Military retirement changes....

question: assuming the military members (the ones who didn't put 20 years) put money in the "old plan", were they able to take that with them when they got out & got jobs else where? Originally Posted by dilbert firestorm

The old RETIREMENT (as opposed to benefits bills like the G.I. Bill) plan was twenty or nothing. The new plan will really be a benefit for those who don't do twenty, but it puts a portion of retirement funds for those who do twenty at risk in the market, i.e., it's no longer a "sure thing." There result will reflect some will be "smarter" or "luckier" in their investments, and there will be others who won't be as smart or will be more unlucky than others. One need only look at what happened in 2008 to realize that most of the best financial advisers were pumping home mortgage derivatives as a "sure thing" for state and municipal retirement program investments, and a lot of innocent people got screwed.

Under the new plan, those who do stay for 20 or more years will see a 20 percent cut in their pension payouts, though the difference should be offset in part by the contributions to the plan's 401(k)-style component. Originally Posted by WTF

Under the OLD plan, Veterans who served 20 years got 50% of their base pay. They also got their TSP (a 401k type of retirement that included fund matching) if they chose to contribute and an IRA if they chose to contribute. (Those who leave w nothing chose not to contribute to TSP or an IRA. You could contribute to voluntary plans at anytime during your career.)

Under the NEW plan, Veterans who served 20 years get 40% of their base pay. They also got a 401k type of retirement that includes fund matching if they chose to contribute and an IRA if they chose to contribute. (I dont recall if the article stated whether or not the new 401k was voluntary or mandatory. If it is voluntary, those who leave w less than 20 years could still leave with nothing. The new 401k plan with fund matching is ONLY available to those with 12 years of service or more. Those who serve less than 12 years will still leave with nothing.)

If you read the two above statements, you realize the only differences are that one plan is 50%, the other of 40% AND the 401k style that provided fund matching at any time in your career, would now only be available to those w 12 years of service OR more. The original article from MSN is misleading and the federal government is not looking out for its service members (as if that never happened before).

To answer dilbert firestorm's question: Under the old plan, if you left the military before 20 years, you could take your TSP and IRA accounts with you but would be penalized for early withdrawal. You could roll it into a new plan but the new fund might charge you a fee.

Hint: The money the federal government saves on this plan comes from somewhere. In other words, someone is getting screwed.

Point of Order.

Since the original bill was vetoed by Obaminable on October 22, 2015, does anyone have a reference/link to any version that was signed by the President after October 22, 2015? Originally Posted by LexusLover

Where's the Act that was passed making any changes?

You all apparently are discussing the "effects" of an Act that was vetoed by Obaminable in 2015. That's the subject matter of the thread. Where is the act that supports the alleged change? Originally Posted by LexusLover

We have people on here arguing about "a plan" that was vetoed?

Translation: we have come up with a plan that saves Uncle Sam a couple bucks and our vets only lose out on 20% of their retirement (assuming they live long enough to collect it.)
If anyone (talking to you WTF) thinks this is a good idea, I suggest you put your money where your mouth is and give the Federal government 20% of your retirement each month when the time comes.

Obvious preparation to phase out military retirement. Originally Posted by goodman0422

Initially it sounds like a good idea, but i think it is rewarding people who don't WISH to make a career out of the military..

Initially it sounds like a good idea, but i think it is rewarding people who don't WISH to make a career out of the military.. Originally Posted by garhkal

And that should NOT be the case if one group or the other must suffer. Too many folks sign up for "experience, training, and/or education" with some of the following benefits after investing a minimum commitment.

But I'll repeat, and ask again: Where is the legislated change?