest, most capable demographic is pure ideological stupidity and insanity. It is beyond wrong. It is EVIL.

Mad mike, most people I spend time with are middle class and I know very few people who are sacrificing much less suffering. Most all of them live WELL beyond sacrifice. They enjoy nice cars and nice phones and nice clothes. They might want nicer, but they've always wanted nicer. They might want more but they've always wanted more. I'm not overly concerned for the plight of middle class America. I sit at the very bottom of this class and I'm doing great.

I have heard from the left on this board that Bush's tax breaks overwhelmingly benefitted the rich. Obviously, then, repealing Bush's tax breaks will overwhelmingly hurt the rich. If Bush's tax breaks didn't help the middle class (as I've heard over and over again), a repeal of those tax cuts won't hurt the middle class. Unless the left has been lying all this time, a repeal of all these tax cuts will have a negligible impact on the suffering middle class.

[Mad Mike]

Sigh. A number of threads presently or recently dealing with everything under the sun when it comes to taxes and this is the one you guys want to debate about them? Really? Something that was,until now,considered a "sacred cow",is being looked at for change and could have some very long reaching consequences,(depending on what they decide to do),and you guys want to talk about the rich,middle class taxes. :doh:

How exactly would you separate the two. The root cause for this issue is not enough money. Repeal the tax cuts for the top earners as Buffet recommends and maybe we don't have to cut benefits for our bravest young Americans. :doh:

[Springfield]

How exactly would you separate the two. The root cause for this issue is not enough money. Repeal the tax cuts for the top earners as Buffet recommends and maybe we don't have to cut benefits for our bravest young Americans. :doh:

Unfortunately, I don't think it's just that easy. Yes, raise taxes... across the board, everyone. However, that's not enough. There needs to be spending cuts. Non-discretionary spending needs cuts, reform, whatever you want to call it. When 60% of our spending is already allotted before the budget talks ever begin, we have a problem.

[twa]

Or we could cut spending somewhere else.

[PeterMP]

If you repeal all the Bush era tax cuts, I assume that middle class families will be at about where they were under Clinton. Are you saying that the growing income gap makes a return to Clinton era taxes harder for a middle class family now than it was then?

I'm saying most economists agree that a larger and growing income gap is long term bad for the country and the economy, and we should try and shrink it, and raising taxes on both the middle class and the rich would not likely do that.

(I don't know if would REALLY be harder. I can't find good data on inflation adjusted personal income. Lot's out there on household income in some constant dollars, but that doesn't seem to be the relevant data to me.)

[herrmag]

Also, a question for the R's in the thread...

I would assume that you are for some sort of SS reform. Were you for Bush 2's 401k style reform of SS? If so, why wouldn't you also be in favor of military pension reform in the same fashion?

Me would think that there were a lot of conservatives who were pro Bush SS reform, but are anti military pension reform that effectively uses the same plan. Just a hunch.

I'll play. When your job is to put your life on the line, special considerations should be made. When you're paid a pathetic salary for the majority of your career to defend your country, considerations should be made. When you end up deformed because of defending your country (like the 2 men under 27, each missing both their legs on my flight to Huntsville last week), considerations should be made.

This country is nothing without its military. We aren't the best at much these days. Our GNP is a joke, and our civilian workforce is one of the laziest on the planet (on average, there's certainly civilians that work their asses off). So we're going to punish the hardest workers that probably provide the greatest benefit to our country? No way this goes through (although a buddy of mine is terrified right now that he won't be able to support his family when he retires in 5 years).

---------- Post added August-15th-2011 at 10:05 PM ----------

I'll play. When your job is to put your life on the line, special considerations should be made. When you're paid a pathetic salary for the majority of your career to defend your country, considerations should be made. When you end up deformed because of defending your country (like the 2 men under 27, each missing both their legs on my flight to Huntsville last week), considerations should be made.

