PFRS 20-And-Out on Docket

The New Jersey Senate Committee on State Government, Wagering, Tourism & Historic Preservation is meeting at this hour and one of the bills they are likely to recommend for passage is S1017.

STATEMENT

This bill provides an additional category of service retirement for a member of the Police and Firemen’s Retirement System (PFRS). Under the bill, a member of the PFRS who is enrolled before or after the effective date of this bill may retire after the effective date, regardless of age, upon attaining 20 or more years of service credit and receive a retirement allowance equal to 50 percentof the member’s final compensation. Under current law, a member must be 55 years of age or older to retire on a service retirement allowance of 50 percent of final compensation upon attaining 20 years or more of service credit. In addition, a 1999 law permitted members, who were already enrolled in PFRS at that time, to retire at any age with 50 percent of final compensation upon attaining 20 or more years of service credit. This bill extends the annual retirement benefit of 50 percent of final compensation after 20 or more years of service to all PFRS members regardless of enrollment date and regardless of age at retirement.

Obviously some PFRS members hired after the 1999 law was passed noticed that they were being denied the 20-and-out retirement that their earlier-hired brethren availed themselves of.

However the problem costs have been calculated assuming the later retirement for those hired after January 17, 2000. Since I could not find any cost estimate I did one.

From the PFRS handbook:

Participant Data:

  • Date of Birth: 2/1/1975
  • Date of Hire: 2/1/2000
  • Final Salary: $100,000

Current Earliest Retirement: 2/1/2025 at age 50

Proposed Earliest Retirement: 2/1/2020 at age 45

Using the AMT20 Mortality Table with 7.5% interest the value of the benefit accrued assuming termination of employment as of 2/1/2020 would come to:

  • Current: $430,537 = 12.36184 x $100,000 x .5 / 1.075^5
  • Proposed: $639,025 = 12.7805 x $100,000 x .5

That is a 48% increase which has not been costed for and does not include the additional OPEB cost for lifetime health benefits for 5 years pre-Medicare.

 

S1017 Provides retirement allowance after 20 years of service regardless of age for members of PFRS.
State Government, Wagering, Tourism & Historic Preservation

 

Identical Bill Number: A2562
Last Session Bill Number: S4297   A6024 Gopal, Vin   as Primary Sponsor
Lagana, Joseph A.   as Primary Sponsor


1/30/2020 Introduced in the Senate, Referred to Senate State Government, Wagering, Tourism & Historic Preservation Committee

Introduced – – 3 pages PDF Format    HTML Format

37 responses to this post.

  1. Posted by E on March 5, 2020 at 2:11 pm

    To be fair, when the bill was first passed in 1999 it never made any mention of current members only. That was something Christie decided and was part of the pension “reform” fiasco (IMO) of 2011. I would wager that less than 5% overall members elect this 20 and out provision. Probably about 2%. It is not very popular. Real life and bills etc preclude one from taking it. I am against the 20 and out myself. I don’t think it is worth the political capital expended.
    However, many tier 3 officers really want this. With many no longer getting retiree health care at all, being limited to 2% raises in perpetuity, and going from 50% to 65% for another 10 years of service with the SS cap being used to cap their pensions, this provides an avenue to pursue other options after 20 years.
    Many now see this as a viable choice if in fact the opportunity arises to begin a second career. They can start preparing for that after only 12-15 years on the job and begin their exit strategy.
    Personally, I would’ve MUCH rather seen the incentive to stay longer by offering tier 3 officer the 70% again at 35 years on instead of 30 like it is for me. This would keep some officers around a little longer. And make the retirement age to 55 or 57 and reintroduce a cola for those who complete 30 years of service to encourage officers to stay longer. Begin the cola at 5 years after retirement.
    TL can spout her ideas. So can I.

    Reply

  2. Posted by E on March 5, 2020 at 2:51 pm

    I believe the date from the old law as determined by Christie and his minions was anyone hired prior to 1/8/2000. Or close to it.
    Btw, anyone see his sorry fat ass on Super Tuesday next to Rahm Emmanuel? Sleepy Joe anyone? We hold these truths to be self evident….you know how it goes. Lol.

