Lack of matching funds for the military

[James]

There are no matching funds for military members. I say again, no matching funds for military members. I don't understand why the military doesn't march on Washington to get this fixed. I have already received a response from my representative Bob Goodlatte in which he doesn't address the problem, but just passes the blame. I don't see how this can be viewed as anything other than discrimination against military members. So once I have an opportunity to find the time from fighting this war, he is going to receive a very spirited letter from me.


Why do we accept this injustice? Other thoughts please.

[shiftomnimega]

I've had a discussion regarding this with a few of the more experienced soldiers in our platoon. None of us can think of a good reason for the military TSP contributions not being matched.

I intend to write my local representative and a senator (Senator Warner defense comittee chairman) about this issue.

[TSP@ti2de]

*yoda voice*

Deploy you must, for within you will master the tax-free growth opportunities.

---------

All comedy aside, I think no matching sucks.

Give it a couple of years, after everyone is 'maxed out' on hi-tempo days, we should see the incentives start to rollin.

[pyriel]

I can understand everyone's concern about the military not matching TSP. And it socks(misspelled intentionally). However, you need to look at the whole scenario here and why our civilian counterparts are matching some of the employers contribution and why the military doesn't. Our military has the best retirement plan there is. There is no other entity out there that can match it. Giving us the TSP is an incing on the cake.

Now, the reason why civilian employer or government techs are getting matching contribution is because their retirement benefits have been reduced drastically. This is why there was a switch from CSRS to FERS. With the civilian employer, they found out that it is cheaper to match people's contribution than to provide them the Defined Benefit plans (DB). They instead have switched to Defined Contribution plan (DC). With DC they let their employee worry about their retirement plan. I am not sure if you've read that GM, Ford, and other major airlines were hurting. It was all over the news a couple of weeks ago. Itis because their retirees were under the DB plan. Well they found out that decades after their employees retired, they are still foring hundred of millions of dollars to the retirees. Thus, lowering down their profit to this day. Please read more about the difference between the DB and DC plan. Once you've read the history of how these two came about, you will all understand why the military does not offer matching contribution.

In fact, I challenge anyone here to find me a major corporation that still offers a DB plan. I can't think of anyone now. They've all switched to DC plan long time ago.Just do the numbers and put them in excel. Paying a percentage now, usually about 5-10% matching is alot better than paying a retiree for 30-40 years of their remaining life. This is why they are more than willing to pay those matching contribution... Just my .02.

P



PS... Oh by the way, not all employees in the DC plan contributes to the plan so the employers gets away of putting any money into their retirement. FERS employees gets a platry 1% for those who decides not to contribute to their TSP.

[retiredcg]

Be careful on where you place the "blame" for the injustice of the military not providing TSP matching contributions. All Service Secretaries have the ability to provide matching funds. That was written into the law. It's rather obvious to discern why they don't, as pyriel mentioned. Due to the current status of the retirement programs the military offers, it would cost the Services a fortune to offer the additional funding.

I do foresee, however, in the near future, an alternative. I could see themilitary offering a choice to the new people when they enter service. You could either have the current 50% at 20 (75% max at 30 yrs) plan, or,matching TSP contributions.After retiring with nearly 27yrs, if I had to do it all over again and had a choice, I'd take the TSP in a flash! The size of the retirement fund with that much time in, assuming "average" earnings, is substantial... not to mention the ability to control allocation of my contributions. IMHO.

[James]

pyriel wrote:
Our military has the best retirement plan there is. There is no other entity out there that can match it. Giving us the TSP is an incing on the cake.



Pyriel,

The military retirement plan is only the best their is if you do 20 years on active duty. If I decide to pursue other dreams and become an educator then I get absolutely nothing from that retirement plan.

I don't have hard facts to support this but I assume that most military members do not stay in for 20 years. It wouldn't be possible for even a majority of people in the military to stay for 20 years as advancement and retention opportunities are dependant upon how many people get out and retire.

I have not yet solved the great mystery that is reserve retirement.

