Politics

[PARA45]

 

[SaintPanzer]

Since when? Every currently retired veteran I know who has served 20+ years is collecting 50%+ depending on number of years of service is receiving their retirement pay. And are filing for veterans compensation and pension for service connected injuries. There are a few stipulations, as to collecting both retirement pay and V.A. C & P, however a proposed bill is before congress to change change the rule there by allowing veterans to collect full military retirement pay and full V.A.C & P benefits without veterans having to choose which pay to offset the other.

Unlike active duty servicemen and women, National Guard and Reserve Military with 20+ years of military service collect their retirement at age 60, with retirement pay calculated based on number of retirement points.

Oh, bother... "Since when...?" The National Defense Act of 2013.

Blended Retirement

The Blended Retirement System is different. The old system was "all or nothing". There were several problems with that. The obvious was the cost of a pension system. Less obvious, but also compelling, is the fact that if you didn't spend 20 years, you received exactly nothing.

So in 2013 (note, no one who joined in 2013 is yet able to retire) They developed a blended system. There was of course a phase in period: If you joined prior to a certain date, you were under the old system, after that date, you could opt in, and after 2018, there was no choice: You're in the new system. Downside of the new system is it's not the big pension that once was. Instead, you get to contribute, and the government matches an amount, like a 401K. If you leave early, you can take the account with you, like a 401K. So if you get out after 10 years or so, you're not leaving money in the system.

Oh, the "old system" is not that old. That changed in 1980. The old-old system (if you joined before 1980) was your retirement pay was based on the last rank you held. The "old" post 1980 system bases your retirement on your last three highest paying years. I enlisted in 1986, and retired in 2016. So we'll say I'm the "old system", and not the "old old system". I didn't have to put money into that pension, but I did give up liver function from Camp Lejeune water, messed up my back, one ankle, two hips, and some other minor things. I'm still trying to decide if that was a fair trade.

And there isn't an "offset" from which to choose. The way disability works with a pension is this:
The Pension is considered taxable income. Disability Pay is non taxable income.

If you are less than 50% disabled, it works like this: To keep the math simple, assume your pension is $1000/month, and your 30% disability pay is $300/month. In that case, $700/month is taxable income, the remainder is not. You still get $1000. But when you file your taxes, you only pay on $8400, not $12000.

But wait, there's more: If the disability is from a combat injury, or combat related training, you file for both. So say you broke your ankle in a parachute jump, and that's why you're now 30% disabled. Now you get the $1000 pension plus another $300 tax free on top of that.

On the other hand, if you're more than 50% disabled, THEN you automatically get both, but the disability remains non-taxable. You also don't have to prove the injury was combat related. They are two separate funds.

It's helpful to keep in mind that disability is exactly that. It's meant to make up for income you otherwise couldn't make through labor. There's another whole discussion about how once you could make a good salary with a strong back and a willing attitude, but those days are gone. The system was designed for that. But if you lose function of all the fingers in your hand because of a training accident, your dreams of becoming a brain surgeon when you get out of the service are probably gone too. You're probably not going to be a dentist either. So an extra few hundred a month is some small comfort.

Now, Reserve Retirement is a different beast. Yes, you have to wait until you are 60. That's because it's treated like a civil service pension, which you also cannot collect until you are 60. But again, it's not that simple. That law changed in 2008. Now, if you have active duty time based on contingency operations, your retirement eligible age goes back for every month you were on active duty for more than 90 days. The maths get a little complicated: you get 3 months for 90 consecutive days, After that, it's qualifying, but you have to be on duty for a full month to get credit for that month. The start date for that was 18 January 2008.

So let's say, for example, you have 3 years of "qualifying" active duty time. Now, you go from the "Retired List Awaiting Pay" (which is actually part of the Individual Ready Reserve, or IRR) at age 57, not age 60. But points still matter. Each point represents 1 day. Take your total points, and divide by 365. That gives you qualifying years. Then, you need to multiply that by a multiplier... I think it's 2.5%. That gives you an overall percentage. Let's say that overall percentage comes to 40%. That 40% times your "High Three" years in rank gives you the pay amount. That is also changing with the Blended Retirement System, but those details are beyond anything I ever had to worry over, and I see no point in going back to learn.

