Uniformed Services to recive TSP Match?! - Final Report

General TSP Discussion.

Moderator: Aitrus

User avatar
LoGiK
Posts: 122
Joined: Mon Jul 30, 2012 7:59 pm

Uniformed Services to recive TSP Match?! - Final Report

Post by LoGiK »

Here's some interesting info for the Uniformed Service members on this site! The report covers: Pay & Retirement, Health Benefits, and Quality of Life

http://www.mcrmc.gov/public/docs/report/MCRMC-FinalReport-29JAN15-HI.pdf

Cliff notes for Uniformed Services Retirement is below:
*** The Uniformed Services should modernize the current retirement system by adding a DC element to the DB plan. The DC element should incorporate the following attributes:

--- The Uniformed Services should begin a monthly contribution of 1 percent of members’ basic pay to Service members’ respective TSP accounts upon their Service entry date. The contribution should continue until Service members reach 20 YOS and should not depend upon their participation in TSP.

-- The Uniformed Services should automatically enroll Service members in TSP upon entry into service at an amount equal to 3 percent of their basic pay. Service members should be allowed to raise or lower their TSP contribution amount or to terminate their participation at any time. Service members who terminate their participation will be reenrolled automatically the following January at the 3 percent of basic pay amount.

-- The Uniformed Services should begin matching each Service member’s contribution to TSP, up to a maximum of 5 percent of monthly basic pay, after the completion of each member’s second year of service. The matching contribution will continue until the Service member reaches 20 YOS and is dependent upon a Service member’s monthly participation in the TSP

-- Service members should be vested in their TSP after 2 complete YOS (the standard 1 percent contribution and matching contribution provided by the Uniformed Services will belong to the Service member upon that date).

*** The Uniformed Services should provide continuation pay for all Service members who reach 12 YOS and are willing and able to obligate for 4 additional years.

-- All AC Service members should receive basic continuation pay equal to 2.5 times Service members’ monthly basic pay.

-- All RC Service members should receive basic continuation pay equal to 0.5 times Service members’ monthly basic pay, as if he/she were an AC Service member.

-- Uniformed Services should budget additional funds for continuation pay, in addition to basic continuation pay, to provide midcareer retention incentives as needed.

*** The 75 percent cap on disability retirement when a Service member uses his or her disability rating as the multiplier should be lifted. The multiplier for disability retirement when a Service member uses his or her YOS as the multiplier should be 2.0 times YOS.

*** The Secretary of Defense should be given the authority to modify the years of service requirements to qualify for retirement to either fewer or a greater than 20 years of service. The purpose of these modifications is to facilitate management actions to shape the personnel profile or correct manpower shortfalls within an occupational specialty or other grouping of members, as defined by the Secretary. No modification should involuntarily impose retirement program changes on currently serving members.
No clue what I'm doing, but willing to learn.

sprakass
Posts: 67
Joined: Fri Oct 01, 2010 9:48 am

Re: Uniformed Services to recive TSP Match?! - Final Report

Post by sprakass »

Not in uniformed anymore, but this link cover everything to do with the uniformed service. I will pass this information to my son who is in the good old Army.

jimhoff11
Posts: 7
Joined: Sun Feb 09, 2014 5:28 am

Re: Uniformed Services to recive TSP Match?! - Final Report

Post by jimhoff11 »

that would have made it a nice read if you replace every "should" with the word "DOES"!

User avatar
Navig8tor
Posts: 562
Joined: Mon Jul 19, 2010 10:48 am

Re: Uniformed Services to recive TSP Match?! - Final Report

Post by Navig8tor »

This proposal isn't going to pass. The current government can't afford to give us an annual pay raise better than 1% and I don't see them giving up F22's to fund this deal. Although I do agree that the current retirement system is aged and in need of an overhaul, I don't think this is the best way to do it.

1) A service member is automatically enrolled, and matched, at the 3% level, and can change the contribution, up or down, whenever they see fit. Great, an E2 with less than 2yrs time in service makes $1734/month, of which 3% = $52.02. Match that and the service member is investing $104/month, or about $1248/yr. Not too shabby for an E2, and he's only dropping $52/month from his base pay.

- The fact that said service member can start and stop that auto-contribution is problematic. Yes, his branch will automatically RE-enroll him again every year and...he can turn right back around and stop the contribution. Either make it mandatory or don't. Don't give them the option of stopping, then you turn around and start it up again every January.