[James]

retiredcg wrote:
Be careful on where you place the "blame" for the injustice of the military not providing TSP matching contributions. All Service Secretaries have the ability to provide matching funds. That was written into the law. It's rather obvious to discern why they don't, as pyriel mentioned. Due to the current status of the retirement programs the military offers, it would cost the Services a fortune to offer the additional funding.


Sir,

Just because it is the cheaper alternative doesn't mean that it is the right thing to do. I am fortunate that because of my status I was allowed to live off base and collect BAH that allowed me to buy a house. I have had NCOs who because of silly rules had to live in a small room with 3 people. He was mature enough to live on his own and if the 3 of those NCOs were allowed to live off base they would be able to buy 1 and a half of my houses with the money they would receive with BAH so they are forced to miss out on that investment opportunity and further their financial futuredue to not much more justificsation thanit is cheaper for the government. I don't view myself as a better person than they are and they should have the same rights.

[shiftomnimega]

Those are very good points. Gotta admit, didn't even think of that; however, I think I would still prefer them to match the TSP though.

Although the military retirement plan is pretty easy to understand (stay in for 20 and you get x percent of your base pay) I don't know if many service members really see that as an attainable goal.I keep jumping on and off the idea of retirement with the reserves.

At least with TSP, I know that those funds are mine when I do decide to retire from everything. And if the government matches it, then even better.With the military's standard retirement if you make it to 18 years, too bad, if you make it to 19 and some change, too bad (unless you can get some waiverto allow you to retire early).

I do like what was suggested by the cg about giving troops an option of how they want to initiate their retirement plan. They should probably also receive a mandatory class on the different types of plans and how they work or heck, just a general finance classwould do.

[retiredcg]

shiftomnimega wrote:
With the military's standard retirement if you make it to 18 years, too bad, if you make it to 19 and some change, too bad (unless you can get some waiverto allow you to retire early).

I do like what was suggested by the cg about giving troops an option of how they want to initiate their retirement plan. They should probably also receive a mandatory class on the different types of plans and how they work or heck, just a general finance classwould do.

From time to time, as the Services "purge" some of the "old-timers", they offer incentives for personnel to accept "early" retirements, say, at 15 years. I have seen offerings of 20-30,000 to take the money, early retirement and run. In the long run (assuming the retiree lives long enough), it doesn't make sense, unless the individual has solid plans for another career or life function. The monies "lost" by taking the early retirement can be substantial. The longer you live, the more Uncle has to shell out. (Me - I'm planning to live to 125 y.o. so I canmake Uncle pay, and pay, and pay!) Sometimes, the sight of all that money (which is fully taxable) can slant a person's perspective.

I also happen to teach our "young" folks (active, reserve and civilian) some about their financial life's foundations as a (volunteer) Command Financial Specialist. I love talking about various topics ranging from identity theft to credit cards and investments, but one of my favorite topics is the TSP. What a fabulous plan. I, for one, would wholeheartedly support alternatives to the current retirement system by getting matching funds like I currently do as Civil Service. But even without it; it still is a great system. And remember, that active duty as well as reserves on active duty are able to contribute up to 100 percent of their special and bonus pays, on top of the current 10 percent of their base. For some folks, that can be a substantial amount.

One other thing I recently found out about was the Retirement Savings Contributions Credit that the IRS has given out for the last couple years (and will continue through the next taxable year). That tax credit can be as high as $1000 or $2000 depending on how you file and your income. This works with the TSP. And as a tax credit, that is so much more valuable than a tax deduction.:^
For more info:http://www.irs.gov/newsroom/article/0,,id=107686,00.html

[macdtrader]

Shiftomnimega, you made an excellent point. Aclose relative of minewho is an active duty Staff Sargeant received a Retirement Savings Contributions Crediton IRS Form 1040 of $.50 for each $1.00he contributed to the TSP in 2004.

[TSP@ti2de]

Active duty gets a great deal for putting in 20, but being in the National Guard, I have to wait until I am 60 to see anything. I have just over 18 in, and could retire at 37, but that's 23 years of waiting. Deploying helps bump everything up, to include TSP. 10% of an active duty check is much more than 10% of a weekend drill check.

