TABLE 5.-Distribution of tax loss to Federal Government under proposal to exclude $1,500 from taxation deductible at the bottom tax rate for retired persons 65 years and over (by income level, type of retirement plan, sex, and marital status) 762 TABLE 6.-Estimated number of retired persons 65 years and over who would benefit, average amount of benefit, and tax loss to Federal Government under the proposal to exclude $1,500 from taxation deductible at the bottom tax rate TABLE E.-Distribution of tax loss to Federal Government under proposal to exclude $1,500 from taxation deductible at the bottom tax rate for persons aged 55-64 retired from public and private retirement plans (by income level, sex, and type of retirement plan) TABLE F.-Estimated number of persons aged 55 to 64 retired from public and private retirement plans who would benefit, and tax loss to Federal Government under the proposal to exclude $1,500 from taxation deductible at the bottom tax rate The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Givens. Sit down and be comfortable and identify yourself to the reporter. STATEMENT OF ROYCE L. GIVENS, SECRETARY-TREASURER, NATIONAL CONFERENCE OF POLICE ASSOCIATIONS Mr. GIVENS. My name is Royce L. Givens. I am secretary-treasurer of the National Conference of Police Associations, representing approximately 100,000 policemen from coast to coast and as far south as the Panama Canal. I am an active member of the uniformed forces of the Metropolitan Police Department of the District of Columbia, representing the National Conference of Police Associations with specific reference to section 38 of H. R. 8300. We respectfully urge that section 38 (a) be amended as follows: Line 3 of subsection (a) of section 38, after the words "taxable year," insert the following "or who has been retired under a retirement system,' This same language to be inserted in subsection (b) line 5 after the words "excess of $600." These amendments will give policemen the same relief granted to others. The hazards in police work necessitate early retirement on disabilities that make them unfit to protect the lives and property of citizens. Few can serve as a policeman past middle age and there are not enough limited duty assignments in the police departments for those who are no longer able to serve actively on the street. Therefore, State and local governments have provided retirement systems for policemen at an earlier age than those in other professions or vocations. May we further point out that this type of retirement has been provided specifically for policemen and firemen due to the very nature of their duties, which sets them apart from other professions or vocations, in order to attract and hold qualified personnel to the end that we can render prompt and efficient service to the public. We are firm in the conviction that our retirement program is one of the very bases upon which the recruitment and moral aspect of our profession is based. The police service is one that has long been recognized as one that is best staffed with relatively young men. The very nature of police duty requires the services of one who is physically fit and mentally alert. All present police retirement programs of any recognized merit provide for retirement of the members of our profession several years in advance of persons engaged in other professions or vocations. The CHAIRMAN. Give us an average picture. When does a policeman usually start and finish? Mr. GIVENS. The majority of them, Senator, start at around 23. Some of them come in at 21. The average retirement is based on 25 years' service at approximately 55 years of age. Some can go out at 52 years of age. The service of a policeman beyond that which is currently accepted as the prime of his active years would result in hidden costs to the local or State government. On March 15, 1954, the President of the United States, made a speech relative to this bill and he stated among other things "Now here are some of the ways in which you will benefit: ***Fairer tax treatment for the widows of policemen and firemen and others who have fraternal or private pension plans." H. R. 8300 as passed by the House does not live up to what the President said. Unless this amendment is adopted policemen will not benefit under this program, because, the greater majority of policemen retire many years before they reach 65. As a matter of fact practically all police departments have compulsory retirement before 65. The CHAIRMAN. How many years of service are usually required prior to retirement? Mr. GIVENS. 