Based on 29-years of active duty (as of Feb 11th), I'd toss out a fairly accurate guesstimate that 95% of 1st term enlistee's have no interest in saving for the future. I hear the same thing over and over and over, every time I interview a new-hire, "Sir, who cares what's going on when I'm 65...I'm 18 and I've never made this much money...I want to live now." >>. Gotta have that $40,000 ride with the "dubs" and the $2000 stereo?!?!

** Revamping the retirement system, while probably a good idea; will not solve the problem. Education of the younger Officer's and Enlisted folks is the ticket to a prosperous future. The military STINKS at personal financial training, bottom line! You may get a class here and there, and deny it if you want to; you leave the class thinking, "What a waste of my time."

2) Continuation Pay: For most, when they get that fat check in their hands, it will turn into nothing more than a large spending spree.

An individual at the 12-yr mark is mid-career, probably married with small kids, making a house payment, making automobile payments on one, if not two, automobiles. Then they get that continuation pay in their hand and it's, "WOW, FREE MONEY." There will be some who realize what they have and promptly invest the bonus pay; however, a significant number will not. They'll blow it like it's a tax return. Some will pay bills; buy new furniture; buy a new car etc. There will be a few who wisely turn it around and invest the entire wad...but I daresay it won't be many.

Not to mention, what pay grade is an individual at the 12-yr marks, a E6...maybe an E7, or if an Officer, maybe an 04. Figure the continuation pay for an E7 (2.5 times his salary) = $9882. by the time the Tax Man cometh (I don't see any way he won't cometh at 28% because continuation pay will most likely be labeled ordinary income), his continuation pay is now down to $7115. Not too shabby, right. And what do you think a mid-career E7 can do with that money OTHER THAN jam it in his TSP account?? An O4 would probably clear $12.5K in continuation pay and is in the same boat, "Hmmm, Honey...where would you like to go on vacation?"

I joined the military in 1986. It's now 2015 and I'm still kickin'. During my time in uniform the the retirement system has implemented three different retirement schemes: Final Pay (50%-100%); High 36 (50%-100%) and CSB Redux (40% with a $30K taxable bonus at 15 years). However, it appears the current systems are STILL unsustainable. If I wanted to infuriate every current military retiree who frequents this website, one of which I will be in about 2 years; I have my ideas how to save a BOAT LOAD of money over the current system. Not trying to make anyone mad...simply stating my opinion.

Statistics show that only 17% percent of military members remain in to serve more than 20 years. I also read somewhere that less than 1% remain in for 30 years (75% retirement pay)/ That means 83% knew what they were getting into, knew what they were entitled to at the end of the rainbow and yet they chose to quit. Why do we need to revamp the entire system to reward 83% who chose to leave and undertake other professions. May sound cold...but...that's what I think. You came; you saw; you quit....no retirement benefits for you...you take with you what you managed to save on your own accord. This is the military; not corporate America. I don't think it has to be FAIR. The OPPORTUNITY to save is there; it's up to the member to make it happen. Seriously, you get three hots, a cot, and someplace to live...do they have to save money for you as well??

As for current retirees, no one in a position to comment on it will address it; however, current retirees (all 2.2 MILLION of them), get a pay raise every time the active duty folks get a pay raise and they haven't been in uniform in years and/or decades. How much is THAT eating into the personnel costs of the current military retirement system?

Perfect example, my dad lived 32 years after he retired from the Navy in 1978. At the time of his death in 2010, his Navy retirement check more than TRIPLED what it was in 1978. Multiply pay raises like that, to people who haven't been on active duty in 30 years, by 2.2 million and see what 7-8 digit number you come up with, year in and year out. The part that I wonder about is an accurate number of military retirees who take on, and retire from, second careers. Why is their retirement pay ever-tied to the CURRENT military retirement system? Cap that pay when they retire...what you got is what you got...ME INCLUDED. If you want more money...get a J.O.B. !

Now before I get lynched by a hoard of angry military retirees, I would hope they remove themselves from the situation and take a subjective view of the topic. I'm no more going to turn that post-military retirement COLA adjustment down that the next military retiree; however, the system we've created is the root of the problem. When you've RETIRED and hung up your uniform for the last time, unless you are physically disabled and unable to work, or you've served 30-years, saved for the future and don't HAVE TO WORK...there's really no reason why you can't joint the civilian workforce and EARN a living in a second career. In my opinion, the COLA adjustments that retiree's get are better served going to active duty financial issues.
Navig8tor
CWO4 (BOSN)
USCG, RET

crondanet5
Posts: 4330
Joined: Tue Aug 19, 2008 8:51 pm

Re: Uniformed Services to recive TSP Match?! - Final Report

Post by crondanet5 »

Where's my rope?

