Originally Posted by ziggy29
I don't think there's as much backlash on military pensions (or on cops and firefighters) as on other public paper-pushers which have private sector equivalents who don't get that deal. I don't see any real push to take away the pension eligibility for someone who put in their 20 in the military. Having said that, it seems rather odd to be eligible for a lifetime pension at age 38 (assuming no disability). I suppose as long as it's low enough that it is actuarially equivalent to a higher benefit at (say) 55-60 it isn't a big deal. It just seems odd that someone can "hire in" at 18, leave at 38, and most likely collect a pension for twice as long as they worked (assuming they live to age 78).
- One of the arguments for 20-year pensions for military, police, firefighters is that those jobs require more physical stamina than man other jobs and they don't really want people to stay around too long.
- In the Navy (and probably with the other services but I'm not sure) there is a thing called High Year Tenure (HYT). That sets certain mandatory retirement points depending on the rank you have attained. For example, if I recall correctly from 14 years ago, a Navy Chief Petty Officer (E-7) had to retire at 22 (or maybe it was 24) years if s/he hadn't been selected for Senior Chief (E-8). A Senior Chief had to retire at 26; a Master Chief (E-9) could stay for 30. There were similar gates on the officer side.
I was at a Navy event recently and met a retired Master Chief who had retired at 20 years. That he had made Master Chief early enough to serve the required 3 years in that grade and still be able to retire at 20 was remarkable! But I don't think "the system" really wants folks like him to bail as soon as they can.