So yes, a "recent retiree" who by definition, on today's date would have joined no later than August 2002 would be getting paid under the old system. That was the deal when he signed up. But that great benefit is simply no longer possible, and hasn't been since 2018. And between 2013 and 2018, you had a choice as to which system you wanted.

 

[Ray B]

With regard to the old retirement system of both the military and the post office, where if the employee left prior to completion of 20 years there was 0 retirement, I was aware of several that had 18-19 years service that were being harassed unmercifully in an attempt to get them to leave. the harassers seemed to think the retirement would be deducted from their salary. These employees were from 1960sera.

 

[jpr9954]

 

[Ray B]

I'm just glad that in the final days of the B Rocko 'Bama admin, they weren't able to push through that snakeface as a Supreme court Justice. Once the truth of all that he's done as AG comes out, it is likely the Dems will tar & feather him and send him out of town on a rail (not a train).

 

[wesheltonj]

I'm just glad that in the final days of the B Rocko 'Bama admin, they weren't able to push through that snakeface as a Supreme court Justice. Once the truth of all that he's done as AG comes out, it is likely the Dems will tar & feather him and send him out of town on a rail (not a train).

Doubtful. He was "just following orders." He will be rewarded, with a book deal, and partner at some DC firm, where he will be playing golf for a living.

 

[wesheltonj]

Here is the POS that wats to be the next Governor of Texas:

https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1557536616431980544

 

[Sabattiboy]

Oh, bother... "Since when...?" The National Defense Act of 2013.

Blended Retirement

The Blended Retirement System is different. The old system was "all or nothing". There were several problems with that. The obvious was the cost of a pension system. Less obvious, but also compelling, is the fact that if you didn't spend 20 years, you received exactly nothing.

So in 2013 (note, no one who joined in 2013 is yet able to retire) They developed a blended system. There was of course a phase in period: If you joined prior to a certain date, you were under the old system, after that date, you could opt in, and after 2018, there was no choice: You're in the new system. Downside of the new system is it's not the big pension that once was. Instead, you get to contribute, and the government matches an amount, like a 401K. If you leave early, you can take the account with you, like a 401K. So if you get out after 10 years or so, you're not leaving money in the system.

Oh, the "old system" is not that old. That changed in 1980. The old-old system (if you joined before 1980) was your retirement pay was based on the last rank you held. The "old" post 1980 system bases your retirement on your last three highest paying years. I enlisted in 1986, and retired in 2016. So we'll say I'm the "old system", and not the "old old system". I didn't have to put money into that pension, but I did give up liver function from Camp Lejeune water, messed up my back, one ankle, two hips, and some other minor things. I'm still trying to decide if that was a fair trade.

And there isn't an "offset" from which to choose. The way disability works with a pension is this:
The Pension is considered taxable income. Disability Pay is non taxable income.

If you are less than 50% disabled, it works like this: To keep the math simple, assume your pension is $1000/month, and your 30% disability pay is $300/month. In that case, $700/month is taxable income, the remainder is not. You still get $1000. But when you file your taxes, you only pay on $8400, not $12000.

But wait, there's more: If the disability is from a combat injury, or combat related training, you file for both. So say you broke your ankle in a parachute jump, and that's why you're now 30% disabled. Now you get the $1000 pension plus another $300 tax free on top of that.

On the other hand, if you're more than 50% disabled, THEN you automatically get both, but the disability remains non-taxable. You also don't have to prove the injury was combat related. They are two separate funds.

It's helpful to keep in mind that disability is exactly that. It's meant to make up for income you otherwise couldn't make through labor. There's another whole discussion about how once you could make a good salary with a strong back and a willing attitude, but those days are gone. The system was designed for that. But if you lose function of all the fingers in your hand because of a training accident, your dreams of becoming a brain surgeon when you get out of the service are probably gone too. You're probably not going to be a dentist either. So an extra few hundred a month is some small comfort.