25, sir. Mr. Chairman, with the permission of the committee I would like to file as part of this statement copies of letters I have received from a number of police associations on this subject. The CHAIRMAN. We will put them in the record. (The information referred to follows:) Regarding H. R. 5180 Hon. WILLIAM F. KNOWLAND, Senate Office Building, Washington 25, D. C. SAN DIEGO POLICE ASSOCIATION, INC., DEAR SIR: Since this bill was first introduced, police associations all over this country have supported and urged passage of this bill. However, the changes that have been made in H. R. 5180, from its original form, do not seem wholly justified. The reduction from $1,500 tax-free pension to $1,200 would work a hardship on all persons tentatively covered by this bill. Certainly there is no justification for considering an age limit of 65 before being entitled to this exemption. We implore you to return the $1,500 exemption to the bill, and if an age limit is necessary, you must, in all fairness, exclude police officers from the age limit. No other group of public employees is required to make the sacrifices that are expected of police officers, and in those cases where necessary, their very lives are the price of fulfilling their jobs. This association urges passage of this bill, but sincerely believe that the recommended changes would better serve the intent and purpose of the bill. There is not doubt that in its original form, H. R. 5180 would be more equitable treatment for America's first line of defense on the home front, the police officers. Sincerely, L. E. THRALL, President. Re H. R. 5180 PEACE OFFICERS RESEARCH ASSOCIATION OF CALIFORNIA, INC., Hon. JAMES B. UTT, Room 322, House Office Building, Washington, D. C. DEAR SIR: Since this bill was first introduced, police associations all over this country have supported and urged passage of this bill. However, the changes that have been made in H. R. 5180, from its original form, do not seem wholly justified. The reduction from $1,500 tax-free pension to $1,200 would work a hardship on all persons tentatively covered by this bill. Certainly there is no justification for considering an age limit of 65 before being entitled to this exemption. We implore you to return the $1,500 exemption to the bill, and if an age limit is necessary, you must, in all fairness, exclude police officers from the age limit. No other group of public employees is required to make the sacrifices that are expected of police officers, and in those cases where necessary, their very lives are the price of fulfilling their jobs. This association urges passage of this bill, but sincerely believes that the recommended changes would better serve the intent and purpose of the bill. There is no doubt that in its original form, H. R. 5180 would be more equitable treatment for America's first line of defense on the home front, the police officers. Sincerely, ATHOS SADA, President. PEACE OFFICERS RESEARCH ASSOCIATION OF CALIFORNIA, INC., H. R. 5180, the Mason bill March 29, 1954. Hon. EUGENE D. MILLIKIN, Chairman, Senate Finance Committee, Senate Office Building, Washington, D. C. DEAR SIR: This organization represents all the law-enforcement officers in the county of San Diego, and we would like to give you our feelings on H. R. 5180 (exempting retirements from taxation). Since the Mason bill was first introduced, we as police officers have supported passage of this bill which we believed would partially carry out President Eisenhower's desire to make the tax burdens more evenly and more equitably proportioned. The $1,500 exemption in the original version of the bill was just about the figure that would have helped the bulk of retired police officers, the patrolmen. Those in higher pension brackets could afford to pay on the amount of pension above this figure. Originally there was no age limit, which meant coverage for police officers who, on the average, retire at age 45 to 50. With the bill in its present form of $1,200 exemption after age 65, there is no just coverage for police officers. Police work is a young man's game: Hire them early, burn them out, and then retire them. Certainly this country does not have any room for 65-year-old policemen, for obvious reasons. These retiring officers receive pensions granted them by local authorities and pay the regular tax rates on their salaries. Why, then, can't they be granted tax relief on their pensions like railroad retirements and social security benefits which are supported by Federal funds? We do believe that after you weigh the facts as presented, you will see your way clear to restore the original benefits of the Mason bill, $1,500 tax exemption on pensions, and without the age restriction in the case of police officers. We are not asking for special favors, but rather just treatment which we believe our years of unselfish service to the public has entitled us to receive. The recommended changes in this bill, if you restore them, would also act as a job inducement to assist the recruitment of high caliber men to the police service, and certainly you are well aware of the need for the highest caliber men in police service. With this letter goes the hope of some 700 peace officers and their families in this county, who sincerely trust that this time the long-forgotten and mistreated "men in blue" will receive their just due. |