Just my .02

[Soldat]

I am only E-3 with 2 years in. I have been putting the max in TSP for 11 months and have come up with $5300 so far. If the govt matched that it would be all gravY!

[mlk_man]

An E-3 putting over $400 a month into their TSP? Things have changed since I was an E-3. That is more than my hole pay for the monthback in the 80's.:shock:

[James]

With the bonuses and incentives for being deployed in a combat zone, it is easy for an E-3 to put $400/month into the TSP. Even as an O-2 with a 10% limit I couldn't put $400/month in the TSP if I wasn't deployed. But next year with no limit on the percentage of base pay, I'll be able to go over $400/month easily.

[mlk_man]

Since you don't get any matching funds I think I would put all that money into an IRA instead. More options.........................like energy! :^

[Soldat]

Well, 10% base pay ~$155
flight pay =$150

when deployed,
hardship and hazardous duty = $275

so when Im deployed ~$580/month
when Im not, only $300

mustered $300 profit while working up to 5grand

[ou81200]

Soldat---

First off, let me commend you in your decision to invest in your future. I'm assuming that you are young with you being an E-3. I can remember when I was an E-3 stationed at Ft. Campbell Ky. It seems a long time ago. I only wished that I was investing in a retirement back then.

There are alot more investment strategies now than there was back then. The key thing is that your investing. Whether your in TSP or a 401k to me at this point does'nt matter. If you opt to eventually leave the military, you can allways transfer your TSP money into a 401k plan. Or you may enter non-military goverment service and keep TSP.

[James]

It seems that the Senate is on my side.
Excerpts from an articlein Stars and Stripes:

The Battle Over Benefits
Stars and Stripes | By Leo Shane III | December 12, 2005
WASHINGTON -Arguments over torture regulations and an Iraq (http://www.military.com/Iraq) exit date have stalled the Defense Authorization Bill in Congress for months, but the bill also contains dozens of military benefit issues that must be settled before the final draft can be passed.

The $441 billion-plus bill outlining fiscal 2006 military spending has language reauthorizing a host of bonuses, pay increases and specialty pay adds and dozens of other items likely to have an impact on troops’ paychecks. Congress already has approved a 3.1 percent pay raise for military personnel in January, but the fate of other benefits is still up in the air.

Negotiators will scramble this week to finalize a compromise bill before the end of the year. Leaders from both chambers have said they expect a vote by the end of the week, when Congress’ Christmas break is set to begin.

Here’s a look at some of the issues under consideration.

Savings incentives



Now: Servicemembers can put aside a portion of their paychecks through the Thrift Savings Plan, but receive no government match for their contributions.

House proposal: No change in the Thrift Savings Plan.

Senate proposal: Create a pilot program to provide a savings match for troops who put aside money in the TSP, up to 5 percent of their paychecks.

[steelshark]

Congress has authorized the service secratarys to allow matching.

However, no secratary (SECNAV, SECARMY, SECAF) has instituted this for any department. It really is a shame. There are too many active duty folks that don't even know the law is passed, and their own secrataries are holding up matching.

[James]

Congress has authorized the service secratarys to allow matching.

However, no secratary (SECNAV, SECARMY, SECAF) has instituted this for any department. It really is a shame. There are too many active duty folks that don't even know the law is passed, and their own secrataries are holding up matching.

It's a bit more complicated than that.

The Secretaries of the military departments will be able to name the career fields that will receive matching funds. Members in those critical fields must agree to remain in that specialty for at least six years. If they do, the government will match their contributions up to 5% of basic pay. In other words, if you put in 5%, the government will put in another 5% -- for a total of 10% of basic pay throughout the commitment period.

No one in the military has ever received matching funds to their uniformed TSP account.

