PFRS Member to Retire at 20 years without age restriction

PFRS Member to Retire at 20 years without age restriction

What problem does it solve? Currently Police and Fire Pension Members can retire with 20 years of service and collect their pension at 50%, with no age restrictions, ONLY if they were enrolled in the pension prior to January 18, 2000. Those who were enrolled after this date can retire with 20 years of service but can only collect their pension at age 55. Eliminating the enrollment date restriction can save the State of NJ significant money. What is your solution and who does it apply to? All Police and Fire Pension Members with 20 years of Service should be allowed to Retire at any age, eliminating any age restrictions. What is the anticipated impact? Police and Fire Pension members can retire with 25 years of service at 65 percent of their salary OR 20 years of service at 50 percent of their salary. By eliminating any age restrictions on 20 year retirements, the state will save considerable money by allowing PFRS Members to leave 5 years early at 50 percent of their salary. The members that retire at 20 years of service are collecting 15 percent less of their salary in retirement and are also waiving medical coverage which will result in considerable savings for the State of NJ.

Points

Was this change made to help fund this pension plan and strengthen its ability to pay retirees in the future? If so, approving this idea may be counterproductive? Just a thought.

There are now three tiers to retirement age 55, 62 and 65 with partial health benefits depending upon the time that you enter state service. Under the past administration retirees were grandfathered for no cost health insurance with 20 years of service at that time. This should be extended to all state workers when they retire. Many state workers are retiring later due the cost of healthcare benefits during retirement. They don't have the time to enjoy retirement and stay at work longer.

Ah, I see your point. I was looking at it from the perspective of at least 5 yrs of contributions lost when an employee retires. So if my understanding is correct, you are saying the savings of each retiree's 50% salary and no medical coverage is more than the 5 yrs of lost contributions.

@ beth kanellis, If members are taking 15 percent less pension payment it will only save the state money and keep the pension funded. They are also waiving any medical coverage from the state which is also going to save the state money.

Back to group

This content is created by the open source Your Priorities citizen engagement platform designed by the non profit Citizens Foundation

Your Priorities on GitHub

Check out the Citizens Foundation website for more information