social security | Pension360

Nevada Lawmakers Debate Bill to Switch New Hires into 401(k) Plan

Public employee groups, businesses and lawmakers all hotly debated a Nevada bill this week that would make major changes to the state’s pension system.

The measure under scrutiny is Assembly Bill 190, which would close off the state’s defined-benefit system and funnel all new government hires into a hybrid plan that more closely resembles a 401(k).

The bill was proposed in late February by Assemblyman Randy Kirner [R].

More on how the pension system would look under the bill, from the Review-Journal:

Kirner said there would still be a defined benefit element to the plan worth 6 percent of an employee’s salary that would be paid by the public agency. This piece of the plan is intended to account for the fact that Nevada public employees do not pay into Social Security, he said.

The remainder of the retirement plan would be a defined contribution plan, with 6 percent being provided by the state or local government agency and another 6 percent coming from the employee.

For police and fire, the defined contribution rate would be 9 percent each from the employer and employee.

At the hearing this week, state businesses were supportive of the measure.

But public employee groups argued against the bill, saying the changes would make it harder to recruit talented workers.

Tina Leiss, a top official at the Nevada Public Employee Retirement Systems, also spoke against the bill.

The bill is still in committee. Read the text of the bill here.

Photo credit: “Flag-map of Nevada” by Darwinek – self-made using Image:Flag of Nevada.svg and Image:USA Nevada location map.svg. Licensed under CC BY-SA 3.0 via Wikimedia Commons – http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Flag-map_of_Nevada.svg#mediaviewer/File:Flag-map_of_Nevada.svg

New York City Names New Chief Pension Adviser

NYC Mayor Bill de Blasio on Monday appointed John Adler to the post of chief pension investment adviser.

Adler will preside over the city’s five public retirement funds, conducting investment research and providing advice to the trustees who sit on the boards of the funds.

Nevada PERS Pokes Holes in Study Claiming Public Pensioners Make More in Retirement Than They Did On Job

Officials from the Nevada PERS are disputing a think tank report that claimed public pensioners were making more money in retirement than they did while working.

The report was produced by the Nevada Policy Research Institute.

But Nevada PERS says the findings were based on a small sample size that renders the results meaningless.

From the Las Vegas Review-Journal:

A retirement system official said Thursday a report showing that some public employees who retire collect more in pension benefits than they did while working was based on less than 2 percent of beneficiaries.

The analysis also does not reflect changes to the retirement plan made in 1985 that reduced pension payouts, said Tina Leiss, executive officer of the system.

The conclusions in the report issued by the Nevada Policy Research Institute, a conservative think tank based in Las Vegas, do not account for the vast majority of the members and retirees of the Public Employees’ Retirement System, she said.

“It appears that the analysis was based on a review of 790 retirees whereas there are currently 49,179 retirees (not including survivors and beneficiaries) receiving benefits from the system,” Leiss said. “Over the last 3 fiscal years, approximately 12 percent of those retiring in those years did so with 30 or more years of service while approximately 88 percent did so with less than 30 years of service.”

NPRI officials have used the analysis as evidence of the need for reforms to the public employee retirement system, but Leiss said the analysis is not representative of the benefit structure in place for almost ail current members of the system. Benefits were reduced in 1985 from 90 percent to 75 percent of average compensation for newly hired public employees, she said.

The executive vice president of the NPRI responded:

Victor Joecks, executive vice president at NPRI, said PERS likes to use averages to make its case, which is why the analysis looking at those retiring with 30 years of service is so important. Those with 30 years or more can begin collecting their pensions in their 50s while private-sector workers have to put in much more time to collect Social Security, he said.

Public employees in PERS do not participate in Social Security.

“What it shows is the PERS system has a big inequity in it,” Joecks said. “If you only work for five years or 10 years it’s not a very good system for you.”

Including a 401(k) type of element to the public pension plan would work better for younger workers who don’t plan to make a career in public service because it stays with the employee, Joecks said.

Read more on the think tank report here.

Photo by TaxCredits.net

Actuaries Call on Obama to Address Aging Issues, Retirement Security in State of the Union

The American Academy of Actuaries is urging President Obama and the U.S. Congress to tackle retirement security issues through public policy over the next two years.