User avatar
Navig8tor
Posts: 562
Joined: Mon Jul 19, 2010 10:48 am

Re: Uniformed Services to recive TSP Match?! - Final Report

Post by Navig8tor »

crondanet5 wrote:Where's my rope?


I figured I would be hearing from you. Besides, we've already had this discussion.
Navig8tor
CWO4 (BOSN)
USCG, RET

crondanet5
Posts: 4330
Joined: Tue Aug 19, 2008 8:51 pm

Re: Uniformed Services to recive TSP Match?! - Final Report

Post by crondanet5 »

As I recall you lost that discussion. I wonder how you would feel about your pension if your wealth was stripped from you. And I wonder if you have considered the difficulty many lifers have getting a real job after military retirement. Your time to face that challenge is coming, sooner than you think. Also consider the large number of highly qualified people forced out at the twenty year point who would have loved to continue their military service. Those people lost retirement funds you will soon receive that would have made their retirement much nicer. The long hours they worked, the working and living conditions they endured, always ready to respond, and you want to throw them under the bus? This compensation issue has been addressed before. I was extremely impressed with the data the Army presented to Congress about the number of midlevel managers who would leave the military if their pay package was cut. Are you trying to undermine the security of the United States by rolling over to this stupid committee who obviously had an agenda before that discussion began? So much we sacrificed, so little received in return. Hey, I got an idea. Since you apparently are going to make too much in your pension, why don't you donate it to the federal government earmarked to pay off the National Debt? That would be good of you. I await your response.

User avatar
Navig8tor
Posts: 562
Joined: Mon Jul 19, 2010 10:48 am

Re: Uniformed Services to recive TSP Match?! - Final Report

Post by Navig8tor »

Whether or not I "lost" the previous discussion lies in the mind of the opinion holder. Your opinion hasn't changed, nor has mine. Yours won't change; nor will mine. To each his own.

I'm well aware of the difficulties veterans face in obtaining viable employment, but we're not talking about that. In fact, that is an ENTIRELY different conversation. We're talking about revamping the entire military retirement system so that it mimics Corporate America. We're talking about installing a revolving door so 87% of enlistees can "hang out" for a few years, get free Post 9/11 GI Bill benefits AND a 401k-type savings plans, then bee-bop on down the road with that free government money in their pockets.

Being forced out at the 20-year mark may have been related to personnel cost-cutting measures or non-performance issues, who knows, I wasn't there, but I'd offer that it was probably a combination of both. I am well aware of the dirty pool the Army has been playing with their mid-grade officers. While it's unfortunate, all I have to relate it to is the High Year Tenure issues we have in the Coast Guard. There again, all employees are trained on the stipulations of High Year Tenure. If you fail to obtain "X" rank or "X" qualifications, in "X" amount of time, you're gone at the 20-year mark. High Year Tenure is a control measure used to remove the deadwood from the organization. The program isn't secreted from personnel; we all know what it is and how to avoid getting caught up in it. If you get caught up in High Year Tenure, for the most part you've got no one to blame but yourself.

The ramifications of non-performance are well publicized. How far you go in the military directly correlates to the effort you put forth to succeed. Their organization chose to "fire" them (if that's the term they used) based on any number of factors that the rest of us will never be inclusively privy to. As far as ridding my own service of the deadwood, whether it be at the 5-yr mark or the 20-year mark; I don't have one iota of a problem with it. I don't want a member who is on the ROAD (Retired on Active Duty) bogging down my unit. I don't care to hear, day in and day out, "The Commandant has decided that I'm no longer good enough to serve in this organization so I'm just going to sit here and not really care until I retire." <<< The Commandant didn't decide that, YOU did! You set these wheels in motion 5-10-15 years ago when you decided that you didn't want to obtain the training, the pay grade and/or qualifications that the rest of us are expected to obtain. The military is an "Up or Out" organization. The only thing the Commandant did was hold you accountable for you INACTION; therefore, SEE YA!

The "agenda" this committee has is to SAVE MONEY. I'm not going to sit here and run a spreadsheet to compute the cost savings for the government that will arrive via a total revamp of the military retirement system. If you reduce retirement percentages, you save money in benefits over the long-haul. Instead of a 50% retirement that will cost hundreds of thousands of dollars for every retired individual in the country, the retirement benefit will be grossly eroded by paying MUCH LESS MONEY into individual 401K-type savings for folks who never had any intention of remaining in until retirement age. However, developing a 401K-type program gives off the appearance that "We're doing you some good."

In 2013, the Congressional Research Office indicated the total outlay for military retiree benefits was $54.09 Billion. There are any number of places the Pentagon can go to cherry- pick funds to maintain the military retirement system. Depending on the service branch and set-up of the plane, the PER AIRCRAFT cost of the F35 comes in $148 Million - $337 Million. The U.S. forked out $48 BILLION in foreign aid last year. The U.S. handed out nearly $400 BILLION in welfare benefits last year. The price of one M1 Abrams comes in over $4 Million. Conversely, Colorado raked in $60 MILLION in taxes from the sale of legal marijuana. In all states that have legalized weed, the single-year tax number comes in at over $3 BILLION. Is there any correlation between military retirement benefits and the legalization of weed, no; I'm just offering that there are other places to pull, OR RAISE, money to pay your bills. Kind of like tying decades-retired former military folks to current active-duty pay raises.

My main point in this discussion, Cro', there is a REASON that the U.S. Military is just about the last place you can be employed with this type of retirement system. There is a reason that military, police, firefighters etc are drawn to this work. There is also a reason we have this type of "lucrative" RETIREMENT package. That's how our compensation package is viewed by civilians anyway, as "lucrative." It's pretty nice, but I don't know that I'd call it "lucrative." As you well know, it surely isn't lucrative BEFORE you retire. Regardless, the value of an individual's retirement package is solely determined by said individual's ability to move up the rank scale in regular fashion. You get where you want to get...the higher you go, the more "lucrative" the retirement package.

Military service, let alone a career, is not for everyone. In fact, it's not for MOST. It is accompanied by sacrifices AND rewards that civilian employees just don't experience. I offer that most civilians who've never worn a uniform cannot even FATHOM the sacrifices that those in uniform endure. It takes perseverance, conviction, hard work and immense dedication and sacrifice to reach retirement eligibility in the U.S. Military. It's not a 9-5 job, with a 90-min lunch break and a 10-minute commute to a warm, cozy office.

Let alone 13 consecutive years of combat operations; military life is putting it out there; deploying to third-world countries; living like homeless folks; showering every few days (if not weeks); eating out of boxes; sleeping in tents or holes in the ground; wiping your butt on a strip of tee-shirt because the toilet paper ran out,and being unable to speak to your family for weeks or months at a time. It's up at 0400 and go to bed...whenever. It's living like rats aboard a ship deployed 7-8 months of the year. It's sharing a head with 40-50 or more people, day in and day out, while civilians worry about their TWO kids missing the toilet. It's "Good-Bye's," that quite often end up being the last time a couple ever speaks to each other. It's sitting in a hole in some dank, nasty country for 6 months thinking, "For the love of GOD, I would just like a glass of COLD MILK." It's walking down the road in some God-forsaken country talking to yourself while you say, "You ain't getting me today!" <<< For many military folks, that's life EVERY DAY. You've been there; you know this!

So if a retirement eligible member broke hump for 20-30-40 years, why should their retirement compensation be lessened so that feelings of "fairness" can be seeded among 1st term enlistee's, the vast majority of whom WILL NOT remain in long enough to reach retirement eligibility? They may make that deployment ONCE; a lifer will do it over and over and over. That said, and I'm right back where I started; why do we need to restructure the entire retirement system under the auspice of SAVING MONEY so that EVERYONE can leave the military with a little "bank"?

The military is not about "making bank." The military is about serving your country and being part of something bigger than yourself. Can you serve a CAREER and leave with a nice nest egg? You sure can, but you have to add sacrifice on top of every other sacrifice to make it happen. The point here is that you need to do it yourself rather than standing there with your hand out expecting someone to do it for you. That said, I highly doubt a majority of active duty military folks are doing that, standing there with their hand out. This is a bunch of Brass sitting up the coast trying to figure out how to SAVE MONEY without giving up a few F22's or F35's, a new ship, a few tanks etc.