[Griffin]

Here's a link to calculate a reserve retirement. The key is points - you get 1 point for every day on active duty plus approximately 78 points a year for non-deployed years. You can use this as a ball park to compare this to an active duty retirement. A 20 year letter is still required in the reserve. The reserve components are not subject to the move up or move out issues that the active duty is, so it is possible to walk with 30 years or more if you want. Reserve retirements don't pay until age 60 though (all though there is a large political campaign to push this down to 55 - which would go a long way towards reducing the attrition rate).

https://www.hrc.army.mil/site/reserve/soldierservices/retirement/retirementcalc.asp

I'll take the opportunity to make a plug to all you active duty debating about leaving the military for good. Do yourself a favor and calculate a reserve retirement. 1 year active duty = 365 points....it may change your mind. I expect my reserve pension to about equal my full time FERS pension.

Also, 1 weekend = 4 days pay, (it's my mad money and it keeps me sane).

Oh, by the way, If you had any doubts, we need you.

[James]

Here's a link to calculate a reserve retirement.

The selectable birthyear stops at 1973 and has no years more recent.

[Greg]

In Effort to Recruit, Military to Begin Offering Matching Contributions to TSP Participants

By Stephen Barr
Wednesday, January 11, 2006; B02

Three years ago, Congress opened the Thrift Savings Plan, the 401(k)-type retirement program for civil service and postal employees, to the military.

Military participation in the TSP has grown slowly but steadily since. As of October, more than 480,000 active-duty and military reserve personnel were investing a portion of their pay, including some types of bonuses, in the TSP.

But military personnel, unlike many of their civil service colleagues, have not received matching contributions from their employer, the Defense Department, limiting the benefits of their before-tax savings and tax-deferred earnings on contributions.

Although the original rules permitted matching contributions for military personnel holding critical skills, the Pentagon has generally viewed bonuses as more popular among the troops as a recruitment and retention incentive, according to congressional aides.

Congress, in an effort to provide more flexibility in this area, recently gave a green light to the military services to use matching contributions as a perk that can be offered first-time recruits who agree to serve longer than two years.

Congress also directed the Army to set up a pilot program to study whether TSP matching contributions give a boost to recruiting efforts. The pilot program also will try to steer soldiers, during their initial enlistment, toward "habits of financial responsibility," according to the fiscal 2006 defense bill that authorized the pilot.

The department will report back to the House and Senate Armed Services committees in February 2007 and provide data on the number of participants in the pilot program and the level of contributions they made.

The report will include the views of officers, senior enlisted personnel and field recruiters on whether matching contributions enhanced recruiting, according to the legislation.

A recent survey of government workers, conducted by the Office of Personnel Management, showed that the TSP is one of the most popular benefits provided through federal employment.

In the armed forces, the Navy has the highest participation rate, with nearly 44 percent of active-duty personnel enrolled, according to the October snapshot. In another sign of the military's interest in the TSP, officials noted last year that there are more members of the uniformed services participating in the TSP than employees covered by the old Civil Service Retirement System.

TSP participants covered by the retirement system do not receive matching contributions from their agencies, in part because they receive a more generous pension than federal workers and retirees covered by the Federal Employees Retirement System.

Civil service employees hired after 1983 are covered by FERS and, according to a recent OPM report, will rely on the TSP for a significant, and perhaps the largest, portion of their retirement benefits.

More than 1.5 million FERS-covered employees receive matching contributions from their agencies. For the FERS participants, agencies match the first 5 percent of pay that employees contribute each pay period. The match is dollar for dollar for the first 3 percent of pay and 50 cents on the dollar for the next 2 percent of pay.

© 2006 The Washington Post Company

[ChuckBecker]

I was active duty USN 1971-77. Got out, walked away, no reserve, no nothing and went civil service mariner. I'm on the "old" plan, CSRS. We don't get matching funds either.

The logic is simple. Have your cake or eat it, but not both. I have a defined benefit plan, just like military. So I don't get matching funds. Newer civil service employees get FERS, a hybrid defined benefit/contribution system. They get 1% per year of service (vs my 2% and military 2.5%), but they get matching funds. And they don't get a 20 year retirement, minimum age for them is something like 55yrs 8mos. And goes up the younger they are, so a teenager starting civil service under FERS today is going to have to work 'till he/she is like 68 years old.

Hummm, Hummmm, have your cake ... or eat it.

[James]

Those service members who don't stay in for 20 years (most don't) get no cake to begin with. They don't even get a cookie.