Why do military retirees collect retirement......

[Ken King]

Originally Posted by somdwatch

However, their are bigger retirement bennies that should be the focus.

Like taxes, they should be flat rate.

Civil Servant 80% of their pay (under the old system) for 35 year in a normal 9-5 office job. Oh they have a union...

Retired Military 50% for 20 years if they were injured while on AD they would have a disability and wouldn't be collecting retirement.

Member of the House/Senate 100% retirement for life.

I feel no one should be entitled to more than 50% for life. If you lived your life well and stayed in one geographic area you should be set.
OOPs the military can't do that either, let's move every 3-5 years and establish another mortgage.

Just saying why do we have entitlements at all. If you made bad choices about your career/life it's only you who should be held accountable.

I see you believe in a “well I was told” world. A 35-year Fed retiree, under CSRS, doesn’t get 80% retirement. For 35 years the individual would get 7.5% for the first 5 years of service, 8.75% for the next 5 years, and then 50% for the final 25 years for a total of 66.25% of their high 3 average pay.

Another misconvception of yours is your statement regarding Congressional retirement. Senate and House members fall under the Fed retirement system and none receive 100% retirement as it is calculated exactly the same as a Fed employees retirement is (variations exist depending whether the person is covered by CSRS of FERS), but no one gets 100% and I challenge you to show otherwise.

[Pete]

Originally Posted by Misfit

I'm taking my own tread off topic but can anyone enlighten me on military disability? Two of my friends have a service related disability that didn’t happen because of their military service. A friend of mine is collecting 60% for a hereditary thyroid condition and another friend gets 30% because of knee problems from a broken leg in HS. They laugh about how they got over on the system. Both of them are retired so does that mean they collect retirement & disability all while working a civil service job that’s being threatened with furlough because of government overspending?

There is a lot of gamesmanship involved with the VA and disability for retired military. That said I don't see how a heredetary thyroid is "service connected" so he can get disability.

[MMM_donuts]

Originally Posted by Misfit

I'm taking my own tread off topic but can anyone enlighten me on military disability? Two of my friends have a service related disability that didn’t happen because of their military service. A friend of mine is collecting 60% for a hereditary thyroid condition and another friend gets 30% because of knee problems from a broken leg in HS. They laugh about how they got over on the system. Both of them are retired so does that mean they collect retirement & disability all while working a civil service job that’s being threatened with furlough because of government overspending?

There are people out there that manipulate the system to benefit themselves. Just because they are in the military doesn't mean everyone always does the right thing. When I was in, there were trends of using unemployment as soon as you got out (veterans, not retired folk) to use as a vacation because you'd get something very close to your military pay for 6 months or more. And then there was claiming some things on your exit physical that the VA can't really prove or deny so you could get a disability check. Like tinnitus (ringing in your ears).

The people that did that sort of stuff usually said that the military owed it to them for all the BS they'd had to put up with.

[Misfit]

Originally Posted by Pete

There is a lot of gamesmanship involved with the VA and disability for retired military. That said I don't see how a heredetary thyroid is "service connected" so he can get disability.

I don’t get it either. I collect 10% and if the gubberment wants to keep that for the greater good, it’s all theirs but my 10% injury was done at work while on active duty not like another guy I know who laid down his motorcycle and now collects. I’ve been hearing for the last month sequestration this and sequestration that. It seems to me it’s becoming just another case of entitlement.

[Lurk]

Originally Posted by Pete

There is a lot of gamesmanship involved with the VA and disability for retired military. That said I don't see how a heredetary thyroid is "service connected" so he can get disability.

Having worked the military medical system for 30 years (including at the Secretary of Defense level) I can shed some light on this.

If a potential recruit has a pre-existing condition (familial thyroid disease, broken leg in high school, high-refraction visual problems, etc.) and is otherwise eligible for recruitment (legal, educational, moral, whatever) the Service secretary can waive the pre-existing condition and the member can be recruited/commissioned if that condition is healed or inactive (not expected to reactivate). If that condition is aggravated (or becomes symptomatic) during the term of service, it is considered a "Service-connected-or-aggravated condition" for which a disability can be levied. If the Service levies the disability, the VA won't (you cannot draw two disability checks for the same disability). If the Service doesn't levy a disability the VA has the option of evaluating the member at the time of retirement (medical or longevity) and assessing a level of disability.

The leniency the VA pays for disability determination is subject to political attention. After the Viet Nam war there was high interest in helping the veterans, so a lot were granted high-rate disabilities. Over time the interest waned (like we see beginnings in the Administration right now) and it gets harder to get a VA disability. Right now we're coming off a high-interest, easy-to-get VA disability (which is why the VA cannot keep up with demand).