That includes addressing the solvency of Social Security, improving the governance and disclosure requirements of public pension plans, and ensuring adequate retirement income for seniors who are living longer.

From the AAA:

The American Academy of Actuaries is calling on the president and the 114th Congress to commit to a focus in the next two years on addressing the needs of an aging America. A concerted national strategy on policies to support systems such as retirement security and lifetime income, health care and long-term care for the elderly, and public programs such as Social Security and Medicare, is long overdue.

[…]

As President Obama prepares to address Congress and the American people this evening, the Academy (which celebrates its own 50th anniversary this year) would point out that the state of our union is inextricably linked to the demographic transition of proportionately greater numbers of Americans entering retirement, coupled with increased longevity, or life expectancies, that will compound the fiscal challenges to both private systems and public programs in the years to come.

The AAA goes on to provide specific points that comprise a public policy “wish list”:

* Take immediate steps to address solvency concerns of key public programs like Social Security and Medicare to ensure that they are sustainable in light of changing demographics. The Academy also urges action to allow the disability trust fund to continue to pay full scheduled disability benefits during and beyond 2016.

* Evaluate and address the risk of retirement-income systems not providing expected income into old age, especially in light of increasing longevity. The Academy’s Retirement for the AGES initiative provides a framework for evaluating both private and public retirement systems, as well as public policy proposals.

* Encourage the use of lifetime-income solutions for people living longer in retirement. The Academy’s Lifetime Income initiative supports more widespread use of lifetime-income options.

* Improve the governance and disclosures regarding the measurements of the value of public-sector (state/municipal) employee pension plans. The Academy’s Public Pension Plans Actuarial E-Guide provides information on the nature of the risks and the complex issues surrounding these plans.

* Explore solutions to provide for affordable long-term care financing, and address caregiver needs and concerns through public and/or private programs.

* Address the impact of delayed retirement, either voluntary or through future retirement age changes, on benefit programs, as well as the needs it may create with increased demand for early retirement hardship considerations and disability income programs.

Read the full release here.

New Congress Likely to Attempt Federal Pension Reform

The New Congress has already proved it has its eye on retirement benefits.

But even with lawmakers’ eyes locked on Social Security, there may be federal pension changes coming down the pipeline.

Many lawmakers are weighing changes to the federal pension system, and new legislation on that front could surface this year, according to two key committee chairmen.

The two lawmakers leading the push for federal pension reform are:

* Rep. Jason Chaffetz, R-Utah, the new chairman of the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee

* Rep. Mark Meadows R-N.C., chairman of a subcommittee of the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform that focuses on the federal workforce.

More on their plans from the Federal Times:

As the new Congress kicks into gear, lawmakers want to take another crack at reforming the civil service.

Rep. Jason Chaffetz, R-Utah, the new chairman of the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee, said he will look at reforming all aspects of the federal workforce, from hiring and firing authorities to pensions and pay.

“We have jurisdiction on the federal workforce and there is no doubt we are going to bring that up,” Chaffetz. “From soup to nuts: Everything from how we hire them on the back end to how we pay them out in the retirement system.”

[…]

As Congress kicks into gear, Meadows believes the committee will be working on legislation for at least some parts of civil service reform.

“I would be very surprised if there were not a number of legislative initiatives and certainly, as a subcommittee chairman, I am prepared to be very proactive,” Meadows said.

What might the reforms look like? A likely bet is legislation that would shift new federal hires into a 401(k)-type plan, as opposed to the current defined-benefit system.

The reforms might be rolled out slowly at first, and could be focused on a particular government agency to study the effects before implementing the reforms across all agencies.

The outgoing Postmaster General has even suggested that any pension reforms be “tested” out on the Post Office first.

The Postmaster said:

Outgoing Postmaster General Patrick Donahoe has called for an end to the defined-benefit pension system and instead shift to a 401(k)-style retirement policy. He said Postal Service reform could also serve as a precursor to governmentwide civil service reform.

“I would encourage Congress to view the Postal Service as a test bed or laboratory of change that might be applied to the rest of the federal government,” Donahoe said.

He said agencies need to be be able to control costs and plan for the future while getting the flexibility to experiment without rigid workforce rules and he said the Postal Service could be at the forefront of that change.

