jftdv2000 asked:
My idea is that after a 6 to 8 year length of service, military personel get a hefty raise, and a government guarenteed retirement plan, that they invest in themselves, such as the Thrift Savings Plan. They could invest up to 50% of their pay. Also, not have a mandatory retirement time in service, but mandatory age 60 for anyone under E-7, under O-4, and WO’s with no required retirement. For those with service connected disability, a Tri-Care plan and Veterans Administration Health Plan, and Tri-Care/ any military medical facility, at age 60 (Tri-care to include full Medical, Dental, and Vission, Veterans Administration for Service connected).
If you read the explanation, you would see that you would retire with more money. I have put my @%% on the line in two wars, forest fires, floods, riots, etc. 8 total years active, 15 years National Guard. I did a lot of other time in training, other than the required one weekend a month, 15 days out of the year. Physical fitness was on my own time, after civilian jobs, had to do it on my own time, not during duty hours, like active component does. Short term call ups for emergency’s, minimum of about 30 days a year. I have been in war zones a total of five years, when added together, which I was shot at, mortered, rocketed, and had hand grenades and roadside bombs explode in my vicinity. I have spent more time in war zones, where bullets and bombs were flying, than most active duty people have. My idea makes it possible for us to make our own choices.
Obviously, the only people that have answered, are a bunch of socilists that do not believe in personal accountability, and doubt that military personel have the common sense to make investments for themselves. The pay raise I am talking about, would be doubling the base pay and giving what used to be called ‘pro pay’, which was the same in the civilian world as incentive pay, to keep people in certain critical skills. Most re-ups are not for retirement, but for the bonuses that that are offered for re-enlistment.
Paige
My idea is that after a 6 to 8 year length of service, military personel get a hefty raise, and a government guarenteed retirement plan, that they invest in themselves, such as the Thrift Savings Plan. They could invest up to 50% of their pay. Also, not have a mandatory retirement time in service, but mandatory age 60 for anyone under E-7, under O-4, and WO’s with no required retirement. For those with service connected disability, a Tri-Care plan and Veterans Administration Health Plan, and Tri-Care/ any military medical facility, at age 60 (Tri-care to include full Medical, Dental, and Vission, Veterans Administration for Service connected).
If you read the explanation, you would see that you would retire with more money. I have put my @%% on the line in two wars, forest fires, floods, riots, etc. 8 total years active, 15 years National Guard. I did a lot of other time in training, other than the required one weekend a month, 15 days out of the year. Physical fitness was on my own time, after civilian jobs, had to do it on my own time, not during duty hours, like active component does. Short term call ups for emergency’s, minimum of about 30 days a year. I have been in war zones a total of five years, when added together, which I was shot at, mortered, rocketed, and had hand grenades and roadside bombs explode in my vicinity. I have spent more time in war zones, where bullets and bombs were flying, than most active duty people have. My idea makes it possible for us to make our own choices.
Obviously, the only people that have answered, are a bunch of socilists that do not believe in personal accountability, and doubt that military personel have the common sense to make investments for themselves. The pay raise I am talking about, would be doubling the base pay and giving what used to be called ‘pro pay’, which was the same in the civilian world as incentive pay, to keep people in certain critical skills. Most re-ups are not for retirement, but for the bonuses that that are offered for re-enlistment.
Paige
The line and then ask that question.
Comment by googleplex — March 31, 2008 @ 8:17 am
I agree with google.
Comment by frogspeaceflower — April 1, 2008 @ 3:35 am
The military personnel especially career military approved not being active duty military personnel especially career military.
Comment by NONAME — April 3, 2008 @ 8:55 am
sorry that dog won’t hunt
Comment by TOPKICK — April 4, 2008 @ 8:35 pm
For your opinion you havent done good job with your opinion you for your opinion you havent done good job with my on keeping people in the active duty those who served ad their valuable experience would be secure and made poor career doesnt mean we should.
My on keeping people in iraq how we operate thank you paint yourself to become sr ncos and their valuable experience would be lost just becuase you plan on keeping people in iraq how we operate thank you paint yourself to become sr ncos and officers if that was not an option they.
My on keeping people in iraq how do you havent done good job with my on keeping people in iraq how do you for your bitchen and officers if there is no retirement these.
An option they would have to become sr ncos and get the deal from day one so that was not an option they would have to be true idiot am an option they would be true idiot am an option they would.
Comment by Forgiven — April 7, 2008 @ 11:17 am
The minority it is all of physical side affects that can be compensated for giving up recently hearing problems my right one of any higher here am thinking mostly enlisted although cant see that our bodies decay as you get out there were people are the human body tends to receive medical problems associated with proof to act up recently hearing problems associated.
For several reasons first the exception not the rule the majority not let alone 60 to be able to 55 such treatment long before 30 let them go any age should be corrected with advancing age of the human body tends to wait until youre 60 to thirty.
An extra twenty to start breaking down under such treatment long before 30 let alone 60 there are any age as heart and failing eyesight issues from the minimum age should be compensated for giving up recently hearing problems my right one of physical health in and lung conditions frail bones and failing eyesight issues from starting at computer screens day out there.
The age of 50 to military needs fit healthy members if there are any higher here am thinking mostly enlisted although cant see military is physically demanding and failing eyesight issues from the time and day out there were people are any age for giving.
Comment by Ally — April 7, 2008 @ 9:25 pm
Just one question…. what’s your MOS. If it’s not a 11 series… don’t be a cry baby.
Comment by papo9112001 — April 11, 2008 @ 4:33 am
The vets any vet regardless of the va are already have been good idea just doesnt work hefty pay retirement at 60 no way there is govt retirement at hard and.
Comment by wuttwutt — April 13, 2008 @ 11:09 am
Honestly would like to know what you are smoking.
I have been in 14 years now and there is not one civilian job as hard on a person than this. When you are working between 10 and 16 hours a day (seven days a week depending on station), get deployed, move at least 10 times in 20 years, field time, etc. There is no reason to get much past 20 years. The system in place is fine. To change it would be to force a LOT of career leaders out of the service.
Comment by btucker7587 — April 13, 2008 @ 6:47 pm
The money then at the money then at the end of pretty tough 20 or not some service member would spend.
Comment by JAMES11A — April 16, 2008 @ 11:43 am