This country is nothing without its military. We aren't the best at much these days. Our GNP is a joke, and our civilian workforce is one of the laziest on the planet (on average, there's certainly civilians that work their asses off). So we're going to punish the hardest workers that probably provide the greatest benefit to our country? No way this goes through (although a buddy of mine is terrified right now that he won't be able to support his family when he retires in 5 years).

EDIT: Forgot another point. Many of the military are trained to do a job that requires skills with little to no translation into the civilian workforce when they retire. Granted there are people in the military with civilian-esque jobs (I was one of them) that I could understand possibly implementing this for. But combat arms should remain untouched.

[Springfield]

Or we could cut spending somewhere else.

In my opinion, it would be easiest (as far as burden is concerned) to cut spending on all non-discretionary items across the board.

The problem with non-discretionary spending, is the government is spending that money on the largest voting demographics. You have defense (a large demographic), social security (a large demographic), medicare (a large demographic) and medicaid (a small demographic). We all know that, in general, military folks and old folks tend to vote in larger numbers than other demographics. Poor people however, don't vote nearly as much [respectively speaking].

So you've got two huge blocks of voters, some of which are intermingled, which are guaranteed huge amounts of money as a whole. We have guaranteed a huge chunk of our budget to the people who the most vested in our political system. Ergo, defense spending, social security and medicare are "untouchable". Guess who the odd man out is?

So, I guess we could just do away with medicaid like all the republicans want to. They don't vote anyhow, why should they receive benefits? However, there's the problem. You can't just cut medicaid and balance the budget on that alone. You need to fix all of the above, as much as nobody wants to admit. I'm actually relieved that somebody brought up some ideas to shave off the defense's share of our problem. It obviously won't happen, but at least ideas are floating around.

[mardi gras skin]

I'm saying most economists agree that a larger and growing income gap is long term bad for the country and the economy, and we should try and shrink it, and raising taxes on both the middle class and the rich would not likely do that.

But all we've heard about Bush's tax breaks is that they were a tax break for the rich and that they had a negligible benefit to the middle class. So obviously, a complete repeal of the Bush era tax cuts can't hurt the middle class because Bush's tax breaks never helped the middle class in the first place. If it wasn't for class warfare and political grandstanding, the Dems would have rolled back all of Bush's tax cuts when they had the chance.

A complete repeal of Bush's inequitable tax breaks should have a equalizing effect on the income gap.

[twa]

Nice addition,and I agree Herrmag

Does anyone know if this is only applicable to new recruits and officers or to all presently serving? (I agree with sarcase,changing terms you already had in place is not good)

There are pluses and minuses to most 401 plans, NMI

[Springfield]

I'll play. When your job is to put your life on the line, special considerations should be made. When you're paid a pathetic salary for the majority of your career to defend your country, considerations should be made. When you end up deformed because of defending your country (like the 2 men under 27, each missing both their legs on my flight to Huntsville last week), considerations should be made.

This country is nothing without its military. We aren't the best at much these days. Our GNP is a joke, and our civilian workforce is one of the laziest on the planet (on average, there's certainly civilians that work their asses off). So we're going to punish the hardest workers that probably provide the greatest benefit to our country? No way this goes through (although a buddy of mine is terrified right now that he won't be able to support his family when he retires in 5 years).

---------- Post added August-15th-2011 at 10:05 PM ----------

EDIT: Forgot another point. Many of the military are trained to do a job that requires skills with little to no translation into the civilian workforce when they retire. Granted there are people in the military with civilian-esque jobs (I was one of them) that I could understand possibly implementing this for. But combat arms should remain untouched.

I don't disagree at all. As I said earlier in the thread, I was against Bush 2's proposed SS changes and I'm against this for precisely the same reason. Something needs to be guaranteed to these folks, these modern age heroes. In my opinion is that a 401k style pension is not a guarantee. Not the guarantee that our soldiers deserve.

