Commentary: Pension Liabilities Larger Than Reported

Report shows that taxpayers could be on the hook for even larger pension costs than previously thought

Comment Print Mail Share Facebook Twitter

As Michigan legislators consider whether to close the defined-benefit school pension system to newly hired employees, instead giving them generous 401(k) contributions, a report from State Budget Solutions shows that the unfunded liabilities of defined-benefit systems may be even larger than previously reported, not just in Michigan, but all around the country.

Using data from 2008, when unfunded liabilities were much lower than current amounts, the report compares the gaps between assets and liabilities in state financial statements to some alternative ways of calculating taxpayer obligations. In its financial statements, the state uses an optimistic investment assumption. Lowering it vastly increases estimates of the state’s liabilities. In addition, applying a different kind of analysis based on option pricing also shows that taxpayers may be providing more generous benefits than expected.

Specifically, the older estimate for all Michigan state government pension systems — not just the one for school employees — showed unfunded liabilities of $11.5 billion using the optimistic “official” investment return assumptions. However, when the alternative methods were applied to the systems, the unfunded liabilities skyrocketed to $63.6 billion and $72.2 billion.

In other words, in automobile terms, the current defined-benefit pension system is a lemon — its actual lifetime costs are likely to be more than advertised.

Stay Engaged

Receive our weekly emails!

The underfunding problem has only increased since 2008. The unfunded liabilities in just the school pension system are now projected at $22.4 billion, using the same optimistic assumptions as that “official” 2008 estimate. The other methods suggest that the problem can be much worse than even the state acknowledges.

To contain the underfunding problem, the state should place new employees into a system that no longer puts taxpayers on the hook for benefits payable many decades into the future. That is, the state should close these defined-benefit systems to new employees.

In contrast, giving employees defined-contribution 401(k)-type benefits creates no new long-term taxpayer liabilities or uncertainties. The Michigan Senate has already passed a bill that does this. The state House, however, has passed a bill that keeps racking up promises of an uncertain cost. Voters and taxpayers can decide for themselves which is the better approach.


See also:

Commentary: House GOP Would Stick Taxpayers With Billions for Optional School Retiree Benefits

Commentary: Legislators Choose School Employees Over Taxpayers on Retirement Benefit Reform

Commentary: Low-Balled School Pension Contributions Kick Taxpayers in the Teeth


Related Articles:

Legacy Society Luncheon: The Morality of Capitalism

October 21, 2016 MichiganVotes Weekly Roll Call Report

Tilt from Tax Cutting to Corporate Welfare Renews Failed Approach to Economic Growth

Some Upper Peninsula Residents In Revolt Over Federal Road Closings

Michigan Considers Freeing Up Uber and Taxis

Legacy Society

Stay Engaged

Simply enter your email below to receive our weekly email:


Jim Riley got his own fiscal house in order so he could retire. Now he wonders why his city government can’t do the same for their employees, and taxpayers who could end with huge bills from the unfunded retirement liabilities.

Related Sites