Now, Reserve Retirement is a different beast. Yes, you have to wait until you are 60. That's because it's treated like a civil service pension, which you also cannot collect until you are 60. But again, it's not that simple. That law changed in 2008. Now, if you have active duty time based on contingency operations, your retirement eligible age goes back for every month you were on active duty for more than 90 days. The maths get a little complicated: you get 3 months for 90 consecutive days, After that, it's qualifying, but you have to be on duty for a full month to get credit for that month. The start date for that was 18 January 2008.

So let's say, for example, you have 3 years of "qualifying" active duty time. Now, you go from the "Retired List Awaiting Pay" (which is actually part of the Individual Ready Reserve, or IRR) at age 57, not age 60. But points still matter. Each point represents 1 day. Take your total points, and divide by 365. That gives you qualifying years. Then, you need to multiply that by a multiplier... I think it's 2.5%. That gives you an overall percentage. Let's say that overall percentage comes to 40%. That 40% times your "High Three" years in rank gives you the pay amount. That is also changing with the Blended Retirement System, but those details are beyond anything I ever had to worry over, and I see no point in going back to learn.

So yes, a "recent retiree" who by definition, on today's date would have joined no later than August 2002 would be getting paid under the old system. That was the deal when he signed up. But that great benefit is simply no longer possible, and hasn't been since 2018. And between 2013 and 2018, you had a choice as to which system you wanted.

@SaintPanzer I have to give it up for you for typing that much information.
None of it affects my life but still a good read.
The news media points some fingers now and then over vet benefits but usually has an axe to grind so nothing is qualified.
Years ago, unknown if it has changed since, a pastor could opt out of paying into SS. I think on a religious basis. I believe it gave more take home money and saved the church from paying their half as the employer.
That choice came back to bite some when their retirement time arrived.

 

[Doug3006]

The United States is the standard, the place in the sun. It looks wonderful from out here, but the degree of how wonderful you think it is is up to you who live there and own it. Our concern, or at least my concern from out here is how long it can hold together with so many of your people hell bent upon it's destruction? Why would people want to destroy their paradise? One can understand the greenies having concerns about carbon and energy use to ensure the future of mankind, but then the same liberals kill babies, tolerate filth, allow drugs to pour in, encourage violence and won't punish those who perpetrate it. There is no consistency in their actions at all, no sense. Perhaps living too well has created lunacy amongst them.

The cause of all the radical notions and destructive actions is ancient. It’s commonly called decadence. It starts with a total lack of historical perspective. It’s aggravated by a sense of entitlement. Finally it’s leveraged by unscrupulous power seekers. However, it’s not unprecedented in our history. Sadly it seems we need a catastrophe to snap us out of it.

 

[Ray B]

Robert Francis is such an ass.

 

[Boyd Brooks]

 

[PARA45]

 

[Brent in Az]

 

[Sabattiboy]

View attachment 482612

Elizibeth, I'm coming!
I always loved when he did that.

 

[Ridge Runner]

Oh, bother... "Since when...?" The National Defense Act of 2013.

Blended Retirement

The Blended Retirement System is different. The old system was "all or nothing". There were several problems with that. The obvious was the cost of a pension system. Less obvious, but also compelling, is the fact that if you didn't spend 20 years, you received exactly nothing.

So in 2013 (note, no one who joined in 2013 is yet able to retire) They developed a blended system. There was of course a phase in period: If you joined prior to a certain date, you were under the old system, after that date, you could opt in, and after 2018, there was no choice: You're in the new system. Downside of the new system is it's not the big pension that once was. Instead, you get to contribute, and the government matches an amount, like a 401K. If you leave early, you can take the account with you, like a 401K. So if you get out after 10 years or so, you're not leaving money in the system.

