Originally Posted by
kme9418
I assure you that whatever you think is sacred can be taken away with the stroke of a pen. Now that only about 1% of the population actually serves in the military, you don't think someone isn't already doing the algebra to find out how much they really need that voting block vs. trading it for the loyalty of some other segment of society that carries more votes?
This.
I too think it'll be a bit before any changes. I also think anyone currently serving will be grandfathered in. And it will start small- higher tricare co-pays, lower COLA adjustments, etc. We've already seen the surveys about how younger generations would prefer a 401k type plan to the pension... where the majority of folks who serve but don't stay for an entire career will still get "something". Eventually it'll change so that you can retire after 20 years of service (or maybe less), but not collect until you're 60 or whatever. Match the guard/reserves. There's already a dwindling incentive to stay to 20 when you still have 20+ years of working age after your mil retirement to think about. Zero incentive to stay if you have to start a new career without the pension to provide health care and a mortgage payment backing you up.
Yes, it would fundamentally change retention across the military. I don't particularly think our "leaders" really give two $#!+s. And maybe that's a good thing- maybe we as a nation need to get away from the military as a career. But that's a different conversation.
To tie it back to the original poster... I'd take the retirement and run. Good luck.