    Reply

  3. Posted by E on March 5, 2020 at 2:56 pm

    Also to be fair, I know no one that gets health benefits after retiring at 20 years. I believe 25 is the minimum for those who still have that benefit. 20 and out specifically precludes post retirement health benefits.
    I would like to see exactly what % of officers actually take the 20 and out. It is certainly not popular. I guess those who really can’t handle it anymore or have other plans, but I really don’t see it as a viable alternative to the benefit of just staying 5 more years for a tier 1 officer.

    Reply

  4. Posted by A on March 5, 2020 at 4:25 pm

    Military

    The 1948 Hook Commission stated this purpose well [5, p. 40]:

    “a sound retirement system is essential to solving the superannuation problem. The services must be kept young, vigorous, and efficient: a sound retirement plan with a proper compulsory retirement age will permit youth and brains to rise to the top in time to be effective…. Other concepts of retirement for those taking up the profession of arms are also important and have been taken into consideration but the Commission does not consider them to be controlling.”

    That was then (1948). This is now.The percentage of personnel who actually see combat conditions is much lower, and more mechanized, and most military never even leave the Continental United States, making “young, vigorous, and efficient” less vital.

    I imagine young and vigorous would apply more to police than to the military, because most patrolmen never promote to management or desk jobs. Keeping the street cops young and vigorous doesn’t mean keeping 65 year old men from chasing and arresting young thugs, it means fewer 45 year old officers doing that. Early retirement, even at 50 or 55, keeps the average age of the force lower. It is expensive. Is it worth it?

    Early retirement is so common, I am surprised there are few, if any, longitudinal or cross-sectional studies looking at cost/benefit.

    Reply

    • Posted by E on March 5, 2020 at 5:47 pm

      She knows that. Nobody wants 63 year old man tackling some street thug. Lol

      Reply

      • Posted by PS Drone on March 5, 2020 at 8:58 pm

        Who says they have to be tackling street thugs? After they get taken off the line (out of harms way) make them 911 operators, admins, evidence keepers, paper shufflers. But keep them working until age 66. Starting to collect at age 55 (now to be at age 50?! WTF) is one of the two reasons the collective pension funds are so broke. Move payment commencement to age 66 and half the problem is solved. Reduce the max pension to $60K and voila, problem totally solved.

        Reply

      • Posted by A on March 5, 2020 at 10:38 pm

        That is why cross-sectional and longitudinal studies are done. How many paper shufflers do you need?
        You may not believe this, but the military, and police departments large or small spend a lot of time and money devising organizational charts to decide how many and what type of personnel they require and can afford. (Many paper shufflers and others are actually volunteers, as well as community service and cadets volunteering to get experience for a future career.) And the needs do change over time.

        Otherwise, you end up with idiot sidewalk superintendents sending out flagmen where uniformed officers are needed for traffic monitoring at workzones.

        Early retirement in the military is specifically for the benefit of the military, not the soldier. Same principle for police and fire. And yes, it is expensive. And yes, also, there is always room for improvement, reasonably studied and implemented. Not with a hatchet.

        Reply

        • Posted by E on March 5, 2020 at 10:53 pm

          Well said!! We have interns at our dept all the time. Filing papers, ride alongs etc. We don’t really need an evidence keeper, out detective handles that. The stuff is kept in a locked room.
          We get dispatched out of another centrally located dispatch center. Those folks make under $20 an hour.
          Better to just have the cops work until 55 or 57. I’m not a fan of the 45 year old retiree either. (Although there are very few of them around). I think it is to early. I also think disability pensions are abused. Both in public and private employment. Pension or not.
          This is not unique to NJ. Every state In our great country offers early retirement and pensions to the police and fire.