The details are hidden in the study >> "Give everyone A LITTLE at the expense of giving A LOT to those who actually start AND finish the race." This initiative is nothing more than an appeal to the current generation of folks who desire instant gratification instead of setting, working towards and attaining a goal. In this instance, the goal is serving a CAREER and reaching retirement eligibility, of which most DO NOT. I'd offer that even less will do so if retirement benefits are grossly reduced. The retirement benefit IS the gold at the end of the rainbow.

There's no real shortage of kids lining up to join the military. The know they won't make a lot of money during their first couple of enlistments. If they don't "like" the job, they'll leave regardless. A large majority of new-hires join ONLY to get the education benefits. Perhaps they'll leave with that AND a 401K; perhaps they won't. As it stands now, a service member has to serve only 36 months on active duty to get full education compensation under the Post 9/11 GI Bill program. Is that not enough BENEFIT for those who come in and do only one enlistment? Do we need to restructure the entire retirement program and give them a 401K as well? Like I said, the 401K carrot is nothing more than smoke and mirrors to hide the real initiative of the restructure, which is to reduce retirement benefits for those who make the long haul because WE COST TOO MUCH.

As for me donating some of my pension to the National Debt, well, we can go together and I'll buy you a cup of coffee while the TWO OF US wait in line. :lol:

By the way, this Administration has already cost military retiree's BILLIONS OF DOLLARS in future retirement benefits because of the piddly pay raises active duty military has seen for the past four years. Consider that our donation to the National Debt, which of course WE didn't run up to begin with.
Last edited by Navig8tor on Sat Jan 31, 2015 9:40 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Navig8tor
CWO4 (BOSN)
USCG, RET

crondanet5
Posts: 4330
Joined: Tue Aug 19, 2008 8:51 pm

Re: Uniformed Services to recive TSP Match?! - Final Report

Post by crondanet5 »

Before we cut military retirement let's set up a committee to study congressional retirement pay and allowances, and judicial as well. Do you suppose we would find places to cut?
Now one thing further I would like to present in this conversation is the composition of the committee that put together this butcher shop reduction of military pay. Were there any prior service members who were amputees? How about some with PTSD? And don't forget the widows trying to raise a family on a percentage of their spouse's pay? Were they represented? I doubt it. This whole idea needs a lot more thought before being presented to Congress for consideration. I believe this committee convened with pre-conceived intent rather than considering how the military compensation package came into being, its current shortfalls, and needed improvements. If you want to cut retirement expenses stop entering wars that cannot be won. Remember when you left Irag? You felt like a champion. Then the ones who came in behind you began watching their backs and keenly aware they might not come back from patrol that day completely intact. Please consider their needs before you carve up the military retirement program.

User avatar
Navig8tor
Posts: 562
Joined: Mon Jul 19, 2010 10:48 am

Re: Uniformed Services to recive TSP Match?! - Final Report

Post by Navig8tor »

I'm all for picking apart, revamping and reducing the pay and allowances of all of our 435 elected officials....who govern 300 million of the rest of us. This country has become TOO MUCH GOVERNMENT and not enough PEOPLE!

Congress alone cost $2.3 Billion in 2012. Paychecks range from $174,000/yr for the rank and file while the Speaker of the House makes a whopping $223,000. Now I thought government service was about "servitude" in the form of "for the people; by the people." $174,000/yr is a heck of nice paycheck for what little they actually do.

The DOD's 2013 Request for Compensation ($150 Billion total - about 1/4 of the total DOD budget) included $90 Billion for basic pay, food and housing allowances, bonuses, and various types of special pay. Work that math on that one: $2.3 Billion for 435 people to operate vs. $600 Billion for 1.2 MILLION people to defend democracy. Seems VERY lopsided in the favor of "law makers" who work about 1/3 of the year.

How much money would we save if their pay was reduced by 2/3 to adjust for the fact that they only MEET (doesn't mean WORK) for 115-130 days of the year. $174,000 for working 115 days a year??!?! Not bad, $1500-some dollars a day.

I won't even waste my brain cells discussing THEIR retirement packages!
Navig8tor
CWO4 (BOSN)
USCG, RET

crondanet5
Posts: 4330
Joined: Tue Aug 19, 2008 8:51 pm

Re: Uniformed Services to recive TSP Match?! - Final Report

Post by crondanet5 »

Don't forget the judicial retreat in Jackson Hole in your budget cuts.