Oh, the "old system" is not that old. That changed in 1980. The old-old system (if you joined before 1980) was your retirement pay was based on the last rank you held. The "old" post 1980 system bases your retirement on your last three highest paying years. I enlisted in 1986, and retired in 2016. So we'll say I'm the "old system", and not the "old old system". I didn't have to put money into that pension, but I did give up liver function from Camp Lejeune water, messed up my back, one ankle, two hips, and some other minor things. I'm still trying to decide if that was a fair trade.

And there isn't an "offset" from which to choose. The way disability works with a pension is this:
The Pension is considered taxable income. Disability Pay is non taxable income.

If you are less than 50% disabled, it works like this: To keep the math simple, assume your pension is $1000/month, and your 30% disability pay is $300/month. In that case, $700/month is taxable income, the remainder is not. You still get $1000. But when you file your taxes, you only pay on $8400, not $12000.

But wait, there's more: If the disability is from a combat injury, or combat related training, you file for both. So say you broke your ankle in a parachute jump, and that's why you're now 30% disabled. Now you get the $1000 pension plus another $300 tax free on top of that.

On the other hand, if you're more than 50% disabled, THEN you automatically get both, but the disability remains non-taxable. You also don't have to prove the injury was combat related. They are two separate funds.

It's helpful to keep in mind that disability is exactly that. It's meant to make up for income you otherwise couldn't make through labor. There's another whole discussion about how once you could make a good salary with a strong back and a willing attitude, but those days are gone. The system was designed for that. But if you lose function of all the fingers in your hand because of a training accident, your dreams of becoming a brain surgeon when you get out of the service are probably gone too. You're probably not going to be a dentist either. So an extra few hundred a month is some small comfort.

Now, Reserve Retirement is a different beast. Yes, you have to wait until you are 60. That's because it's treated like a civil service pension, which you also cannot collect until you are 60. But again, it's not that simple. That law changed in 2008. Now, if you have active duty time based on contingency operations, your retirement eligible age goes back for every month you were on active duty for more than 90 days. The maths get a little complicated: you get 3 months for 90 consecutive days, After that, it's qualifying, but you have to be on duty for a full month to get credit for that month. The start date for that was 18 January 2008.

So let's say, for example, you have 3 years of "qualifying" active duty time. Now, you go from the "Retired List Awaiting Pay" (which is actually part of the Individual Ready Reserve, or IRR) at age 57, not age 60. But points still matter. Each point represents 1 day. Take your total points, and divide by 365. That gives you qualifying years. Then, you need to multiply that by a multiplier... I think it's 2.5%. That gives you an overall percentage. Let's say that overall percentage comes to 40%. That 40% times your "High Three" years in rank gives you the pay amount. That is also changing with the Blended Retirement System, but those details are beyond anything I ever had to worry over, and I see no point in going back to learn.

So yes, a "recent retiree" who by definition, on today's date would have joined no later than August 2002 would be getting paid under the old system. That was the deal when he signed up. But that great benefit is simply no longer possible, and hasn't been since 2018. And between 2013 and 2018, you had a choice as to which system you wanted.

I retired in 2002 at 50% base pay. I'm (finally) at 100% V.A.C & P,after more than 20 years of fighting for my injuries received on active duty. These injuries became aggravated though civilian employment to render me unemployable and eligible for Social Security retirement and a few other SSA benefits.

V.A. math is not as simple as you make it out to be. According to the VA I was initially rated at 50%, which totaled 20% disabled by the VA"s math system. At 110%~ the VA's math totaled 40% disabled. At roughly 140%~ using the VA math system my rating went to 60% disabled. Around roughly 200%~ they increased my rating to 80%. Then after another 5 years of filing appeals, filing secondary claims associated with my primary injury claims and contacting my Congressmen and Senators the VA reevaluated and increased the percentage of my disabilities from my initial claims for compensation and pension to 100% permanent and total disabled non employable.

