Capitol Fax.com - Your Illinois News Radar

Report: 12,891 sworn officers in suburbs and Downstate vs. 12,927 former officers or surviving spouses receiving pension benefits

Posted in:

Illinois

* Daily Herald…

State records show there were 12,891 sworn officers employed by suburban and downstate municipal police departments in 2021 compared to 12,927 former officers or surviving spouses receiving pension benefits from those departments. In 2020, there were 617 fewer pensioners than officers.

When combined with Chicago, those figures are nearly double. But Chicago has had more pensioners than active police for several years, records show.

Among 80 suburbs in Cook, DuPage, Kane, Lake and McHenry counties, Des Plaines had the widest gap between sworn police personnel and the number of pensioners in 2021. Records show the city staffed 95 sworn police positions, while 133 people received pension benefits, a difference of 38 individuals. The gap has only widened in the following years, Wisniewski said.

In 2021, 27 of the 80 suburban police department pension funds reported more pension recipients than officers. A decade prior, that was the case in just four towns, records show. […]

Most retirement-age officers currently have to be only 50 years old and have worked for 30 years to maximize the benefit, which is 75% of their final annual salary. The benefit then grows annually by 3%. Most pensioners make back the entirety of their contributions in less than three years of retirement.

Discuss.

posted by Rich Miller
Tuesday, Jun 20, 23 @ 1:21 pm

Comments

=Most retirement-age officers currently have to be only 50 years old and have worked for 30 years to maximize the benefit, which is 75% of their final annual salary. The benefit then grows annually by 3%. Most pensioners make back the entirety of their contributions in less than three years of retirement.=

But everyone complains about teacher pensions.

Comment by JS Mill Tuesday, Jun 20, 23 @ 1:42 pm
=Most pensioners make back the entirety of their contributions in less than three years of retirement=

This is misleading and ignores the investment gains and the employer contributions. Tell me how long it takes to make back the entirety of pensioner contributions, employer contributions, and the returns of both and then we can have a real discussion.

Second, the active:retiree ratio is only relevant if the funding hasn’t met the normal cost over time. In other words, pensions don’t always necessitate actives to pay for the pensions of retirees, unless they weren’t funded properly in the first place (see, e.g., Tier 2 actives paying for Tier 1 retirees).

Comment by chi Tuesday, Jun 20, 23 @ 1:51 pm
The frame of this article is suspect. What is supposed to be the takeaway from comparing the number of people collecting police pensions vs. the number of active officers? That too many get pensions? That there aren’t enough cops? Or perhaps both? Why should anyone necessarily be alarmed or upset that there are more people earning retirement benefits after a career of service in policing than there are cops on the street at any given point in time?

Comment by charles in charge Tuesday, Jun 20, 23 @ 1:53 pm
Law enforcement pensions have never been the golden parachute some would have people believe.

Add in the toll in takes on one’s mind and body, and the government gets off cheap.

And yes, JS Mill, teachers’ pensions aren’t boons either.

Comment by Flyin'Elvis'-Utah Chapter Tuesday, Jun 20, 23 @ 2:30 pm
As a teacher, I have questioned this same problem as it exists among my own colleagues (e.g., educators at all levels are equally problematic, in terms of accessing retirement prior to old age). We have an “unnatural” advantage relative to most workers, who rely in significant part upon the social security system for retirement, and who must wait until they are “old” to access that system.

As I have said before here, the problem in large part is the result of people being allowed to “retire early” and draw pensions / retirement pay long before they would “naturally” retire (e.g., before they would be eligible to receive SS or start drawing on their 401 accounts).

The Social Security system was set up in the 1930s with the assumption that most workers do not live to be 65. Those that do, should be provided for so as to have a short retirement period before dying.

In 1900, the average American lived to be 50. In the depression era when Social Security was created, most people died before retirement, and did not live to earn Social Security.

Today, most people do live to earn Social Security, but must wait until they are defined as “old.” Life expectancy today is well beyond the artificially established retirement age of 65 (Americans average about 80 years of life). In that context, “what once was a gift, is now an entitlement,” and I do not see that as the real issue, per se. But it requires better fiscal planning by the federal government, which is largely being ignored (e.g., moving from 65 to 66 + 8 mos. is not much of a correction).