Getting a high rating from the VA doesn't make you rich (contrary to the opinions of some on this forum). I'm personally 60% disabled but I receive less than 1% of what my annual salary was on active duty. Granted, Federal income tax is not collected on that. Some states do tax that as regular income (you know, the ones with high structural deficits in their state budgets?)

Oh, by the way. With 30 years of service, and 60% disability, I don't have a retirement job. I am living on my Service retirement pension, VA pittance and NO Social security for two more years though I am over 65 now.

[somdwatch]

Originally Posted by Ken King

I see you believe in a “well I was told” world. A 35-year Fed retiree, under CSRS, doesn’t get 80% retirement. For 35 years the individual would get 7.5% for the first 5 years of service, 8.75% for the next 5 years, and then 50% for the final 25 years for a total of 66.25% of their high 3 average pay.

Another misconvception of yours is your statement regarding Congressional retirement. Senate and House members fall under the Fed retirement system and none receive 100% retirement as it is calculated exactly the same as a Fed employees retirement is (variations exist depending whether the person is covered by CSRS of FERS), but no one gets 100% and I challenge you to show otherwise.

Well I was told, by a retired federal employee. Is CSRS the new system or the old system?
When a retired civil servant can make 100% of what they were making as a GS XX on 50% of the time after retirement, WHY ARE WE FOOTING A RETIREMENT, that should have been their investments (responibility) when earning a salary while employed.

Regardless of how I know about it, we need to modify it. If it's fair across all retirement plans provided for by the govt, we need to reduce it to avoid becoming the next Greece.

We shouldn't focus on any one group, but ALL retirements provided by government at any level. Instant savings.

The bottom line even at 66% it's to generous for doing your job.

[Ken King]

Originally Posted by somdwatch

Well I was told, by a retired federal employee. Is CSRS the new system or the old system?
When a retired civil servant can make 100% of what they were making as a GS XX on 50% of the time after retirement, WHY ARE WE FOOTING A RETIREMENT, that should have been their investments (responibility) when earning a salary while employed.

CSRS is the old system. Footing a retirement? That was a Fed employee investment system. The employee paid 7%, 7.5% or 8% into the system throughout their career and are just drawing off of that.

Regardless of how I know about it, we need to modify it. If it's fair across all retirement plans provided for by the govt, we need to reduce it to avoid becoming the next Greece.

But it seems you don't know anything about it, besides that system was reduced and replaced with FERS.

We shouldn't focus on any one group, but ALL retirements provided by government at any level. Instant savings.

You're funny.

The bottom line even at 66% it's to generous for doing your job.

Really? What would be generous enough for you?

[letmetellyou]

Originally Posted by The_Twisted_Ear

You are kidding - right? . I can't believe you even asked that question...

You're kidding right?

How many working civilian's can be ordered to another country in 24 hours? Many How many civilian's can risk their retirement for talking back to a superior? Many How many civilian's can be shipped across the US to another work location and can't decline? Due to financial consideratiions many!Considering this and other things (i.e., protecting YOU from enemies that want to kill us, etc.) I haven't mentioned - they should be able to retire early - period

Having responded to your quote, there are many people who are in the same boat as the military. They are not exclusive to the things you mentioned.

However, what the military members do have exclusive to them and not other American workers is people in the military can and often do get ordered to work extensive hours and not be compensated for them. People in the military can and often do get held in a certain location and can't leave without the possibility of being criminally charged for disobeying someone. Members of the military are compensated at a far lower than their civilian counterparts.

But they are not the only people who can collect a pension prior to 65? I don't even know where the op is getting that. Police officers, firemen, truck drivers, warehouse workers, and the list goes on and on collect pensions prior to 65.

[abcxyz]

Bottom line is because that is what they were promised as part of their overall compensation package. Deferred compensation.

[BernieP]

Originally Posted by desertrat

What about Civil Service?

What about it?
Under the old (CSRS) program you had to meet certain criteria - I believe you needed a number of years of service plus minimum age of 55. If you didn't meet those criteria annutity is reduced 2% for each year (or part of a year) you are short.
CSRS and Military retirement I believe are both taxable income.
The joke on civil service is that with the new method of calculating the retirees tax exempt portion, it's like 95 percent taxable as they now ammortize it over your expected (cough) life. The other payback is that most retired civil service workers will pay into social security. They will meet the requirements for quarters but will never collect a dime as a law was enacted in 1986 that provided for a dollar for dollar offset. The concept of a federal retiree recieving both an annuity AND a social security check was not politically acceptable. Military retirees can collect both.

FWIW, publics sector / public safety employees typicall retire after 20 years of service as well - that would be police and fire fighters. Beyond risk, I think you will find most have some physical disability. I would bet most former military have been exposed to chemicals / materials that are hazardous to their health and the number 1 problem is hearing loss form noise exposure.
Hey, we are getting better at it but the government / military is far behind the requirements the government (OSHA) imposes on private industry.