I was asking this, because I find it a bit ironic and a bit hypocritical that the same folks who were for W's SS reform would be against essentially the same thing [but applied to the military]. Something along the lines of "what's good for the goose isn't good for the gander" or "do as I say, not as I do" or one of those other tired cliches.

For many retired folks, SS is what keeps them sustainable. Without the guarantee that comes with SS, they could be homeless. Their SS benefits aren't huge. I think a 401k style style is too risky to chance on a retiree's livelihood. Just the same way that I don't think a 401k style pension is a good way to risk a retired soldier's livelihood.

[mardi gras skin]

So, I guess we could just do away with medicaid like all the republicans want to.

When did the Republicans propose ending Medicaid?

[Larry]

WTF are you talking about now. Is this some kind of idiotic joke? Are you trying to bait me or are you just that stupid?

Both?

Sorry. Couldn't resist.

[Springfield]

When did the Republicans propose ending Medicaid?

They didn't, of course. However, when I mentioned medicaid I was indirectly referring to all of the "special" benefits that poor people get. Things like food stamps, unemployment, government housing programs, and the like. Things that are championed by the right as a major waste of taxpayer dollars. If I recall correctly, those "special" benefits get lumped in with medicare in terms of the budget.

My main point being, of all of the non-discretionary spending, the poor people are the ones often targeted as the easiest to cut. I don't ever recall medicaid being called a sacred cow, perhaps to the left though.

[herrmag]

I don't disagree at all. As I said earlier in the thread, I was against Bush 2's proposed SS changes and I'm against this for precisely the same reason. Something needs to be guaranteed to these folks, these modern age heroes. In my opinion is that a 401k style pension is not a guarantee. Not the guarantee that our soldiers deserve.

I was asking this, because I find it a bit ironic and a bit hypocritical that the same folks who were for W's SS reform would be against essentially the same thing [but applied to the military]. Something along the lines of "what's good for the goose isn't good for the gander" or "do as I say, not as I do" or one of those other tired cliches.

For many retired folks, SS is what keeps them sustainable. Without the guarantee that comes with SS, they could be homeless. Their SS benefits aren't huge. I think a 401k style style is too risky to chance on a retiree's livelihood. Just the same way that I don't think a 401k style pension is a good way to risk a retired soldier's livelihood.

First of all, you'd be hard pressed to find someone outside of Berkley that doesn't support our military, Republican or not (and I assume you're insinuating that I'm a Republican). That being said, the idea behind Bush's plan (at least as I saw it) was to phase it out so that my generation was aware that social security wasn't going to be available when we reached retirement age, so do what you have to do now to plan for retirement. Military folks get paid very little, and when they get out (combat arms wise) can't find a reasonable job. Do you want to hire an ex-grunt that spent 20-25 years, age of 38-40, spending most of the time in the field carrying a weapon and becoming proficient in the skill of killing and/or staying alive interfacing with your clients? The US economy is becoming service-based. I guess if Blackwater (or whatever they're called now) hires out to fight others' wars, great. There's a market for it. But if you take away the perks, nobody's going to join. Except in recession, of course.

EDIT: Meh. Spriingfield, I'll bow out. I'm arguing a point I thought you were making, but after reading again, you're not. But, I see the value of eliminating SS over time because we, in the civilian world, can work harder, become more educated, etc, etc. But when you're tasked to go and fight, life or death, you either give the incentive to do it or you don't. If you don't, we suffer as a country.

[PeterMP]

But all we've heard about Bush's tax breaks is that they were a tax break for the rich and that they had a negligible benefit to the middle class. So obviously, a complete repeal of the Bush era tax cuts can't hurt the middle class because Bush's tax breaks never helped the middle class in the first place. If it wasn't for class warfare and political grandstanding, the Dems would have rolled back all of Bush's tax cuts when they had the chance.

A complete repeal of Bush's inequitable tax breaks should have a equalizing effect on the income gap.

I have no idea what you are saying. I've never made any of those arguments. If you want to have that argument, find somebody that made it, and then do it.