Until a veteran's VA rating is 50% or higher for C & P the veteran chooses between reduction in retirement pay or C & P pay. Once the veteran receives a rating of 50% the veteran can receive both full retirement pay and full C & P pay. This is being tossed around in Congress to be changed to allow veterans' to collect full retirement pay and full C & P regardless of C & P rating.

With the new PAC Act being signed by dementia Joe veterans currently collecting C & P regardless of rating can now file for additional C & P claims and collect secondary C & P.

As for taxes; depends on which state a veteran resides in whether military, C & P, and SSA incomes are taxable. Federally only military retirement pay is taxable.

Reserve and National Guard retirement points for pay may have also have changed since 2002, but I haven't heard of any changes in the way retirement pay is calculated. I have heard there are changes to other benefits afforded active duty.

It takes 48 points to make a good calendar retirement year. Only good years are counted toward retirement. Any and all points accrued over the required 48 calendar year points are added to the end of 20 good years, based on the pay chart X number of additional points equates to the number of retirement years for retirement pay.

ie. After my initial 4 years active duty I enlisted into the National Guard for the education/college benefits. Under the Simultaneous Membership Program (SMP) I joined the reserves as a third year R.O.T.C. cadet. Those 2 years as a R.O.T.C. cadet don't count for retirement, but the points earned are added to my total points for retirement pay. [ie. 18 years service + 2 years R.O.T.C. does not equal 20 years service. 20 years service + 2 years R.O.T.C. = 22 years service. However: X number of years active duty + X number of good years NG = 20 years + 2 years R.O.T.C = 22 retirement years + (ie 14 days Annual Training x 20 years = 280 days) X number of points = 24 or 26 years retirement pay.]

When retirement starts depends on the category the veteran retires in:

20 years active duty followed by 2 years NG or Reserve, the veteran collects their pension at age 60.

X number of good years NG or Reserve + 20 years active duty, the veteran collects their retirement immediately. But as you have already pointed out seems things have changed.

[Enlisted Personnel] To through another kink into all this is/was a "Buy/ Pay Out", similar to the Reduction In Force (RIF). Where specific units or individuals' MOSs were being done away with, depending on the soldier's category, depended on whether they were retained and cross trained or allowed to retire with less than 20 years service with full benefits, or given a mandatory one time payment based on years of service and given an honorable discharge. [Officer Personnel were done considerably differently].

At the time I retired in 2002, retirement pay was based on the service members highest pay grade. ie enlist as an E-1 after 20 years service the service member earned the rank of E-9, the service member retired with 50% base pay of E-9. If the service member enlisted as an E-1 received a "battlefield commission" to O-5 RIFed to E-6 (lowest reduced rank), regardless if they made rank, lost rank, became a Warrant (or Commissioned Officer, under certain circumstances) the service member retired as and received 50% as an O-5 [(unless they received a commission thru other means: Military School, OCS, ROTC) and made a higher rank than O-5].

Your reference to Civil Service retirement is a bit off. I used the Postal Service as an example to avoid the lengthy Wage Grade (WG) (hourly) and (GS) (salary) retirement system service members can also collect in addition to their military retirement after 20 (or less) years service. Because up to 3 or 5 years (I forget the maximum of years can be bought) of retirement can be bought. ie get hired in use the buy (3 or 5 (?) years retirement option, work fifteen years, retire with 20 years.

To conclude the exceeding long thread there have been some drastic changes made as to who is and isn't eligible for Social Security Income retirement.(sarcasm) Thanks to some jealous lazy a$$ politician, I think the new regulations start later this year to eliminate those double, triple, quadruple dip-- receive more than a single government retirement check; those who even though work and have paid into Social Security, won't be allowed to collect Social Security unless they have worked and paid into Social Security for at least 10 or 20 years, with certain exceptions, will not be eligible to collect/receive Social Security Income.

 

[Ridge Runner]

Americans excell above everyone else in ALL the above categories....there is no way you can credibly accuse Americans of just paying off people to not be further bothered. We are probably the most charitable people in the history of the planet.

