Posted on 10/17/2008 9:53:34 AM PDT by thefactor
Recently, the IRS extended its definition of acceptable retirement age to all defined benefit plans, including governmental plans. The regulations state that normal retirement age under a plan must be an age that is “not earlier than the earliest age that is reasonably representative of the typical retirement age for the industry in which the covered workforce is employed.”
For most workers, a normal retirement age that falls between ages 55 and 62 would meet the new IRS standard. The IRS has made an exception for plans where the majority of the plan participants are qualified public safety employees. For such plans, a normal retirement age of 50 or later would be qualified under the new standard. Given that some of our members retire younger, even that change did not go far enough.
NAPO, of which the PBA is a member, has been working with Congress and other public sector organizations to delay or rescind these regulations since the IRS published the proposed rule. In April of this year, NAPO and 18 other stakeholder organizations filed a letter to formally request an extension of the effective date. On October 10, 2008, the IRS issued Notice 2008-98, which provides that the IRS and Treasury intend to amend the normal retirement age regulations to change the effective date for governmental plans to plan years beginning on or after January 1, 2011.
By delaying the effective date, the IRS would give state and local governments and organizations representing public sector employees the chance to respond and provide guidance in regards to an acceptable definition of normal retirement age for police officers, as opposed to other public and private sector employees.
Obviously, we are taking this issue seriously and will do everything we need to do to stop it. But when one looks at the issue, you can see many potential challenges with it from a legal standpoint. If the IRS ultimately intends to proceed with this regulation, we will mount a legal challenge. So, at this juncture, I do not want to convey the impression that this is imminent and that it has a great likelihood of being upheld in its current form. We will continue working with other local, state and national groups to coordinate strategies and will keep you advised as the issue and our response develops.
Fraternally,
Patrick J. Lynch President
Off the top of my head I can think of 3 professions this will immediately affect: police, fire, and military.
My job has 20 years and then retirement. So if you get on at 21, you can retire at 41. Could you imagine having to stay 9 years longer under this IRS plan?!?
Or you retire at 41 but have to wait 9 years to get your money! This is ludicrous and I hope the unions fight it.
Now, I know a lot of you hate unions. I see mine as a necessary evil, but this is different. How many of you military guys retired before the age of 50? What do current military think of this?
Should NFL running backs get their money at 31?
Well good golly gosh, police and other public employees are obviously far more important than us producers, so yea, they should get absurdly generous benefits that no private sector employee gets. Spare me the lame, we traded salary for benefits crap. You never had to trade anything for anything because governments don’t operate under the same fiscal contraints private industry does. When they negotiate the next union contract, it’s typically a give away or a vote pay-back. I.e. California prison guards.
... until AFTER election day.
Of course, the way the markets have been recently, I'll still be working when I'm 70...
i'd say more but most of your post is unintelligible drivel.
In Houston they had a brief program where you could retire with like 90% of your annual salary. There was a public outcry but a lot of people took retirement with that kind of payout.
I sure hope I get to work after I’m 62, I can’t imagine not having anything to do.
i am eligible to retire when i am 47, but will not stop working. i will move out of NYS and go somewhere down south where pension taxes are lower.
my point is that this law will stop a lot of people from taking these jobs. who wants to be a cop for 30 years?! not i. twenty is plenty.
I would think that 20yrs as a cop, is more than enough, good luck.
You cannot say anything because you’re a selfish, greedy person who believes you are entitled to the fruits of my labor because you are a unionized public servant.
If having to work until you are 50 (versus 41) where-as the rest of the U.S. has to work until they are 60 means you’re being screwed, then quite frankly you haven’t been screwed enough.
Why are you so ENTITLED?
you really gotta get out of the office more...
that is precisely WHY these departments offer retirement after 20 years! we do not have holidays. we are open 24/7. we don't get to take a cute little personal day because we are feeling bad.
i really don't care what you think. i knew some idiot would use this article to spout off about unions as a whole. but we are not the UFT or the auto-workers unions. it's a different ballgame.
The way things are going, in 4 yrs, I’ll have just enough money left to eat a few times a week. Besides, I can’t think of anything much fun to do at 62, that won’t cost money.
“I would think that 20yrs as a cop, is more than enough, good luck.”
What’s so special about being a cop? It’s not even in the top 10 most dangerous jobs.
???
“???”
Wouldn’t you rather be a cop till your 65 Y.O. than a garbage collector?
Well, if we look hard enough, there’s always someone worse off. I think being a cop for 20yrs is a lot. I would think that by 65, the other guy would at least be a garbage truk driver.
I feel sorry for you, I truly do.
Those are good points. None the less the balance of power has shifted in the USA. It used to be that being a government employee meant less pay, better benefits and better job security. But now, the census shows that public employees make considerably more than the average American, they still have better benefits, many jobs are extremely secure and some even are miraculously excluded from having to participate in other government Ponzi schemes like Social Security.
Given this it’s pretty reasonable for a lot of people to view government employees as the new overlord caste. That is the formula for resentment.
I think most of us here do understand that police and fire jobs, and military jobs, are different than desk jobs and are not even possible to do at 59 in many cases. As long as the compensation is not unreasonable I don’t have a problem with it.
20 years is about 1/2 of the average work-length that non-govt. employees have. So a pension around 1/2 of a “normal” pension would be fair. Something way more than this, like 85% pay after 20 years is abusive of the public trust.
In general cities and states should be working to transition ALL government employees to 401K plans just like everyone else in the USA has. Once that happens the amnount is automatially going to be equal to other professions (ie: employee contribution plus 50% match up to 3% of total salary, or somewhere thereabout).
Sould people who were once fireman be able to go into their 401K earlier than people who were merely shop workers in an autobody outfit? Unless they are disabled I don’t see why.
Part of having a career that ends before 62.5 is figuring out what your second half of you work life is all about.
All the retired military guys are know in their 40s and 50s are productively working.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.