firstwivesworld - Turn Over Your Money and M-16 - Comments

Ouch!!

Guest — Thu, 31 Jul 2008 19:04:15 -0400

I would never presume to know what it means to be a soldier. My father was a soldier. My brother is a soldier. My boyfriend is a soldier... Were I to marry my boyfriend, and I hope some day that Iwill, I would hope that we would be together forever, or that I would outlive him. But I would also hope that in the event we chose not to remain together, that he would want to help me see things through, raise his children, and recognize the sacrifices I made to support him to the extent that a civilian can. I think that (or I guess I hope that) a spouse in some significant way enables their military counterparts to serve their country knowing they have moral support; that their homes are being taken care of; that their children are being raised; and I think most significantly, that they are put first, above everything and everyone and loved very dearly. I guess you can't put a dollar figure on that... But the legal school of thought is that marriage is a team effort where all the earnings and compensation pooled together, belong to both of you... So... wow. I'm not really a bon bon eating, HSN watching kind of gal. I would never consider myself a leech... but I would expect some compensation for time "served" because I really do think that being a military spouse, if acting properly, is performing a full time job. My completely unsolicited $0.02. And hey, soldier, I completely appreciate you, much more than you know. Have a great day.

military pension

Guest — Sun, 30 Mar 2008 00:30:32 -0400

My mother spent 30 years in the military with my father as well as us. We moved around more years than I care to mention. My mother raised us practically on her own. Unfortunately so, she wound up dying before he did, never getting to utilize any pension what so ever as it went back to the military. None of his children got a dime even though we were in the military too!

Shut up and get back to watching tv...

Guest — Sat, 02 Feb 2008 00:51:39 -0500

I'll tell you what....you are precisely on the mark. Changing a shitty diaper and having to sit around on your fat ass all day and tune from Springer to Home Shopping Network is exactly like doing a road march or getting shot at or seeing a buddy die. Who the hell are we to mischaracterize or confuse the two. We should be punished for not saying something about your lazy asses not adapting like the service member does. When's the last time you stayed in the field for 45 days or deployed to a war zone for 12-15 months and LEFT THE COMFORT YOU BITCH ABOUT. Fuck you. The reason the soldier divorces is because he's supposed to come home to peace and gets a rash of shit about the hair clog in the drain or how he never pays attention anymore. You are just a fucking leech. Lazy and blaming. How about you pay the soldier for doing what he does and then having to look forward to a lifetime of shitty care at the VA and a wife who bitches all the time about how crowded the fucking commissary is. I bet you've been traumatized by all the fucking coffee and gummy bears you've had to stuff in your mullet because your old man wasn't there to pander to your fragile being. Get a life....

Say what?!?!

Guest — Wed, 03 Oct 2007 19:35:29 -0400

As an ex military spouse this has hit a nerve with me. For one thing, why is it now easier for military spouses to have a career and their own pension?

The average military family moves every 2 to 2 and 1/2 years. If you are the wife/husband of a military member it is impossible to build a career if you have to be uprooted that often from a job. Not unless you can find a company to work with who will transfer you every time your spouse has to PCS. Good luck with that!

We are in the middle of a war. Have been in the middle of some kind of conflict since the early 90s. Military personnel are away from home a hell of a lot more than they were when the bill was first passed. That means military spouses are left alone to raise children and take care of business on their own for long periods of time. That alone can make it hard to have a career of your own.

Being a military spouse is a job in and of itself. You are expected to belong to organizations that will help further your spouse's caree. You are expected to entertain and are constantly going to functions that are required. The difference between a military spouse and a civilian spouse is like night and day.

Why should a military spouse of 15 years only draw part of a pension that she/he also worked to build up?

The only thing that courts can order a military member to pay before they retire is alimony. Retirement pay comes from military finance and no one, not the member or an ex-spouse gets any of it until after retirement.

It isn't the courts that force military members to retire. It is the military. My ex was forced out. If the military hadn't forced him out he would have stayed in until they carried him out of his office toes first. You have to get rid of the old to make way for the new. It isn't the militaries job to hold onto personnel just because they want to stay in and keep their ex-spouse from drawing part of their retirement.

Survivor benefits is only $50,000. You start dividing that up among spouses the way some of these guys marry there won't be much to collect once he is gone.

The purpose of an ex-spouse getting survivor benefits is so that she/he can continue to draw retirement should the military member die. Whether or not a second or third spouse can draw part of the member's retirement has nothing to do with survivor benefits.

What is happening is that the second wife/husband gets pissed because the first wife or husband...the dumpees will get all the survivor benefits. What isn't mentioned is the fact that most ex military spouses are still raising children and the ones who will benefit most from that money would be the military member's children, not the ex-spouse.

Military personnel don't make a lot of money. The majority of them do jobs for the military that would pay quite a bit more in the civilian sector. These men and women aren't building HUGE military retirements. Even if they do 20 years there is no "windfall" to be had when the ex-spouse does start drawing military retirement.

I have a friend who was married to a military member for 18 years. A high ranking officer. She got 43% of his retirement. According the the formula that is used she got 43% of the retirement he earned during their marriage. She ended up getting $1,234.00 a month of his $3,800 a month retirement.

In my opinion $1,200 a month is not much return on 18 years of following a military member around so they can have a career. These guys can complain all they want. They have been trying for years to get the USFSPA abolished. It will never happen because those who make the laws know the truth behind military retirement and how little a military spouse does end up getting.

Turn Over Your Money and M-16

Rachel Small — Wed, 03 Oct 2007 13:30:00 -0400

A conflict between military personnel and their ex-spouses may be brewing over retirement payments. At the Pentagon's recent briefing on the Uniformed Services Former Spouse Protection Act (USFSPA), there was demand for reform.

USFSPA, enacted in 1982, allows state courts to divide military retirement as property in divorce settlements. For example, ex-spouses married for 20 years or more can be awarded up to 50% of the former spouses pension for life, or until they remarry. If there were child support or alimony court orders, the ex could enjoy as much as 65% of the military pension.

Congress intended to protect former spouses — chiefly women — from being "dumped." It was thought military wives could not easily establish careers and work on their own retirement, since they moved frequently due to thier husband's military career. Times have changed now, and military wives can work and earn pensions.

USFSPA gives state courts authority to distribute retirement pay, classified as both property and income. Spouses often end up with a substantial share of the ex's retirement. This is especially true in the case of short-term marriages.

Some of the proposed reforms include: