European Stars and Stripes (Newspaper) - June 11, 1985, Darmstadt, Hesse                                Page 10 it kit the stars and stripes tuesday june 11, 1985 columns & comments James Kilpatrick military retirement system doing what it should what should by done about the High Cost of military retirement budget director David Stockman his called the present system a scandal and an out  a civilian expert John Bickerman has termed it a misguided extravagant scheme for enriching our retired military men and  half a dozen studies have called for Reform. Stockman is wrong and Bickerman is wrong but some of the several studies make sensible suggestions. At roughly $18 billion a year the Cost of military retirement plainly is High but when it is criticized As too High we have to ask compared to what a word of background the first general military retirement Law was enacted in 1861 in an Effort to Speed the resignations of aged Union generals who were doddering about on canes. It was not until after world War ii that Congress began to provide the basis for today s military retirement system. The object is to provide a Youthful combat Force led by senior noncom and highly motivated officers and this is the fact the system is working. It is doing exactly what it is sup posed to do. An understanding of the controversy requires that certain myths be disposed of. One is the myth that the system permits retirement after 20 years at half  not so. The system permits retirement at half of base pay which is a very different matter. Military pay consists of base pay special pay and allowances. In the Navy for example special pay is provided for Hazar William Buckley Dous duty hostile fire imminent danger foreign duty diving flight time and special proficiency. All these pays Are taxable income. Allowances for quarters subsistence and travel arc not taxable. In terms of base pay the typical Serviceman earns less than the typical civilian postal clerk and much less than the typical Urban police officer or fire fighter but when account is Given to the various allow ances and special pays the picture is not too bad. Yet retirement is calculated upon base pay Only. A chief Petty officer in the Navy at e-7 pay Grade could retire this year after 20 years of service at $9,312 a year. Thesis poverty level. But Bickerman says Many service retirees usually in their Early 40s, can take a Job in private Indus try work for As much As 25 years and receive a pension from that employment plus social  this is too glib. Some highly skilled technicians fall swiftly into civilian jobs but other men in their mid 408 discover that military skills Are not so easily transferred. Another myth is that virtually All members of the armed services hold on for 20 years and retire a Day later. Not so. Only 13 percent of officers and enlisted personnel serve Long enough to qualify for retirement benefits. If the present plan were in fact an extravagant scheme for enriching service personnel we would have 5 million or 10 million on the retirement Roll instead of 1.4 million. Properly seen retirement benefits Are deferred compensation for officers and enlisted personnel who have made a career in arms. There is no Way that such careers can be compared with the stable 40-hour work weeks of typical civilian families. Especially in the Navy but to a degree in other services also families must endure the hardships of prolonged separation. After 20 years of privation danger and sacrifice is a taxable retirement income of $9,312 a year too much compared to what in recent years Congress has nibbled at the edges of the military retirement system rounding Down years of service to a lower month and rounding Down retirement checks to a lower Dollar. Fifteen years hence retirement benefits for Post-1980 enlistees will be based upon an average of the three highest years of pay rather than upon final base pay. Several studies have proposed that the 20-year minimum period of service be raised for future enlistees to perhaps 25 years. Another idea is to provide Ever More attractive bonuses for the re enlist ment of key officers and noncom in order to hold them at the Peak of their skills. What is most irksome to service families is the statement that a Soldier Sailor airman or Marine has More generous retirement benefits than a civilian craftsman druggist to technician or sales manager. The Short and simple answer to that charge is my god i Hope  c Universal press despite weaknesses tax proposal merits support if it weren t that i am a permissive Type i would like to electrocute everyone who uses the word fair in connection with income tax policies. Why because you dimwit there is nothing fair about a policy that taxes a person at a higher rate because he chooses to drive his taxicab 60 hours a week instead of40 hours a week. It is really just that simple but of course Rcd Strimbu zionist ideology not Only taxes some americans at a rate 50 times higher than other americans it insists that such programs be hailed As fair. Even before or. Rea Gan made his speech some of the commentators were talking about How the very Rich stood to profit from the proposed tax Reform and the rest of the evening was devoted to vapid ties on whether this provision or that provision was fair which is defined As politically acceptable. If or. Reagan s proposals arc enacted americans who earn less than $10,000 will contribute a grand total of 0.3 percent of internal Revenue. Americans who earn $30,000 or less will contribute 14.9 percent of total internal Revenue. Round that figure off to 15 percent and engrave it in the memory the next time you hear it said that Reagan is the agent of the Rich. Americans who earn Between $30,000 and $200,000 will pick up about 70 percent of the taxes. And the big big earners Over $200,000 will pay 14.3 percent of the taxes. Now look at these figures in terms of numbers. Under the plan 34 million earners will contribute 0.3 percent of the taxes. The very Rich Over $100,000 number 740,000 people. So the or Are paying 47.6 limes As much As the poor under $10,000. But Given that there Are about 50 times As Many poor As there Are very Rich it comes Down per capita to paying about 2,000 times As much in taxes. Sec what i mean about the ethical Jumble or. Reagan s plan is Worth supporting if Only because a rates Are lowered never mind that individual returns May be higher after you run through lost deductions and b there Are fewer gradations three instead of 14. But it is a philosophical Paella you bite into it and Haven t any idea whether you be swallowed Rice lobster octopus Snail red Tomato or Cucumber. Corporations arc treated As Santa Claus who comes Down the Chimney bearing gifts. There Are three rates for businesses again that awful progressivity Why penalize a business for expanding. And Why does or. Reagan Tell us that under his system there will be the urge to do More and better when in fact by doing better one climbs into a higher bracket what he should have said was when you reach the highest bracket at $42,000 if you Are single then you Don t have to worry about an increased rate of Federal Taxa Tion. He might have said As for what you have to pay in property taxes to your own City or in City income taxes or in state income taxes Well you take that matter up with your local legislators it s pretty much All i can do to handle the matter of your Federal taxes. So business will be left writing forms deciding How much of that meal is deductible. None of it should be ten percent of dividends will be deductible. Why not 100 percent Oil companies will continue to deduct intangible costs of drilling. Why because we want to encourage the Oil companies. Well in t one Way to encourage the Oil companies not to tax them at All interest will not be deductible on Loans unless investment income plus $5,000 adds up to less than you Are paying in interest get it. It goes on and on. One third of americans who do not find it profitable to itemize their deductions will at least be spared the tedium of working out their forms. The internal Revenue service will simply Send them a Bill or a refund As appropriate. That much is Good. A lot is Good. One weeps Only Over the lost Opportunity to inject a Little philosophical coherence into the whole thing and this would have been valuable for or. Reagan to do even if it had been mangled by Congress. Such As no taxes under the poverty level on the contrary subsidies in some cases but we re talking about tax policy not welfare. No deductions except for the Cost of doing Busi Ness. No corporation tax. Twenty five percent top tax. But it is better than what we have now. C Universal press