Bill Overview
Title: Protecting Public Safety Employees' Timely Retirement Act of 2022
Description: This bill modifies the eligible age (age 50) for the exemption from the retirement plan early withdrawal penalty for public safety officers. The bill establishes the age eligibility at age 50 or 25 years of service under the plan, whichever is earlier.
Sponsors: Rep. Thompson, Mike [D-CA-5]
Target Audience
Population: Public safety officers
Estimated Size: 2100000
- The bill primarily affects public safety officers, which typically include firefighters, police officers, and certain emergency medical services personnel.
- The modification to retirement plans suggests it affects those participating in specific retirement plans, usually at municipal, state, or federal levels for public safety employees.
- The bill would interest public safety officers who anticipate retiring before age 50, especially those who have completed 25 years of service.
- Given its nature, the impact is centered on the United States, where the legislation is proposed.
Reasoning
- Not all public safety officers will retire early, so the number directly impacted is smaller than the total population.
- The policy alleviates financial penalties for early withdrawal, thus those near or past the typical early retirement age without enough service years (or vice versa) would benefit.
- Many younger public safety officers may not feel immediate benefit but might foresee future benefits.
- Geographic location and differing state retirement funds can influence impact.
- The distribution of the workforce affects how common certain opinions or impacts are in the population.
Simulated Interviews
Police Officer (New York)
Age: 52 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 8/20
Statement of Opinion:
- This policy is a godsend.
- I was thinking of retiring a while ago but didn't due to the penalties.
- Now, I can feasibly retire and work on some personal projects.
- Financially, it lifts a huge burden.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 5 | 5 |
Firefighter (California)
Age: 45 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 15.0 years
Commonness: 14/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I don't see an immediate impact on me.
- Still, it's nice to know options for early retirement are getting better.
- My focus right now is carrying on with my career.
- Future options make long-term planning seem more flexible.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 7 |
EMS Personnel (Texas)
Age: 38 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 20.0 years
Commonness: 13/20
Statement of Opinion:
- It's good to know this will be available in the future.
- I'm more focused on day-to-day but knowing there's less penalty in older age is comforting.
- I'd still need to see how the numbers line up after 25 years.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 6 |
Police Officer (Florida)
Age: 49 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 7/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I’ve considered early retirement but was wary due to penalties.
- This policy completely shifts my perspective and makes retirement soon much more viable.
- Less stress overall knowing the financial aftermath is managed better.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 9 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 9 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 5 |
Firefighter (Illinois)
Age: 55 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 8
Duration of Impact: 0.0 years
Commonness: 8/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Already retired but I think it's great for those younger than me.
- Could have given me more flexibility if it existed when I was eligible.
- Still, I'm settled and content; would likely see this as a good step nonetheless.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 2 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 8 |
EMS Personnel (Ohio)
Age: 29 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 20.0 years
Commonness: 15/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Seems like a smart step for colleagues who have been around longer.
- Personally, I’m more interested in how my career will progress.
- Still comforting knowing options will be more available in the future.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 7 |
Firefighter (North Carolina)
Age: 48 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 15.0 years
Commonness: 9/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Was on the fence about retiring due to penalties.
- This policy being passed finally turns the balance in favor of retiring.
- It promotes a sense of flexibility and produced aligning retirement with personal well-being.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 6 | 6 |
Police Officer (Michigan)
Age: 35 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 15.0 years
Commonness: 10/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Seeing this as a future benefit, though I’m not immediately affected.
- There’s assurance knowing I may not have to stick it out past 25 years if circumstances change.
- Overall, it's a good financial safety net for us.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 6 | 6 |
Firefighter (Georgia)
Age: 60 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 9
Duration of Impact: 0.0 years
Commonness: 7/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Retired already, this would not have influenced my decision.
- I think it’s good to make life easier for those in service now.
- The difference it makes is most notable for those right at the cusp of early retirement.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 9 | 9 |
| Year 2 | 9 | 9 |
| Year 3 | 9 | 9 |
| Year 5 | 9 | 9 |
| Year 10 | 9 | 9 |
| Year 20 | 9 | 9 |
EMS Personnel (Washington)
Age: 50 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 8/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I wasn’t planning to leave before 25 years initially due to penalties.
- Now, I’m able to consider new opportunities post-service thanks to this new setup.
- Significantly improves financial security.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 6 | 5 |
Cost Estimates
Year 1: $200000000 (Low: $150000000, High: $250000000)
Year 2: $205000000 (Low: $155000000, High: $255000000)
Year 3: $210000000 (Low: $160000000, High: $260000000)
Year 5: $220000000 (Low: $170000000, High: $270000000)
Year 10: $250000000 (Low: $200000000, High: $300000000)
Year 100: $500000000 (Low: $400000000, High: $600000000)
Key Considerations
- Substantial impact on federal penalty revenues due to early withdrawals.
- Impact highly dependent on actual retirement and withdrawal behavior of public safety officers.
- Uncertainties include assumptions about the prevalence of early retirement among the targeted cohort.
- Long-term planning impacts on public retirement systems.