|
Post by redleg on Apr 1, 2015 8:11:38 GMT -5
What you claim is that those that serve the country instead of themselves are not to have the same retirement that you have. Those of us that served spent the time that you used to build your career making sure that you had a life to use to build that career. I made less than $1000 a month for the first 6 or 7 years I was in the Army. On top of that, I moved every 2-3 years. Hard to put back a retirement on that sort of schedule. So, since the Revolution, Congress has used the national defense clause to allow a pension. I don't have a pension. I cashed it my voluntary contributions years ago and invested them; the company kept it's contributions. What I have is a 401(k), endowed almost entirely by my pre-tax dollars. That and savings are my retirement. Which, if you read back through the thread, is exactly what I said you should have. But you, like the other entitled classes, want more. And you also get Social Security. Plus you get tax breaks. More power to you for collecting all that. Just don't pretend you're not entitled, is all. That's the point. I'm 'entitled' because of the work I did to earn it, from the contract both I and the governemnt signed. It was a contractual obligation, not a handout. And your "voluntary contributions" were allowed because there were people standing to protect your investments, and you. That meant that we didn't climb the corporate ladder, or start our own business, we had other priorities. And yes, i get SS, which cuts my pension by the amount of SS. You get it as well. That's not an "entitlement" because it's something we all are forced to pay into.
|
|