In order to "pay" for increases to the Defense Budget, military retirees were thrown under the bus in the Ryan/Murray budget agreement. For military retirees, this means one percent less COLA between ages 40-62. http://www.usatoday.com/... Twenty two years at one percent less than inflation means about a 25% retiree pension cut. This saves $6 billion over 10 years, $600 million a year. Think about that - DoD probably wastes more than $600 million a year. Republicans wanted increases for the Defense budget paid for - so $6 billion of the $31 billion or so, comes on the backs of current and future military retirees. DoD gets back $21.5 billion in 2014 and $9 billion in 2015.
Future federal employees will pay an additional 1.3% towards retirement (those hired after 1 Jan 2014) for an additional $6 billion. At least only future employees get hit. Those of us who have already served, don't have a choice.
This looks like a fairly small sacrifice, but according to the Stars and Stripes, this equates to about $83,000 for an enlisted member and $124,000 for an officer. http://www.stripes.com/... Evidently, the theory goes that these people are still working, so they don't need as much money. When they reach 62, there will be a “catch-up” amount.
Too bad that veterans unemployment runs about 10%. http://www.washingtonpost.com/...
Too bad studies of Social Security records show that Vietnam era veterans earn about 15% less than non-veterans. http://www.jstor.org/...
We can thank Democrat Rep. Chris Van Hollen (Md.). http://www.washingtonpost.com/...
Another large chunk of savings — $12 billion over the next decade — would come from reduced contributions to federal pensions, split evenly between military retirees and new civilian workers who start after Dec. 31.If my husband and I were retiring today, this "retirement savings" would cost us about $225,000. Almost a quarter of a million dollars. Together, we have almost 50 years of military service.
For those in the military, the reduction would take the form of lower cost-of-living increases for retirees between the ages of 40 and 62, many of whom take other jobs while collecting their military pensions. New civilian workers, meanwhile, would be required to contribute an additional 1.3 percent to their retirements.
Current federal workers would not be affected, said Rep. Chris Van Hollen (Md.), the lead budget negotiator for House Democrats. The impact on pensions, one of the last major issues to be decided, was hammered out during a weekend of talks between Van Hollen and Murray, who persuaded Ryan to spread the pain to the youngest military retirees.
That first year of marriage where we only saw each other for 6 weeks total, 2 weeks which were our honeymoon? Cost $225,000.
Those 10 or so years actually underway and under the ocean on a submarine? Cost $225,000.
That year we spent apart when you were in Hawaii and I somewhere else? Cost $225,000.
That time when your father died and you were at sea and couldn't say goodbye? Cost $225,000.
That $70,000 dollar loss on the home in Hawaii when transferred also costs another $225,000.
"Spread the pain to the youngest military retirees" - the most likely to have spent multiple tours in Iraq and Afghanistan. Thank you for your service. It just cost you $83K or $123K. Our military industrial complex thanks you. On behalf of Congress, they also thank you for your service.
Future thank you's could include Tricare benefit cuts, pay raise caps, narrower VA eligibility criteria...the list seems endless. http://www.nj.com/...
Why go on, it is only depressing. Please, don't thank me for my service anymore...it only costs me and my comrades in arms money.
Shared sacrifice - my ass.