“In today’s world, does it really make sense to offer the promise of a government pension to a 22-year-old who is just entering the workforce? And how reliable is that promise?” Donahoe asked. “I’d like to see the Congress encourage much more experimentation at the federal level. “

No legislation has yet been proposed.

Photo by Bob Jagendorf via FLickr CC License

Chart: Public Workers More Confident in Pensions, 401(k)s Than Social Security, Medicare

A recent survey found that, among all streams of retirement income and benefits, public employees were most confident in their pension and 401(k) benefits; both in terms of being there for them when they retire and being sufficient enough to get them through retirement.

People were least confident in Social Security and Medicare. Only a small portion of people were “very confident” they had enough savings to get them through retirement.

Chart credit: Retirement Confidence Survey 2014

Video: The Sustainability of the U.S. Pension and Social Security Systems

Here’s full video of a panel discussion that was held on November 14 as part of the 2014 National Lawyers Convention. The discussion was titled “”Intergenerational Equity and Social Security, Medicare, Obamacare, and Pensions”; the panelists discuss the sustainability of Social Security, the pension system, and similar programs.

The panelists:

–Hon. Christopher C. DeMuth, Distinguished Fellow, Hudson Institute, Inc., and former Administrator for Information and Regulatory Affairs, U.S. Office of Management and Budget

–Prof. John O. McGinnis, George C. Dix Professor in Constitutional Law, Northwestern University School of Law

–Prof. David A. Weisbach, Walter J. Blum Professor of Law and Senior Fellow, The Computation Institute of the University of Chicago and Argonne National Laboratory

–Moderator: Hon. Frank H. Easterbrook, U.S. Court of Appeals, Seventh Circuit

From the video description:

Several major federal programs directly tax the young to provide benefits to the elderly. This is a main feature of the Affordable Care Act, the Social Security System as it currently works, and of the laws guaranteeing pensions. In addition, the national debt raises intergenerational equity issues. What obligations do these debts impose on the young? Are they all of a piece or are the answers different in each case? Is it true that this generation is likely to be poorer than the previous one? What role does our legal system play in this? How will the law address pensions that contribute to bankrupting cities or states? What is the nature of the Social Security contract?

United Nations: Increased Pension Coverage Key To Future Global Development

The International Labour Organization (ILO), a UN agency, released a report yesterday warning that 48 percent of the world’s population didn’t have access to a retirement benefit of any kind in 2013.

The report, titled Social Protection for older persons: Key policy trends and statistics, said that retirement benefits make “good economic sense” and aid global economic development—but many countries are cutting back on benefits due to austerity measures. From the United Nations:

According to ILO, although more than 45 countries have reached 90 per cent pension coverage and more than 20 developing countries have achieved or nearly achieved universal pension coverage, the trend of fiscal consolidation spurred by austerity has led to a contraction in social protection for older persons with consequent adjustments.

These include cuts in health and other social services, the reduction of benefits and increase in contribution rates and the raising of the retirement age.

“These adjustments are undermining the adequacy of pension and welfare systems and reducing their ability to prevent poverty in old age,” Ms. Ortiz noted.

“The long-term liabilities of austerity take time to show up. Depressed household income levels are leading to lower domestic consumption and slowing down economic recovery. It is alarming that future pensioners will receive lower pensions in at least 14 European countries by 2050,” she added.

Meanwhile, a handful of countries have expanded pension coverage dramatically in recent years. From the UN:

At the same time, a number of countries have registered positive trends in their social protection systems. China, Lesotho, Thailand, Timor-Leste, and Tunisia, for instance, have experienced what the ILO described as “remarkable successes” in the reach of their coverage with gains ranging from 25 to more than 70 per cent of the population.

Pointing to China, in particular, Ms. Ortiz observed that the country had achieved nearly universal coverage of pensions and increased wages while other countries, such as Argentina, Bolivia, Chile, Hungary, Kazakhstan, and Poland, were reversing the earlier privatization of their pension systems as they were too expensive and had not expanded coverage.

“Public social security systems with strong social protection floors are essential for economic recovery, inclusive development and social justice, and therefore must be an integral part of the post-2015 development agenda,” concluded Ms. Ortiz, referring to the new development agenda that will succeed the landmark Millennium Development Goals (MDGs), set to expire in 2015.

Read the full report here.