[Larry]

Deleted post. OT.

[Springfield]

First of all, you'd be hard pressed to find someone outside of Berkley that doesn't support our military, Republican or not (and I assume you're insinuating that I'm a Republican). That being said, the idea behind Bush's plan (at least as I saw it) was to phase it out so that my generation was aware that social security wasn't going to be available when we reached retirement age, so do what you have to do now to plan for retirement. Military folks get paid very little, and when they get out (combat arms wise) can't find a reasonable job. Do you want to hire an ex-grunt that spent 20-25 years, age of 38-40, spending most of the time in the field carrying a weapon and becoming proficient in the skill of killing and/or staying alive interfacing with your clients? The US economy is becoming service-based. I guess if Blackwater (or whatever they're called now) hires out to fight others' wars, great. There's a market for it. But if you take away the perks, nobody's going to join. Except in recession, of course.

EDIT: Meh. Spriingfield, I'll bow out. I'm arguing a point I thought you were making, but after reading again, you're not. But, I see the value of eliminating SS over time because we, in the civilian world, can work harder, become more educated, etc, etc. But when you're tasked to go and fight, life or death, you either give the incentive to do it or you don't. If you don't, we suffer as a country.

I think we agree as far as the military pension subject is concerned. I do agree that the military needs to have some sort of incentives, of which there are plenty. I don't know all the details, because I've never served but there are signing bonuses, higher education programs, pensions, etc. I like that the military offers these sorts of things. The troops deserve it.

As far as SS is concerned, I think it will be hard to phase it out. Like I stated earlier in the thread, people of SS age are a huge amount of the voting population. Not only that but they are very, very active in the political process. It's going to be hard to curtail SS because the voting population won't allow it. The same goes with medicare. Also, it's easy to say that the civilian population needs to work harder, save smarter. It's hard to execute that in practice though. Perhaps people like you and I are able to afford to contribute to our 401k plans and know the best funds to place our balances at any given stage in our life. I'm certain that there is a large portion of our population that can't afford to contribute to a 401k plan and couldn't figure out where to put their money even if they could. Hell, there are people who I currently work with who have stopped contributing to their 401k because the market is performing so poorly and their quarterly returns are in the red anyhow. Without any sort of SS, those people will be in the poor house when they are no longer able to work. To me, that would be taking a step back as a society.

[twa]

But they already have a bigger tax bill Larry

[herrmag]

I think we agree as far as the military pension subject is concerned. I do agree that the military needs to have some sort of incentives, of which there are plenty. I don't know all the details, because I've never served but there are signing bonuses, higher education programs, pensions, etc. I like that the military offers these sorts of things. The troops deserve it.

As far as SS is concerned, I think it will be hard to phase it out. Like I stated earlier in the thread, people of SS age are a huge amount of the voting population. Not only that but they are very, very active in the political process. It's going to be hard to curtail SS because the voting population won't allow it. The same goes with medicare. Also, it's easy to say that the civilian population needs to work harder, save smarter. It's hard to execute that in practice though. Perhaps people like you and I are able to afford to contribute to our 401k plans and know the best funds to place our balances at any given stage in our life. I'm certain that there is a large portion of our population that can't afford to contribute to a 401k plan and couldn't figure out where to put their money even if they could. Hell, there are people who I currently work with who have stopped contributing to their 401k because the market is performing so poorly and their quarterly returns are in the red anyhow. Without any sort of SS, those people will be in the poor house when they are no longer able to work. To me, that would be taking a step back as a society.

To the military comment: The benefits matter more for non-combat folks. When you're in ****hole wherever, you're not doing online college courses, you're worried about being on point and coming back. I know you agree with me on this, but as a guy that took advantage of all the military benefits, I still feel bad for those not given the opportunity. And they deserved to.