User avatar
Aitrus
Moderator
Posts: 2391
Joined: Mon Aug 06, 2012 5:03 pm

Re: Uniformed Services to recive TSP Match?! - Final Report

Post by Aitrus »

The commission was made up of folks who know numbers. Rank-and-file retirees don't know numbers nearly as well. The commission did take the rank-and-file into account when making their recommendations, along with the economic position of the country. They came and visited my base about a year ago - twice. They invited active duty, dependents, national guard, and retirees to attend and speak their mind. I went and said my piece. They took copious notes on everything.

They were tasked with looking at the Big Picture with regards to incentives and compensation for military service, not about how to fund the Big Picture. That's Congress' job. They honestly wanted to know why the lifers wanted to make it a career, and why the short-timers felt that the military didn't offer enough. And they needed to figure out the best ways to keep incentives there so we can continue to recruit while also helping make the country solvent again.

The days of the pension in corporate America are fast drawing to a close. We work for Joe Taxpayer. I can easily see why he would be upset that military members are getting a pension and he's not. After all, if we're "serving" America, then why doesn't the compensation package accurately reflect that service?

Case in point: if somebody served 20 years from 1980 - 2000, he might have deployed once or twice on a steady-state rotation, maybe got involved in the ass-kicking we gave Iraq in 1990. But that 20-year E7 is getting the same pension that the E7 that retired tomorrow is getting. And tomorrow's retiree had done who knows how many days in the suck, endured divorce, blood, sweat, and tears. Yes, both signed a blank check to America in the amount of "Up to and including my life", but you can't tell me that they both deserve the same retirement. And a measly separation pay and tax-free for the time in the sand doesn't begin to make up for the missed birthdays, first steps, births, etc. What about the guy who served for 15 years and wanted to stay but got cut due to Congress massively lowering budgets, only to be offered a small separation pay when all along he'd been counting on having a pension in another 5 years?

And neither of those E7s went through what our forefathers did in the Revolutionary War, the Civil War, WWI and II. Those E7s are getting a hell of a lot more retirement than those guys did. But I can see the commission's ideas would provide benefits to those folks. I would gladly have paid a lowly E1 rifleman that survived Redcoat barrages a matching 401k plus education bennies for the time he served, even if he didn't make it a career.

Our current system is a "one size fits all" approach, and it doesn't make much sense. I agree with the commission. We still have to have some means of enticing quality people to join and stay, but given our current debt situation we can't sustain our current program. Don't blame the commission for that. Blame Congress and the President. Starting with FDR it's been "borrow and spend" ad nauseum in order to get votes, push pet projects, or advance personal ideals / agendas. It's they who deserve the blame for continuing the failed policies of those who came before them. Place blame where it's due. But do more than that - actually call them or write them. Get people out to vote, especially in the primaries. Get involved in local politics, go to town hall meetings and vote in local elections - all of them, even primaries and the school levy and bond issues. Educate yourself on what's going on with the world, why it's screwed up, and how we can fix it. Then educate people on what's really going on. Put pressure on your local media if they're biased or otherwise don't do their job of keeping the electorate informed about issues without trying to reshape the conversation.

Franklin said it best: "When the people find that they can vote themselves money, that will herald the end of the republic.” This applies equally to both Democrats and Republicans - both sides like to vote themselves money, they just disagree on how it should be spent. My wife is a teacher so we personally benefit from a well-funded school district, and I voted against recent school bond and levy measures. Basically, I voted against my own welfare for a higher cause in pursuit of honesty, integrity, and personal freedoms. We've already paid taxes, but the state always misappropriates the funds, so we were getting asked to pay again for something we already paid for. I don't have the right to tell somebody else to pay for something they might be against. That's mob rule, aka "democracy" or "socialism". But we live in a republic, and we shouldn't tolerate the immorality of mob rule, so I won't be part of the mob. How you vote on issues that would benefit yourself at the expense of others reflects how you truly feel about the republic our forefathers built, or about the socialist or communist society many would want to turn this country into.