But that is just the Social Security dilemma. The state retirement system is much worse. While as a current state employee I cannot touch my Social Security and my 401-b plan until I am 66 + 8 mos., there is nothing to stop me as a state employee from “retiring” much earlier that 66, and receiving state retirement income. Indeed, I can continue working outside the state employment sector, and still receive “retirement pay.”

Unless we get serious about defining retirement pay as being associated with, well, retirement (i.e., a workable retirement age), this problem is unlikely to resolve, and guaranteed to fester (if not worsen).

State workers can quit working for the state sooner than 66 + 8 months, and nonetheless receive a hefty (and underfunded) state benefit. “Earlier retirement options” makes the state system more problematic than the federal system we are supposedly foregoing. But early “retirement” and continued working makes it even worse, in my opinion.

Comment by H-W Tuesday, Jun 20, 23 @ 2:52 pm
=Tell me how long it takes to make back the entirety of pensioner contributions, employer contributions, and the returns of both and then we can have a real discussion.=

I think you’ve missed the point…

Comment by duck duck goose Tuesday, Jun 20, 23 @ 2:53 pm
Some plans are even better…80% after 26 years and 8 months,not counting free ” credit time” for unused sick pay…and the 3% cola isn’t until 55 years..but the free healthcare for life is paid immediately!

Comment by Red headed step child Tuesday, Jun 20, 23 @ 3:07 pm
==== =Tell me how long it takes to make back the entirety of pensioner contributions, employer contributions, and the returns of both and then we can have a real discussion.=

I think you’ve missed the point…====

I don’t think they do. If you do some simple math you can see how this is not the true picture. Let’s say the cop contributed $1000 to his pension 30 years ago. After investing for 30 years at 3% interest, your initial investment of $1,000 will have grown to $2,427.
They will have earned $1,427 in interest. Do that for 29 years, 28 years, etc.
In short they don’t get their contributions back in just a couple years.

Comment by Been There Tuesday, Jun 20, 23 @ 3:11 pm
I’m willing to bet there are more former Daily Herald reporters than current Daily Herald reporters.

Comment by Michelle Flaherty Tuesday, Jun 20, 23 @ 3:35 pm
SERS pays only half of the salary after 30 years, which is not all that generous for folks who do not have large salaries. And H.W., I think a third of SS recipients take a reduced benefit at 62 so they aren’t required to wait until 67 to touch it.

Comment by Big Dipper Tuesday, Jun 20, 23 @ 4:07 pm
Also under Tier Two one cannot retire until 67.

Comment by Big Dipper Tuesday, Jun 20, 23 @ 4:08 pm
The point is that Jake Griffin doesn’t get a pension, so police officers shouldn’t either.

Comment by Winter Is Coming Tuesday, Jun 20, 23 @ 5:09 pm
For those of us on Tier 2, the pension can go. We are squeezed to pay for the states historic largesse upon the patronage employees. I’d rather have a proper 457 match. That pension is a detriment, not an incentive.

Comment by Workin4Less Tuesday, Jun 20, 23 @ 6:58 pm
Always said IPI, by advocating for individual IRAs instead of defined benefit pensions, was good with 67 year old firemen. Apparently Mr. Griffin is good with 67 year old police officers.

Comment by Anyone Remember Tuesday, Jun 20, 23 @ 8:43 pm
As many said above, those numbers are useless without comparisons and further analysis. It’s all about the opportunity cost of that money, where it could have been instead (AKA in a 401(k) with matching contributions earning a 10% return in the S&P….) All the choice of yours is gone in pension environments… Most in the private sector don’t have 10% of their pre-tax earning automatically taken out for their retirement every year. There’s a reason that tier 2 pensions are getting looked at for crossing the law with the windfall amendment… they’re really not that great.

And to the commenter who talks about the early retirement age for teachers, it’s 67 now for all teachers who start since 2011… And I know plenty of people who retired early and worked retirement jobs (and more from the private sector than from the public sector who weren’t IMO ad they were far more burned out from their jobs).

As pension and retirement was always promised as one of those things that makes up for the lackluster salary… and now it fails to be better than the private industry… it’s no suprise the teaching shortages we see in some areas.

Comment by Most users above got it correct Wednesday, Jun 21, 23 @ 10:21 pm