The Drawbacks of Canceling Military Retirement Reform Act of 1986
For military personnel who had served the United States with utmost dedication and service, it would be very difficult for them to recognize the issues that are more serious to the “national security” than how the men and women of the U.S. armed forces will benefit from military retirement.
In the U.S., military retirement plans are one of the best gratifications these people should have by the time they have reached their retirement age. Considering the services and dedication that the military personnel have offered, military retirement is the best reward to compensate their performances.
Today, under the Military Retirement Reform Act of 1986 (REDUX), military people are enjoying a 50% compensation based on their “basic salary” while they were still on service. This is after they have opted to retire upon accumulating 20 years of military service. This is applicable to any military personnel who have joined the service on or before July 31, 1986.
Consequently, based on REDUX rules, anyone who was able to join the military after July 31, 1986 is expected to receive 40% of his basic compensation upon completion of a 20-year service in the military.
However, with the perilous weaknesses of the government, the compensations that military retirement plans are expected to provide becomes a threat instead of a reward.
On its current state, the Federal government is presently considering the cancellation of REDUX. As a result, military retirement benefits will be fixed on a 50% compensation upon completion of 20-year service for all the personnel.
Sounds good? Think again.
While military retirement benefits may increase upon the cancellation of REDUX, many people still say that it is not advisable that the government should take drastic changes on important matters like the proposed REDUX cancellation.
Statistical reports show that abolishment of REDUX will charge the government a whopping $6 billion for the following 6 years and approximately $1.5 billion a year after that.
This may not sound like a disadvantage at all considering the fact that the military personnel are the ones who will benefit from such action.
However, what the opposition would like to say is that making significant changes in the military retirement plan is critical based on the following reasons:
1. Effect not clearly determined
The effects on maintenance of the military funds brought about by such major changes in the military retirement are hard to uncover in a snap. In fact, many people claim that the objectives of canceling REDUX were not even clearly put into details.
2. Changes like this are rare
Political and military analysts say that changes in the system like that of the military retirement plans are “politically” hard to establish. In essence, changes like the proposed REDUX cancellation are very uncommon.
For this reason, one can simply understand that people, especially those in the military, can still do away with what they have now. That means they can still survive for years without having to change the military retirement plans.
All of these things are boiled down to the fact that in a matter of serious change in an ongoing political system like the military retirement, important considerations must be made and taken into account before even thinking of drafting the proposal.
All sides of the coin must be well considered, both pensively and on purpose. Changes to be made in military retirement should not be dealt with as of the moment but more on the long-term effect.
The complexity of choices and issues concerning military retirement should not propose a threat on the personal growth of every individual who have served in the military.
Keep in mind that retirement is something that every worker should enjoy after his or her retirement age. The war is over. Why prolong the agony of the military people?