Yes! I can credibly accuse Americans of just paying off people to not be further bother them!

So you give money, provide clothing, shelter and taxi service to every vagabond, panhandler, etc. you encounter.

You also donate to and/or volunteer to work at your local food bank, goodwill, USPCA, PETA, Save the ____ foundation, televangelist, etc..

You must have a hellacious income and a very understanding family and boss.

There are good charities and relief organizations, and then there are those so called charities and relief programs.

I despise the peanut president, but I'll say this Jimmy Carter deserves credit he does get his hands dirty building habitat for humanity homes.

I'll ask you this how many people that you know of or socialized with, that have 6 figure + salaries, volunteer when asked directly or indirectly step up and actually get their hands dirty? And how many will reach for their checkbook and give a feeble excuse why they can't make it that day?

I also have first hand experience that the ones who can contribute more are the some ones that contribute the least.

Granted I'll agree most Americans are generous and helping to their shallow pockets, those people earning between $30,000.00 to $70,000.00 annual wage getting paid by the hour and those on fixed incomes cause these people are most Americans.

 

[Ridge Runner]

In the early/middle 1970's someone used the media of the day in an effort to stir an uproar over people drawing a military and Post Office pensions.
They put the time in both so were due both but those that had done nothing didn't think it was fair.

Exactly. It wasn't that long ago, within the last few months, a congressman or senator was fuming about this on msm.

 

[SaintPanzer]

Obviously, we are only talking US military rules, so our non-US members can feel free to scroll forward.

VA Math works like this:
You start as being 100% "abled".

Your first "injury/issue/major malfunction" is (example) worth 20%.

Take 20% off the 100 and you are considered 20% disabled/80% "abled".

Your next malfunction is judged to be another 20%. The rest of the world would put you at 40% disabled, but that's not how the VA works. You were at 80% "abled", right? So 20% of 80 is only 16%, so 20+16 =36. You are now 64% "abled".

So now you have another malfunction that's worth 10%. Now, the way I learned math, your two 20s plus a 10 should put you at 50%, right? The VA went to a different school than I did. 10% of 64 is only 6.4, so they say you're at 42.4% disabled. Then the rounding starts. You thought you were at the 50% rating, but you're really only at the 40% rating, because disability is only paid in 10% increments.

They compute from the most damaging injury first, which will help you get to 100 faster. If for instance that first injury was 50%, then you get a 20% and then a 10%, you wouldn't be at 80% you'd be at 70%. I think the VA learned math in the Navy:

Reserve retirement is actually easy in comparison. 1 point for every day of active duty, and one point for every drill. A satisfactory year is 50 points, but the average drilling reservist gets around 77 points or so, depending on what happened that year. You also get 15 points just for participating in the Reserves. So suppose you did one weekend a month and two weeks of annual training in the summer. 15 participation points, plus 48 drill points, and that AT counts as active duty time, so 14 points there: 77 points. An usat year records the points, but does not count towards your minimum 20 years of service (where you need to have 50 points in that year to count). I can assure you it's been 50 points since at least 1986. Some people think it's only 48, because there are 48 drills in a year, but it's actually 50, and most forget those 15 "participation points".

Bonus: If you join the Reserves after you've completed active duty, those points carry. Your 4 years of active duty added 1460 points to your total score. If you're mobilized, those points count as one per day. Extra drills? Longer AT? Special school? Keep track of those points. If you're in the IRR (which you technically are when you're in ROTC), make sure you find a way to get 35 points somehow. That plus the 15 you get just for being at risk of being mobilized gives you a sat year. Points times multiplier gives you a number. That number gives you a percentage. Grade and total sat years in service is on the pay chart. Retirement is the percentage of the number listed on the pay chart.

Oh, and about the IRR: When I joined in 1986, many thought the IRR, or even the Selected Reserves would never be called up. Then some idiot decided to invade Kuwait. Huge mobilzation. "Never happen again" they said. Then other idiots flew airplanes into buildings. Another huge mobilization. Also, you need to read the fine print in the contract. People thought they signed up for four years, completed an enlistment, and they were done. Not so fast: Look close, the commitment was for a total of 8 years. Sign a 4 year contract? 4 years in the IRR. 6 year contract? 2 years in the IRR. Check your DD-214. Box 6 lists "Reserve Commitment Termination Date". It is typically 8 years after the Pay Entry Base Date. Boy, a lot of people who were discharged in 2000 or early 2001 thought they were "done", only to get a registered letter in 2002 or 2003. Oh, by the way, did you take advantage of the delayed enlistment program, where you signed up early but shipped to book camp later? That counted as IRR time, too. Gave you an early Pay Entry Base Date, though. And that counted towards years of service in the Pay Chart.

Oh, and don't worry that ROTC time doesn't count as time towards your 20 year retirement, but does count towards total service at retirement. The same maths apply to those who went to the Academies as well.

Thanks for coming to my Ted Talk.

 

[steve white]

Yes! I can credibly accuse Americans of just paying off people to not be further bother them!

So you give money, provide clothing, shelter and taxi service to every vagabond, panhandler, etc. you encounter.

You also donate to and/or volunteer to work at your local food bank, goodwill, USPCA, PETA, Save the ____ foundation, televangelist, etc..

You must have a hellacious income and a very understanding family and boss.

There are good charities and relief organizations, and then there are those so called charities and relief programs.

I despise the peanut president, but I'll say this Jimmy Carter deserves credit he does get his hands dirty building habitat for humanity homes.

I'll ask you this how many people that you know of or socialized with, that have 6 figure + salaries, volunteer when asked directly or indirectly step up and actually get their hands dirty? And how many will reach for their checkbook and give a feeble excuse why they can't make it that day?

I also have first hand experience that the ones who can contribute more are the some ones that contribute the least.

Granted I'll agree most Americans are generous and helping to their shallow pockets, those people earning between $30,000.00 to $70,000.00 annual wage getting paid by the hour and those on fixed incomes cause these people are most Americans.

You are building a straw man--it is ALL in your head. I know TONS OF PEOPLE who are richer than you will ever be who regularly get their hands dirty--and not just on mission trips, which are more popular than vacations these days. They are Texas Baptist Men disaster relief--first on EVERY disaster, before FEMA even gets its shoes on and tied. They are free church builders. They are water purification experts and well drillers. They are world changer youth, who from privileged families, put roof on houses in poor neighborhoods in the summer break. I could name you 50+ other examples and not scratch the surface of what I don't know.
What I do know is that people who talk like you DO NONE OF THE ABOVE and don't give a plug nickel to church or charity. Don't try to make yourself feel better by running down those who actually get it done decade after decade and generation after generation.
BTW, the bulk of charity is provided by middle/lower income dollar wise and especially percentage-wise.
Agree with criticism of "so-called charities"...check before giving a check.

 

[Sabattiboy]

I retired in 2002 at 50% base pay. I'm (finally) at 100% V.A.C & P,after more than 20 years of fighting for my injuries received on active duty. These injuries became aggravated though civilian employment to render me unemployable and eligible for Social Security retirement and a few other SSA benefits.

V.A. math is not as simple as you make it out to be. According to the VA I was initially rated at 50%, which totaled 20% disabled by the VA"s math system. At 110%~ the VA's math totaled 40% disabled. At roughly 140%~ using the VA math system my rating went to 60% disabled. Around roughly 200%~ they increased my rating to 80%. Then after another 5 years of filing appeals, filing secondary claims associated with my primary injury claims and contacting my Congressmen and Senators the VA reevaluated and increased the percentage of my disabilities from my initial claims for compensation and pension to 100% permanent and total disabled non employable.

Until a veteran's VA rating is 50% or higher for C & P the veteran chooses between reduction in retirement pay or C & P pay. Once the veteran receives a rating of 50% the veteran can receive both full retirement pay and full C & P pay. This is being tossed around in Congress to be changed to allow veterans' to collect full retirement pay and full C & P regardless of C & P rating.

With the new PAC Act being signed by dementia Joe veterans currently collecting C & P regardless of rating can now file for additional C & P claims and collect secondary C & P.

As for taxes; depends on which state a veteran resides in whether military, C & P, and SSA incomes are taxable. Federally only military retirement pay is taxable.

Reserve and National Guard retirement points for pay may have also have changed since 2002, but I haven't heard of any changes in the way retirement pay is calculated. I have heard there are changes to other benefits afforded active duty.

It takes 48 points to make a good calendar retirement year. Only good years are counted toward retirement. Any and all points accrued over the required 48 calendar year points are added to the end of 20 good years, based on the pay chart X number of additional points equates to the number of retirement years for retirement pay.

ie. After my initial 4 years active duty I enlisted into the National Guard for the education/college benefits. Under the Simultaneous Membership Program (SMP) I joined the reserves as a third year R.O.T.C. cadet. Those 2 years as a R.O.T.C. cadet don't count for retirement, but the points earned are added to my total points for retirement pay. [ie. 18 years service + 2 years R.O.T.C. does not equal 20 years service. 20 years service + 2 years R.O.T.C. = 22 years service. However: X number of years active duty + X number of good years NG = 20 years + 2 years R.O.T.C = 22 retirement years + (ie 14 days Annual Training x 20 years = 280 days) X number of points = 24 or 26 years retirement pay.]

When retirement starts depends on the category the veteran retires in:

20 years active duty followed by 2 years NG or Reserve, the veteran collects their pension at age 60.

X number of good years NG or Reserve + 20 years active duty, the veteran collects their retirement immediately. But as you have already pointed out seems things have changed.

[Enlisted Personnel] To through another kink into all this is/was a "Buy/ Pay Out", similar to the Reduction In Force (RIF). Where specific units or individuals' MOSs were being done away with, depending on the soldier's category, depended on whether they were retained and cross trained or allowed to retire with less than 20 years service with full benefits, or given a mandatory one time payment based on years of service and given an honorable discharge. [Officer Personnel were done considerably differently].

At the time I retired in 2002, retirement pay was based on the service members highest pay grade. ie enlist as an E-1 after 20 years service the service member earned the rank of E-9, the service member retired with 50% base pay of E-9. If the service member enlisted as an E-1 received a "battlefield commission" to O-5 RIFed to E-6 (lowest reduced rank), regardless if they made rank, lost rank, became a Warrant (or Commissioned Officer, under certain circumstances) the service member retired as and received 50% as an O-5 [(unless they received a commission thru other means: Military School, OCS, ROTC) and made a higher rank than O-5].

Your reference to Civil Service retirement is a bit off. I used the Postal Service as an example to avoid the lengthy Wage Grade (WG) (hourly) and (GS) (salary) retirement system service members can also collect in addition to their military retirement after 20 (or less) years service. Because up to 3 or 5 years (I forget the maximum of years can be bought) of retirement can be bought. ie get hired in use the buy (3 or 5 (?) years retirement option, work fifteen years, retire with 20 years.

To conclude the exceeding long thread there have been some drastic changes made as to who is and isn't eligible for Social Security Income retirement.(sarcasm) Thanks to some jealous lazy a$$ politician, I think the new regulations start later this year to eliminate those double, triple, quadruple dip-- receive more than a single government retirement check; those who even though work and have paid into Social Security, won't be allowed to collect Social Security unless they have worked and paid into Social Security for at least 10 or 20 years, with certain exceptions, will not be eligible to collect/receive Social Security Income.

The collective of all military/etc government retirement paths it appears to mimic the tax code. Remember casting out 9's as a way to check arithmetic?
The only one that makes sense someone wrote up and sent around probably 1970's sometime went something like this:
Did you earn any money? If yes write it in.
Was any money withheld? If yes write it in.
Subtract the two and write in the balance.
If there is any balance, send it in also.

Where the government is concerned there is no KISS system.