          Reply

        • Posted by Tough Love on March 5, 2020 at 11:54 pm

          The MOST frequently use item by Police on a workzone gig (at $110-$125/hr)…is their cellphone. Flagmen is all that is needed in 95+% of the cases.

          Reply

        • Posted by A on March 6, 2020 at 12:06 am

          Case in point.

          Self proclaimed expert.

          You know not of what you speak.

          Reply

          • Posted by E on March 6, 2020 at 7:00 am

            You’re too nice. When it comes to police work she is downright ignorant.
            TL , call pseg, tell them you don’t want to see police cars and officers at their worksites. They request this. I am more than happy to oblige them. 😉😉
            I wonder if you feel the same about fatso when he would upgrade his own fat ass to the most expensive suites when on the taxpayer dime when he was the US attorney. The one who never really tried a case but gave us the impression he was anti corruption. A legacy he continued at MetLife Stadium.
            Those pseg employees love having safe work zones. So much so that they insist on it in their collective bargaining agreements.

          • Posted by Tough Love on March 6, 2020 at 7:36 am

            El gaupo,

            Bullshit.

            YOU sit behind a single Utility truck digging a small hole, often on a side street with VERY few cars passing by ………. and get $110/hr to do so. VERY clearly unnecessary. Done ONLY because there is a SUCKER, ion this case the Utility Ratepayers who can be forced to pay.
            ——————————————————-
            I see County Road crews doing far bigger repairs on a COUNTY Roads with far MORE traffic, but there is NEVER a Police car in sight (but sometimes one of the county Road crew waiving a flag).

            Why no Police Officer? Because there is no one (Taxpayers or Ratepayers) who can be “suckered” to pay that crazy rate. The County isn’t that stupid and won’t pay that crazy rate to the Local Police.
            ——————————————————–

            Quoting …………..

            “Those pseg employees love having safe work zones. So much so that they insist on it in their collective bargaining agreements.”

            IF Police (instead of a low-paid Flagman) are deemed unnecessary at such worksites the State Board that regulates Utility Rates should bar the Utilities from including such costs as a company expense in determining rates. If they want to UNNECESSARY waste money, their SHAREHOLDERS should pick up the cost via lower profits, NOT the Ratepayers.

  5. Posted by Tough Love on March 5, 2020 at 8:01 pm

    WOW………… The GREEDY aren’t satisfied …… they’re hungry and want MORE, 100% from NJ’s Taxpayers.

    What we need is a comparison of the pension/retiree-healthcare VALUE of this package if granted when the Officer hired at age 21 who electing this (retiring at 41) ….. to the value accrued pension/healthcare of a comparably Paid Private Sector worker hired at 21 and leaving at 41.

    Without doubt the Office’s package has a VALUE 10 to 20 times more.

    Why do we continue to elect legislators who treat us (NJ’s Taxpayers) like such garbage.

    Reply

    • Posted by PS Drone on March 5, 2020 at 9:01 pm

      You should check how much $ these two sponsoring ass clowns received from the LEO/FF. This is a typical NJ answer to insolvent pension funds; increase benefits.

      Reply

      • Posted by E on March 5, 2020 at 10:57 pm

        Lol. You two are the only ass 🤡s on here.
        TL, you usually portray these tier 3 officers with no longevity, medical after retirement and capped pensions as victims of the older generations greed. Lol. Now they are the greedy ones?
        As I said, I would of rather NOT seen this bill pass. Then again, I have many benefits that these guys will not. So, can’t begrudge them this. You’re tune would change if your kid was on the job. Lol. Then you’d be all for pension increases, etc.

        Reply

        • Posted by Tough Love on March 5, 2020 at 11:56 pm

          RETROACTIVELY GRANTED (100% to be paid for by the Taxpayers) …………… give me a break.

          Reply

          • Posted by E on March 6, 2020 at 7:06 am

            Huh? If you read the original 1999 bill, it NEVER says anything about covering only current officers in the system as of that date. It wasn’t u til fatso changed it by having his asshole bought and paid for judges rule that he could change it. Stick to whatever it is you do….as I said, your tune would change if your son or daughter joined the force. Or would you be grinning ear to ear as your moocher kid got his benifits cut?? Would they still fall under the epitome of greed statement? What would you think if they joined the force, or became teachers??
            You are a jealous fool who is not nearly as smart as she thinks she is.