Is the Retirement Savings Crisis Too “Hyped”? These Researchers Think So.

A seemingly routine Capitol Hill hearing got very interesting very fast late last month. The hearing was held by the Ways and Means Social Security Subcommittee and focused on the state of retirement savings in the U.S.

Why was it so interesting? Two of the witnesses, Sylvester J. Schieber and Andrew G. Biggs, insisted that the retirement savings “crisis” in the U.S. is over-hyped. (They were referencing, among other things, the recent government statistics claiming that 20 percent of Americans aged 55-64 had zero retirement savings).

An outpouring of criticism followed, led by Christian Weller, who wrote:

Launched by Chairman Sam Johnson (R-TX), the hearing announcement made reference to retirement income being underreported, implying that families are better off than the data show. Moreover, the witness list included crisis deniers, such as the American Enterprise Institute’s Andrew Biggs, making claims that the number of households inadequately prepared for retirement is largely overstated. Some testimony turned to calls for Social Security benefit cuts. Because, after all, cutting Social Security would theoretically inflict little harm if families are already well prepared for retirement. In reality, families would suffer tremendously from Social Security cuts. Why? Because as a long-standing body of economic research has repeatedly shown, there is indeed a growing crisis.

Schieber and Biggs (who, by the way, are no slouches–you can read their bios at the bottom of this post) quickly took to the blogosphere to explain their position.

First, they tackled why they disputed the government data, released last week, that suggested one in five Americans nearing retirement had no money at all saved for retirement. From Sheiber and Biggs (S + B):

These [Social Security Administration] publications rely on data from the Current Population Survey, which omits the vast majority of income that seniors receive from IRA and 401(k) accounts and thus makes seniors appear significantly poorer and less prepared for retirement than they actually are.

IRS tax data, which include all forms of pension withdrawals, show that true incomes for middle class retirees receiving Social Security benefits are substantially higher than is believed. The fact that these faulty SSA statistics were cited by the Social Security Subcommittee’s ranking member, apparently without knowledge of the limitations of these data, is evidence that even policymakers’ understanding of retirement security can be improved.

What about National Retirement Research Index’s findings that 6 in 10 Americans are at risk of an insecure retirement? S + B write:

With due respect to the NRRI’s authors, we have already detailed how the NRRI sets a higher bar for retirement income adequacy than most financial advisors and how it ignores the ways that family size and structure play into retirement saving patterns. In addition, the NRRI projects current workers’ future incomes using a one-size-fits-all pattern that ignores the dispersion in earnings that takes place from middle age onward.

This assumption erroneously reduces the “replacement rates” that low earners will receive from Social Security. The NRRI also predicts that traditional defined benefit pension plans will continue to contract, but assumes that future retirees will have no larger IRA or 401(k)s accumulations than those of people who retired prior to 2010. Together, these factors substantially – but erroneously, in our view – increase the share of workers considered to be “at risk” of an insecure retirement.

So who are these people anyway?

Sylvester J. Schieber:

Sylvester J. Schieber is Chairman of the Social Security Advisory Board (SSAB) and a private consultant on retirement and health issues. He retired from Watson Wyatt Worldwide in September 2006 where had served as Vice President/U.S. Director of Benefit Consulting and Director of Research and Information. He holds a Ph.D. in economics from the University of Notre Dame in 1974. He has served on the Board of Directors of the Pension Research Council at the Wharton School, University of Pennsylvania since 1985. Dr. Schieber was a member of the 1994-1996 Social Security Advisory Council. In January 1998 he was appointed to a six-year term on the Social Security Advisory Board.

Andrew Biggs:

Andrew G. Biggs is a resident scholar at the American Enterprise Institute (AEI), where he studies Social Security reform, state and local government pensions, and public sector pay and benefits.

Before joining AEI, Biggs was the principal deputy commissioner of the Social Security Administration (SSA), where he oversaw SSA’s policy research efforts. In 2005, as an associate director of the White House National Economic Council, he worked on Social Security reform. In 2001, he joined the staff of the President’s Commission to Strengthen Social Security.

You can read their entire blog post here.

You can also read the initial blog post, “Yes, There Is A Retirement Crisis”.

It’s a fascinating discussion, although at this moment, it seems to be two men standing alone against a world of data.