In that light, how so I see the commission's recommendations fitting in? I feel that they are trying to provide a just compensation for military service, which increase in value the more years served, and which are understandable and acceptable for our employer Joe Taxpayer. It's regrettable that we have to make cuts, but all of us work for the government, and we all know that waste can be cut in every corner of the government. This commission was asked to take a hard, unbiased look at the largest expenditure in the largest sector of the federal government and offer recommendations on how that expenditure could be reduced. They did their job, and admirably so.
Seasonal Musings 2022: viewtopic.php?f=14&t=19005
Recommended Reading: http://tspcenter.com/forums/viewtopic.php?f=14&t=13474
"It's not what happens to you, but how you react to it that matters" Epictetus

skiehawk11
Posts: 2116
Joined: Wed Jan 05, 2011 2:32 pm

Re: Uniformed Services to recive TSP Match?! - Final Report

Post by skiehawk11 »

Why would we mimic corporate America's retirement system when it's a failure and worse than the previous retirement system? It's all about the company and nothing about the worker.

How about simply just reducing maximum pension benefits and create a graduated system based on time served.

User avatar
Aitrus
Moderator
Posts: 2391
Joined: Mon Aug 06, 2012 5:03 pm

Re: Uniformed Services to recive TSP Match?! - Final Report

Post by Aitrus »

Who says it's worse? How so? Since when is taking responsibility for one's own future a bad thing? I agree that it's bad for a business to care nothing for the worker. I would also agree that it's wrong for the company to exist solely for the worker's benefit. There needs to be a balance.

I thought our country got to the sad state it's currently in largely because a whole generation refused to prepare and care for themselves and instead relied on the liberal appeal to let government take care of them? And it's being carried forward by their kids, which is just making things worse.

I wouldn't have a problem with that solution, Skie, but only if the beancounters verified that it were sustainable. Like having a TSP matching from the get-go, vested after completion of 1st enlistment, increasing levels of matching at 10 and 15 years (or increasing matching for every enlistment), and having a small pension on top of that for those that do a long career. Something matching the FERS system might suit. Or perhaps some other kind of star-step approach. Right now, it's all or nothing, and that is a disservice to those that do 4 of 5 years in the suck.
Seasonal Musings 2022: viewtopic.php?f=14&t=19005
Recommended Reading: http://tspcenter.com/forums/viewtopic.php?f=14&t=13474
"It's not what happens to you, but how you react to it that matters" Epictetus

skiehawk11
Posts: 2116
Joined: Wed Jan 05, 2011 2:32 pm

Re: Uniformed Services to recive TSP Match?! - Final Report

Post by skiehawk11 »

I don't necessarily have a problem with a 401k plan. What I do have a problem with is a company absolving itself of responsibility once the 401k is funded. What I mean is this...some people are better than others at money management. My parents save and have zero debt, but when it comes to investing...nada.

401ks in general are terrible since fees that are charged are ridiculous. Fees are stealing the future life blood of American workers. I am not a fan of a solution that involves telling the worker that here's some money and good luck! While I may profit well in retirement in a 401k retirement plan, the majority of Americans won't and don't.

Now, that doesn't mean that I advocate a nationalized retirement program either or safety net or what have you, but I am definitely advocating for the people that aren't into investing. They shouldn't be dragged over the coals in terms of fees and terrible retirement programs. Some protections should be afforded so they don't get hammered.

How about instituting national standards for fees for qualified 401k programs? 401ks shouldn't be treated as brokerage accounts. This is retirement, not gambling. This is directed towards the 99% population. Investors such as cron, you and myself would do well in a 401k that had a lot of investing options. However, for the 99% fewer options, lesser fees and having a KISS program would be most beneficial.

And I do agree that many government retirement programs can be overly generous.

Post Reply

Fund Prices2024-03-28

FundPriceDayYTD
G $18.15 0.05% 1.05%
F $19.08 -0.06% -0.74%
C $82.21 0.11% 10.55%
S $82.43 0.30% 6.92%
I $42.57 -0.24% 5.95%
L2065 $16.38 0.02% 8.37%
L2060 $16.39 0.02% 8.38%
L2055 $16.39 0.02% 8.38%
L2050 $32.73 0.01% 6.95%
L2045 $14.91 0.02% 6.58%
L2040 $54.38 0.02% 6.22%
L2035 $14.34 0.02% 5.79%
L2030 $47.67 0.02% 5.38%
L2025 $13.15 0.03% 3.43%
Linc $25.61 0.03% 2.82%

Live Charts

Pending Allocations

Under development. For now, you may view Pending Allocations by going to "fantasy TSP" and selecting "Leaderboard sort" of "Pending Allocations".