          • Posted by Tough Love on March 6, 2020 at 7:41 am

            Quoting ……………

            “Or would you be grinning ear to ear as your moocher kid got his benifits cut?? ”

            Oh, do you mean like what is ROUTINELY done it the Private Sector.

            Public Sector jobs should get no greater protections from change (ESPECIALLY for FUTURE Service) than the protections granted Private Sector workers.

            You’re NOT “special” and deserving of a better deal ….. on the Taxpayers’ Dime !

            It’s WAY past time to put an end to this MOOCHING.

          • Posted by E on March 6, 2020 at 10:46 am

            So just to be clear…..you would tell your son that he is “not special” and a moocher and advocate just as hard for changes to be made to his detriment….I just want to confirm this.

          • Posted by Tough Love on March 6, 2020 at 10:59 am

            I can’t imagine any one of my youngsters EVER wanting to work in the Public Sector.

          • Posted by E on March 6, 2020 at 5:02 pm

            Mine either. But boy did it sure let me provide a pretty decent standard of living for my family. But you really didn’t answer the question…if your youngsters did in fact want to be a police officer, teacher or other public job would you in fact, advocate against them?? I don’t think you would.

          • Posted by Tough Love on March 6, 2020 at 7:20 pm

            Quoting …………..

            “But boy did it sure let me provide a pretty decent standard of living for my family.”

            Sure did, 50+% excessive and unjustifiable.

            ————

            Quoting ……………

            ” But you really didn’t answer the question…if your youngsters did in fact want to be a police officer, teacher or other public job would you in fact, advocate against them?? :”

            Would never happen (them becoming PSWs), hence nothing to contemplate.

          • Posted by E on March 6, 2020 at 8:48 pm

            Of course not…with them seeing how much hate and jealousy you have for them. lol. Pitiful stupid woman.

          • Posted by E on March 6, 2020 at 8:56 pm

            Damn glad I got every penny I do. Nothing, and I mean NOTHING in this entire world is more important to me than my children.
            In that same line of thinking, despite you saying “I wouldn’t need to contemplate it”, I won’t press you further for an answer on whether you would still advocate against your own kids. I know by you dodging the question, despite a need to turn even that into a dig against me,🙄 that indeed as a good mother (no reason to think you aren’t) there is no WAY on earth that you would advocate for benefit cuts for your own kids. Therefore, instead of constantly attacking me for in my twenties, taking a job protecting the likes of your ass, and wanting nothing but the best opportunities for my kids, maybe a little less viciousness from your end would go a long way towards more constructive dialogue instead of the pissing match we do now that changing and will change nothing.

          • Posted by Tough Love on March 6, 2020 at 10:00 pm

            El gaupo,

            Who knows, maybe this “pissing match” will catch the ears of those able and willing to address the taxpayer-traitors in Office, and the Moochers who have benefited by supporting those traitors.

          • Posted by E on March 7, 2020 at 9:37 am

            Not likely. Even the ones on here just scroll on past our nonsense. Let’s be honest TL. No one is that interested in what either one of us has to say. It’s all been said a thousand times. By us. This is more of just a place to vent for you and me. We’ve chased away many on here. Both of us should really cut back on the posts.

          • Posted by A on March 7, 2020 at 1:58 pm

            “Who knows, maybe this “pissing match” will catch the ears of those able and willing to address the taxpayer-traitors in Office, and the Moochers who have benefited by supporting those traitors.”

            Hey! We agree again.

            Always optimistic that occasionally a reader will look at all the rhetoric and wonder what’s really going on, then research actual studies, data, and empirical evidence. That’s what happened to me about six years ago.

