By Bob L. The way I see it!
Here is a good example of why you have high taxes, Government hires to many people to do a job that fewer people can do, then they hirer consulting firms to do what is suppose to be done by the people in these Government jobs that you the tax payer is paying for, then you have to pay for their PENSIONS and HEALTH INSURANCE also. A good example, a private company sends out FOUR workers, to where the Government sends out EIGHT to TEN workers to do the same job, now why are taxes so high, (when some are making $45.00 dollars an hour or more.) Who pays for these WAGES, PENSIONS and HEALTH INSURANCE benefits? YOU, and JUST THINK, you pay into them and don’t get any of there benefits.
This whole article sounds just like Social Security, except on the State level.
By MARK SCOLFORO, Associated Press Writer
Thu Feb 18
HARRISBURG, Pa. – States may be forced to reduce benefits, raise taxes or slash government services to address a $1 trillion funding shortfall in public sector retirement benefits, according to a new study that warns of even more debilitating costs if immediate action isn’t taken.
The Pew Center on the States released a survey Thursday of state-administered pension plans, retiree health care and other post-employment benefits in all 50 states that blamed a decade’s worth of policy decisions for leaving them shortchanged. [My insert]( Better known as spending money you don’t have.)
The result for some states will be “high annual costs that come with significant unfunded liabilities, lower bond ratings, less money available for services, higher taxes and the specter of worsening problems in the future,” the study said.
The cost of the trillion-dollar shortfall, which will be paid over the coming decades, is about $8,800 for each American household. The study did not include many city, county and municipal pension plans, which are thought to have similar underfunding.
“We have a significant problem now, but it’s a problem that can be solved by taking relatively modest steps,” said Susan K. Urahn, the center’s managing director. “If they don’t do anything, if they wait, eventually they will have an unmanageable crisis on their hands.”
As of 2008, states had $2.4 trillion to meet $3.4 trillion in promised pension, health care and other post-retirement benefits, according to the report. [ My insert ](Gee are their pensions going broke. Well the Governments are spending Social Security around the world, why not their Pensions.)
The true gap may even be wider, because the study did not account for the full impact of investment losses in late 2008, during the stock market downturn, and because many plans employ multiyear smoothing techniques to lessen the effect of a single year’s losses. But more recent stock market returns could help — on Wednesday, for example, Pennsylvania’s $47 billion public school pension plan reported it had earned about 12 percent on investments in the 2009 calendar year.
Pew deemed 16 states solid performers in how they fund pensions, 15 needing improvement and 19 considered to be facing serious concerns.
“Meanwhile, more and more baby boomers in state and local government are nearing retirement, and many will live longer than earlier generations — meaning that if states do not get a handle on the costs of post-employment benefits now, the problem likely will get far worse, with states facing debilitating costs,” the study said.
The exploding financial burden could be a bitter pill for taxpayers, many of whom will not be collecting similar pensions or other benefits when they retire, said David Kline with the California Taxpayers’ Association. About one in five private sector workers have traditional defined benefit pensions, compared with about 90 percent of public-sector employees — including some that do not get Social Security.
“Taxpayers in the future will be paying for people who worked decades before they may have even lived in the area or begun paying taxes, because the obligation for these benefits is just snowballing,” Kline said.
The study graded states on how well they have managed employees’ retirement benefits. Florida, Idaho, New York, North Carolina and Wisconsin began the current recession with fully funded pension systems, while eight states have left more than one-third of their pension liability unfunded.
Illinois was rated the most troubled pension system during the study period, with a 54 percent funding level and a total liability of more than $54 billion.
In Pennsylvania, a series of decisions by the Legislature and governor have shielded taxpayers from much of the pain for the past decade, but costs of less than $1 billion a year now is projected to climb to about $6 billion annually in the coming three years.
The report said policy makers have exacerbated the problem by expanding benefits, relying on overly optimistic assumptions about investment returns and failing to sufficient fund the programs.
“Even though the actuaries tell the states what they should be doing, the states feel free to ignore that,” said Olivia Mitchell, director of the Pension Research Council at the University of Pennsylvania’s Wharton School. “So putting some teeth behind the requirements is really the problem.”
Pew calculated a $587 billion national cost for current and future retiree health care and other non pension retirement benefits, with only about 5 percent of that amount funded as of 2008. The cost of health care and the number of retirees are both on the rise, adding to the pressure on states.
The study found that 15 states made some legislative changes to their state-run systems last year, 12 did so in 2008 and 11 in 2007. About a third of states had formal efforts to study potential reforms under way last year.
“Pension plans work when they are allowed to work, and part of that dynamic is that sometimes adjustments have to be made,” said Keith Brainard, research director with the National Association of State Retirement Administrators. “It’s important not to take away decent retirement benefits for some of the few people that have them.”
Pew said states should consider changes that have proven to be effective and politically viable. Among them: setting minimum contribution levels that are actuarially sound, sharing some of the investment risk with employees, cutting benefits, increasing the minimum retirement age, making employees pay more into the system and providing more robust oversight and investment rules.
Mitchell said many states have constitutional prohibitions against lowering employee pension benefits, but health care programs can more easily be altered. [ My insert] ( They sure use the constitution when it involves them.)