Social Security, as I said, was a forgone, non-existent possibility to me. We as a nation cannot afford to cater to the lowest common denominator. We can't. We'll all suffer if we do. We are the Romans on their downslide. We OWE the older generations the Social Security because they paid for it. We, in our generation, haven't earned ****. We need to work, and get over being lazy. And we ARE. The alternative of a China running the world is far more terrifying to me personally. Anyone under 40 needs to amend their ways. Sorry, just how I feel. A little less Jersey Shore, a little more BBC?

[chipwhich]

As far as SS is concerned, I think it will be hard to phase it out.

I would like to follow Larry's ideals. Since Social Security has such a wealth of holdings, lets phase out Social Security immediately and give the Social Security tax back to the citizens. No more Social Security withholdings going forward. I want to keep things honest, since Larry doesn't view things the same. The current Social Security holdings should get current payees payment until death. Current payers will get a boost in income. Problem solved. Plus a boost to the economy

[10fttall]

Ok, the tax thing is realy interesting and all, but more to the point of this thread: The military retirement system is at risk. Do you all realize what that means? The brave young people who signed up to take unorthodox schedules, crap jobs, deployments, moving all over the WORLD, the ones who volunteered for this knowing that in 20 years they could get a little gaurenteed boost in income. Yes, boost. All those who retire at 20 years (which is still <15% of the military) get 50 % of their BASE PAY. For those of you who don't know, this is not a whole hell of a lot. Military compensation on the whole is not terrible when you factor in the housing allowance for wherever you live, plus the food allowence...But for retirement it is 50 % of just your base pay, which you can find anywhere online.

This study, which admittedly hasn't been made into an actuall proposal or bill, would cut the legs out from someone who has spent more than TEN YEARS taking crap jobs, working Christmas, working overnights, being deployed to the ass end of the earth, and aiming for a decent pension after 20 years,; and reduce their retirement check to 25% of their current base pay, which is paenuts.

People who do this extraordinary job for >20 years and train the next generation deserve to get what was PROMISED when they joined 10, 12, 15, years ago. 50% of base pay, so they can get a job as a Wal Mart Greeter and relax a little bit. instead of getting screwed by the stupid politics and markets in some dumb 401K. and not even be able to access their money until they are elderly.

[mardi gras skin]

I have no idea what you are saying. I've never made any of those arguments. If you want to have that argument, find somebody that made it, and then do it.

Why would you expect me to remember if you personally made that argument? The argument against the Bush tax cuts--on this message board and among Democrat politicians--is that they disproportionately benefit the rich. They are often called, "Bush's tax cuts for the rich."

If you personally believe that Bush's tax cuts fairly benefitted the middle class as well as the rich, that's fine. But most people pushing for a repeal of the tax cuts for the rich disagree with you. Most have argued for years that the benefits to the middle class were negligible. They were a huge give away to the rich. Obviously, then, a repeal of those taxes couldn't be a burden for the middle class. A repeal of hugely inequitable tax breaks would necessarily create greater wealth equity.

If you personally believe that Bush's tax breaks benefit the middle as much as they did the wealthy, I can see why you'd be against a total repeal. Repealing an equitable tax break wouldn't help create wealth equity. Is that your position? The Bush tax cuts were just as beneficial to the middle class as they were to the rich?

[pointyfootball]

This is poorly timed, given the stress placed on military and their families with the increase and duration of overseas deployments. That being said, the business model of paying someone 1/2 of their salary for up to, or longer, than 2x what they worked is not sustainable in my opinion. A Navy commander, retiring at 41-42 y/o would be getting ~$50k/life (3040 years most likely). Additionally, military pay has risen significantly in the past 30 years in comparison to civilian pay. Not saying good majority don't deserve the pay/retirement, just that it is worth investigating as should be every government program/expense.

[Skins_Fan82]

That's right folks, we can ask our countries finest to sacrifice after they put their lives on the line for the country, BUT DON'T YOU DARE ASK THE ULTRA RICH TO PAY A PENNY MORE IN TAXES. ******* morons.

QUOTE]

makes me sick to my stomach...