It's official starting 2018. Newly enlisted troops won't get the traditional 20-yr, all-or-nothing retirement plan. What are your thoughts?

[rangerrebew]

It's official starting 2018. Newly enlisted troops won't get the traditional 20-yr, all-or-nothing retirement plan. What are your thoughts?
MSG MSG (Join to see)
 
After an extra month wait, the annual defense authorization bill is finally law.

President Obama signed the budget and policy bill on Wednesday, marking the 54th consecutive year the measure has survived Washington political fights to become law.

The most significant result for troops is the renewal of dozens of specialty pay and bonus authorities, and a massive overhaul of the military retirement system.

Starting in 2018, newly enlisted troops will no longer have the traditional 20-year, all-or-nothing retirement plan. Under the changes, it will be replaced with a blended pension and investment system, featuring automatic contributions to troops' Thrift Savings Plans and an opportunity for government matches to personal contributions.

The new system is expected to give roughly four in five service members some sort of retirement benefit when they leave the military, as opposed to the current system which benefits only one in five.

http://www.militarytimes.com/home/

[EC]

I'm in favor, totally.

Sure, a twenty year commitment isn't terrible, but things (and people) do change. I've had a reasonable number of meetings over the years where the soldier has been all "I can't do this any more." In no other career do you sign yourself into slavery for a fifth of a century for a barely adequate pension and indifferent support network.

[Relic]

I'm going to go out on a limb here. I haven't read the new plan, but I'm pretty sure that anything those b*st*rds in Congress dream up won't be a benefit to enlisted people.

I always thought it was pretty unfair for someone to spend 12 years in the military and come away with no retirement benefits.

[Bigun]

I'm in favor, totally.

Sure, a twenty year commitment isn't terrible, but things (and people) do change. I've had a reasonable number of meetings over the years where the soldier has been all "I can't do this any more." In no other career do you sign yourself into slavery for a fifth of a century for a barely adequate pension and indifferent support network.

So am I.

[Sanguine]

I don't know.  I do know that the administration has spent the last 7 years gutting the military.  Is this something that will encourage recruitment and retention?  Hard to say.

[EC]

Recruitment - definitely. Recruits are no longer looking at a period of "as long as they've been alive" to get anything worthwhile.

Retention - I'm more mixed on this. It has actually benefited us over here (we introduced it a couple years back) - the serial bleep ups leave because there is no penalty for doing so, making the unit dynamics far more pleasant for the remaining soldiers. You don't have to cover someones ass every day and their work as well as your own, things are more relaxing!

[massadvj]

The change, like all economic changes, will have both positive and negative consequences.  It will certainly de-institutionalize the military and therefore disempower it to some extent.  On the other hand, it does seem much more equitable than the existing system.

So long as there is full disclosure to the enlistee and everyone enters into the contract with the same understanding, I have no philosophical objections.  If it is revenue neutral or saves a bit of money then the new scheme is a more efficient use of my taxes.