            No, all public employees are not “overpaid”.
            No, on average, public employees do not retire “ten to fifteen years earlier” than private employees. (Not even police.)
            No, public employee unions are not a cancer upon society.
            (Here’s a gimme, if you absolutely loathe public sector unions and/or employees…

            https://californiapolicycenter.org/public-sector-unions-the-other-deep-state/

            (Note to self… again: When searching for articles by Ed Ring, use “Edward”, especially if you are in a public area.)

            Yes, we have met the enemy, and he is us.

          • Posted by Tough Love on March 7, 2020 at 7:32 pm

            Quoting Stephen Douglas ………….

            “No, on average, public employees do not retire “ten to fifteen years earlier” than private employees. (Not even police.)”

            Could have fooled me (and everyone else !)….

            When I looked at EVERY (non-disability) retirement in ca lender year 2017 for the Bergen County NJ Police force, the AVERAGE age at retirement was just about 50 years old.

            BOY are Taxpayer financially ripped off by this outrage.

          • Posted by Tough Love on March 7, 2020 at 9:07 pm

            AND …… with an average pensions a wee bit over $100,000.

          • Posted by A on March 7, 2020 at 10:53 pm

            Even ten years is a stretch. Fifteen is just bulls hit.

            Gallup polls appear to agree with Federal Reserve Survey of Household Economics and Decisionmaking (SHED). 

            Average age of retirement for all living retirees is 60 (59.62 for men and 60.11 for women)

            https://dqydj.com/average-retirement-age-in-the-united-states/

            Average age for NJ police is 52-55 (see page 43, NJ PFRS Annual Report)
            Firemen retirement age is slightly higher.

            The average age for recent retirees is increasing, understandably.

            Also notice the various categories of PFRS retirees. The average annual benefit is nowhere near $100,000 for any of them. El Gaupo is an outlier. Good for him.

            I’ll go out on a limb and say NJ miscellaneous employees retire at about the same age as U. S. average.

            May be Bergen County is just not a good fit for you. Don’t let the door hit you on the way out.

          • Posted by A on March 7, 2020 at 11:05 pm

            Example, largest group of —recent— retirees…
            Police, Special Retirement

            Count…. 882
            Average years of service… 27.2
            Average age at retirement… 52.2
            Average annual benefit… $79,175

            A wee bit under $100,000.

  6. Posted by bpaterson on March 6, 2020 at 12:45 pm

    Just like that the asm vin gopal in sponsoring this wants to add $3.0 billion conservatively to the pension obligation. Rough calc to arrive at this $: from john bury’s numbers – $639k-$430k= $200k. $200k x 500 towns x say 30 PFRS enrollees avg per town = $3 billion. I wonder if Gopal knows what he is doing?

    Reply

    • Posted by Tough Love on March 6, 2020 at 8:03 pm

      If he knew, do you think he would care ….as long as this (betrayal of NJ’s Taxpayers) helps his re-election ?

      Reply

      • Posted by E on March 6, 2020 at 9:01 pm

        Didn’t betray me and I’m a taxpayer.
        Where’s your new boyfriend PS? You’d better help him out. His best sexual experience was listening to two people get it on through a hotel wall. 🤣🤣🤣

        Reply

        • Posted by Tough Love on March 6, 2020 at 9:55 pm

          El gaupo,

          If not drunk, you’re a very sick man.

          Reply

        • Posted by PS Drone on March 6, 2020 at 9:56 pm

          Wow. Very impressive. The hotel could not have possibly been better than sitting in your police cruiser at the job site getting off on your own posts on this blog.

          Reply

  7. Posted by E on March 6, 2020 at 10:58 pm

    Lol. I can take it…..decent comeback PS. 😉
    And for the record….you’re probably right. My posts do kinda rock.

    Relax TL. Haven’t been drinking….we know how some Saturday nights have been for you. 🙃
    Just some locker room talk to lighten the mood. Last thing this blog needs is a vanilla pudding white bread PC commentator. 😎

    Why PS? You’ve met the enemy and he is us? 😉😉

    Reply

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: