|
|
Post by davdesid on Feb 17, 2011 15:43:16 GMT -8
Until about 1958 military retirement pay was based directly on active duty pay scales. This was called recomputation. The reasoning was that the pay was just as much retainer pay as "retirement", since the member is subject to the Uniform Code of Military Justice and subject to involuntary recall to active duty at all times. And as the Supreme Court observed in *Barker v. Kansas*, those conditions remain... Military retirees unquestionably remain in the service and are subject to restrictions and recall;IMHO, they should have kept the recomputation formula. Interesting. I did not know that. Could you explain why you think they should have kept the recomputation formula? If you know why they changed I would be happy to learn. I think they should have retained recomputation so that the formula would remain the same for anyone retiring today would be no different from one of the same pay-grade and length of active service who retired in any previous year would be the same. Also, the words of the Supreme Court are germane.. Military retirees unquestionably remain in the service and are subject to restrictions and recall;Keep in mind, too, that the retired pay percentage is applied to basic pay only, and not to the regular compensation received by the active member. So, someone retiring on "50%" of basic pay gets about 30% of his/her RMC. Costs were an issue when the change was made, but ironically, after the change the active force went through an extended period of depressed pay, and the retiree lobby cried loud enough to get a decade long period of pay raises every six months. I think if they had kept their mouths shut and left things alone, recomputation would still be fine. Just MHO. From military.com for info: Recomputation began with the Army and Navy Appropriation Act of 1871, nine years after creation of the first military retirement system. According to the Defense Department’s Military Compensation Background Papers, that 1871 law provided the first retired pay adjustments based on new active duty pay rates.
Congress would suspend the practice, off and on, over the years. But recomputation was used consistently from 1922 through 1958 when lawmakers grew concerned about the cost. Five years later, the Uniformed Services Pay Act permanently replaced recomputation with retired pay adjustments to keep pace with inflation. It’s a safe bet that few current lawmakers have ever heard the term of recomputation and none has been heard calling for its return. – Tom Philpott |
|
|
|
Post by aztec70 on Feb 17, 2011 16:05:53 GMT -8
Thanks.
|
|
|
|
Post by aztecwin on Feb 17, 2011 18:21:36 GMT -8
Aztec70 to AztecWin: "You really don't seem to know how good you have it." No '70', he knows exactly how good he's got it. He just doesn't want anyone else to get the same thing.  I do know that as time goes by, that my purchasing power on my retirement goes down gradually because of how Congress inflates but does not allow COLAs to keep up. Not complaining mind you and I think we all know that each and every one of us could have done the same thing. |
|
|
|
Post by aztecwin on Feb 17, 2011 18:24:50 GMT -8
If you know the difference why do you think that your employer is funding your 401(k)? That is an EMPLOYEE funded pension plan. Tell me again how much out of your paycheck went to pay for your federal pensions? A little for your civil service pension. You can see your contribution on your 1099-R. I do agree that Federal pensions are not as generous as some local governments The City of San Diego pensions are an outrage. Don't get me started on the DROP Program and how they jack up their final pay year. I am not busting Bob's chops because he is not complaining about unfunded pensions. You are, Mr. Unfunded Pension Liability. Once again, I ask, how much has your Navy pension increased since you retired? I am not asking for a dollar amount, just a percentage. If you think that your pension is not keeping up with inflation, what about the guy that retired on a fixed pension? If you are that thick, I am wasting my time. I showed you how you can convert from one kind of plan to another, but you keep wanting to know something that is not germane. The value of your retirement is eroded through inflation by design. |
|
|
|
Post by aztec70 on Feb 17, 2011 18:45:24 GMT -8
If you know the difference why do you think that your employer is funding your 401(k)? That is an EMPLOYEE funded pension plan. Tell me again how much out of your paycheck went to pay for your federal pensions? A little for your civil service pension. You can see your contribution on your 1099-R. I do agree that Federal pensions are not as generous as some local governments The City of San Diego pensions are an outrage. Don't get me started on the DROP Program and how they jack up their final pay year. I am not busting Bob's chops because he is not complaining about unfunded pensions. You are, Mr. Unfunded Pension Liability. Once again, I ask, how much has your Navy pension increased since you retired? I am not asking for a dollar amount, just a percentage. If you think that your pension is not keeping up with inflation, what about the guy that retired on a fixed pension? If you are that thick, I am wasting my time. I showed you how you can convert from one kind of plan to another, but you keep wanting to know something that is not germane. The value of your retirement is eroded through inflation by design. LOL Afraid to tell us your pension has tripled in the last 40 some years? Come on, Unfunded Pension Liability, lay it on the line. No need to put it in dollars, just a percentage increase. You know the numbers. The point of fact is that no one starting at E-1 and going to W whatever in 22 years could have saved enough money to have funded a pension like you have. That is what a 401(k) is, a self funded pension. Quit bitching. |
|
|
|
Post by aztec70 on Feb 17, 2011 18:49:09 GMT -8
If you know the difference why do you think that your employer is funding your 401(k)? That is an EMPLOYEE funded pension plan. Tell me again how much out of your paycheck went to pay for your federal pensions? A little for your civil service pension. You can see your contribution on your 1099-R. I do agree that Federal pensions are not as generous as some local governments The City of San Diego pensions are an outrage. Don't get me started on the DROP Program and how they jack up their final pay year. I am not busting Bob's chops because he is not complaining about unfunded pensions. You are, Mr. Unfunded Pension Liability. Once again, I ask, how much has your Navy pension increased since you retired? I am not asking for a dollar amount, just a percentage. If you think that your pension is not keeping up with inflation, what about the guy that retired on a fixed pension? If you are that thick, I am wasting my time. I showed you how you can convert from one kind of plan to another, but you keep wanting to know something that is not germane. The value of your retirement is eroded through inflation by design. I can always when I have bested Mr. Unfunded Pension Liability, he says I am thick and he is wasting his time. ;D I will let you post and not respond so you can pretend to yourself that you have a point. |
|
|
|
Post by aztecwin on Feb 17, 2011 21:51:30 GMT -8
If you are that thick, I am wasting my time. I showed you how you can convert from one kind of plan to another, but you keep wanting to know something that is not germane. The value of your retirement is eroded through inflation by design. I can always when I have bested Mr. Unfunded Pension Liability, he says I am thick and he is wasting his time. ;D I will let you post and not respond so you can pretend to yourself that you have a point. When you ask repeated questions that have no relevence, I know you are in over your head. The idea of increasing numbers resulting in decreasing buying power by design escapes you so you declare some kind of victory. Where do you find people thicker than you are to do their taxes other than =Bob? |
|
