• At Lincoln House Blog
  • Pressroom / Information Center
  • Calendar
  • Register >
  • Login
Lincoln Institute of Land Policy
  • Quick Links
    • At Lincoln House Blog
    • Find an Expert
    • Latest Policy Focus Report
    • Online Education
    • Lectures & Videos
    • Resources & Tools
  • Departments & Programs
    • Planning and Urban Form
    • Valuation and Taxation
    • International Studies
    • China Program
    • Latin America Program

Español | 中文

  • About
  • News & Events
  • Education & Research
  • Publications & Multimedia
    • 2012-2013 Program
    • Publications Catalog
    • Making Sense of Place Film Series
    • Shifting Ground Radio Series
    • Search Publications and Multimedia
  • Resources & Tools

Search All Publications and Multimedia

> More search options





Publication Dates
FROM:

TO:


> Fewer search options

Land Lines, October 2012

Pension Legacy Costs and Local Government Finances (Land Lines Article)

Author(s): Dye, Richard F. and Tracy M. Gordon
Publication Date: October 2012

8 pages; Inventory ID LLA121002; English

availability free downloadsFREE DOWNLOADS BELOW
Pension Legacy Costs and Local Government Finances 336 KB

Article

Pension Legacy Costs and Local Government Finances

Richard F. Dye and Tracy M. Gordon

How will local government finances be affected by the large and increasing burden to pay for previously obligated pension costs? How, in particular, will these pension legacy costs change residents' perceptions of the local property tax and their willingness to pay? As a first step in a larger Lincoln Institute of Land Policy research agenda on these questions, we ask: What is known--and just as importantly, what is not known--about the magnitude of unfunded local government pension liabilities in the United States? (see Gordon, Rose, and Fischer 2012)

It is a first principle of public finance that current services should be paid with current revenues and that debt finance should be reserved for capital projects that provide services to future taxpayers. This principle is violated when pension liabilities associated with current labor services are not funded by current purchases of financial assets and instead have to be paid for by future taxpayers.

Alas, principles of prudence in public finance are not always observed, and local governments in the United States have accumulated substantial unfunded pension liabilities in recent years. This situation breaks an important link in the relationship between taxpayers and the services they receive--the rough correspondence between the overall value of public services and the resources taken from the private sector. There is considerable debate about the strength of this correspondence and how price-like the relationship is between value paid and value received for individual taxpayers, but there can be little question that using current revenues to pay for past services weakens the link.

Growing Public Awareness

State and local government employee pensions are in the headlines almost daily (box 1). Only a few years ago, they were the nearly exclusive province of a few elected officials, appointed boards, investment advisors, actuaries, and credit rating agencies. What changed? The most immediate answer is the Great Recession, which sapped not only state tax revenue but also the value of pension plan assets. In particular, state and local pension fund equity holdings lost nearly half of their value, dropping from a peak of $2.3 trillion in September 2007 to a low of $1.2 trillion in March 2009 (Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System 2012).

-----------
Box 1: Where Are Local Pensions in Trouble?

To understand where local pensions were experiencing particular difficulties, Gordon, Rose, and Fischer (2012) used media monitoring software to conduct a search of all U.S. domestic news outlets for the first three months of 2012. To satisfy the query, articles had to include the word "pension" in conjunction with terms that identify local governments (e.g., municipality, city, or county) and descriptions of funding problems (e.g., liability, deficit, underfunded, cut, default, reform, or problem). The search yielded over 2,000 separate articles from places all over the country.

Their analysis suggests several types of places are experiencing pension troubles. One group consists of jurisdictions that have been losing people and jobs over time. A prominent example is Detroit, Michigan, which has twice as many retirees as active workers. Also in this category is Prichard, Alabama, which has lost more than 45 percent of its population since 1970 and by 2010 had fewer than 23,000 residents. It simply stopped sending pension checks to its former employees in September 2009 and declared bankruptcy one month later. For such communities, pension problems may also be a symptom of larger fiscal distress or political dysfunction.

Another group of jurisdictions rode the housing boom and bust. Examples include fast-growing California cities like Stockton, which just entered bankruptcy proceedings this year, the largest city ever to do so. More puzzling are relatively affluent places, such as New York's Suffolk or Nassau Counties, which appear unable to make tough spending cuts or raise taxes because of political gridlock. Instead, many of these jurisdictions have turned to borrowing to meet their pension obligations.

Go to Page 1 2 3 4 5 6

© 2013 Lincoln Institute of Land Policy 113 Brattle Street, Cambridge, MA 02138-3400 USA Home Contact Help Privacy