Life comes at you in waves. You graduate high school, watch friends start careers, get married, and have kids. Then social media shows you their children repeating the cycle. As a member of the Pacific High School Class of 1999, I didn’t expect to reach the retirement wave so soon.

Yet a recent post stopped me: a high school classmate, still in his mid-40s, announced his retirement after 25 years in Missouri public schools. Most recently a principal earning roughly $130,000 per year, he is now eligible for approximately $71,500 in annual (with cost-of-living adjustments) pension benefits for the rest of his life. He can also continue working and earning additional income.

He is retiring at exactly the age when most professionals hit their career peak—when experience, leadership, and judgment are most valuable. And that’s the problem.

Missouri’s Public School Retirement System (PSRS) is pushing talented educators out of the classroom at the very moment students and schools need them most. This isn’t just a fiscal issue. It’s a direct loss to Missouri’s school children.

My classmate is doing exactly what the system incentivizes him to do. The “25-and-Out” provision hands him a guaranteed lifetime annuity worth over $3 million in today’s dollars. He’d be foolish not to take it. But Missouri schools are left without a proven leader right when his institutional knowledge and expertise could have the greatest impact.

This is the perverse reality of the current defined-benefit system. It encourages strong teachers and administrators to leave mid-career, creating turnover, knowledge gaps, and disruption for students. Districts then spend time and money searching for replacements, often settling for less experienced candidates.

Reform is long overdue. What could Missouri do?

• Raise the minimum age or service requirements for unreduced early retirement.
• Adjust benefit formulas for new hires to match longer careers and lifespans.
• Offer new employees a hybrid or defined-contribution plan with portability and shared risk.

Current retirees and vested members should be protected. But going forward, incentives should align with what’s best for students. Competitive benefits matter, but not at the expense of keeping great educators in our schools during their most productive years.

The post Life Comes at You in Waves—And Sometimes It Brings Early Retirement appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

Of course, the answer is obvious if you know anything about how educator pensions work in Missouri.

Missouri’s teacher pension system creates strong incentives for educators to retire as soon as they hit their pension’s peak benefit. This doesn’t mean they’re ready to stop working; it just means that staying on the job in Missouri would financially penalize them compared to retiring and working elsewhere. This system is problematic because it pushes experienced teachers, principals, and superintendents out of Missouri’s schools when they still have a great deal to offer.

When Missouri educators retire early, they take with them years of expertise and leadership. Instead of keeping our best and most experienced educators in Missouri classrooms, our pension system encourages them to leave for neighboring states. This harms our schools and weakens the overall quality of education available to Missouri students.

To fix this, we need pension reform. We should develop a retirement system that rewards long-term service without forcing educators into an artificial retirement timeline. Instead of a system that penalizes continued work, we should create one that allows educators to gradually phase into retirement, perhaps by working part-time or taking on mentorship roles while still accruing meaningful benefits.

Other states, such as Washington, have reformed their pension systems to better retain educators. Missouri should do the same. We cannot afford to keep losing our best teachers and leaders simply because our pension system makes it financially advantageous for them to retire and work elsewhere.

It’s time to change the incentives. Let’s keep our educators in Missouri, where they belong.

The post Missouri Pension System Pushes Out Another Great Educator appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

Among the many things that Missourians will vote on in November is Amendment 6, which if passed would reinstitute a fee on court filings in Missouri to fund a larger pension for sheriffs and prosecutors in Missouri. (The fee was previously $3 before it was overturned by Missouri courts.) There are many troubling aspects of Amendment 6 that I hope Missourians consider before they vote, because the proposed amendment would have effects that go beyond the understandable desire to support law enforcement.

Locally, this amendment is especially bad public policy for St. Louis County residents. St. Louis County has by far the largest number of court filings due to its status as the largest county by population in Missouri and the presence of CT Corporation Systems in Clayton, which is the largest registered agent company in Missouri. What’s more, the St. Louis County sheriff is not a law enforcement agent and is therefore the only sheriff in Missouri who does not participate in the Missouri Sheriff’s Retirement System in the first place. So, to be clear, St. Louis County residents would pay the largest amount of fees into the fund—probably several hundred thousand dollars a year—while at the same time receiving the least benefit of any county. Coincidence? Perhaps. Fair? Definitely not.

Every person in St. Louis County who seeks redress in court, who files for a domestic order of protection, who has to pay a traffic fine, or is in court for any other reason, would have to pay this reinstituted fee to increase the pensions of primarily rural sheriffs and prosecutors. (The St. Louis County prosecutor might be included in this plan, so that’s one person in a million, for a position that is already well-compensated with a generous pension.)

The ballot language for Amendment 6, as is so often the case, is highly misleading. A typical voter will read the language proposing to “levy costs and fees to support salaries and benefits for current and former sheriffs, prosecuting attorneys . . .” and understand that to include the many dedicated deputy sheriffs and assistant prosecutors around the state. It doesn’t. This new fee will only benefit the elected sheriff and prosecutor in each county (and not even the sheriff in St. Louis County). That’s two people per county. Deputy sheriffs and assistant prosecutors have their pensions funded separately and are not affected by this proposal.

As if the misleading language and targeting of one county wasn’t enough to object to, the fact is that funding pensions by court fees is a bad policy. That is why previous attempts to fund a sheriff’s pension in this manner were thrown out as unconstitutional by the Missouri Supreme Court. Imposing court fees that make it harder to seek justice in court, or harder to pay fines ordered by court—especially when those fees financially benefit the law enforcement officials who impose some of them—creates a perverse incentive. Funding for the salaries and benefits of sheriffs and prosecutors should come from general local taxation, and there should be no financial incentive for increased fines, arrests, and so on. But instead of trying change their proposals to address these constitutional objections by judges and others, supporters of Amendment 6 are attempting to do an end-run around the law by changing the constitution. Supporting law enforcement by going around the law is an ironic way to accomplish their goals.

Furthermore, any increase in the retirement benefits of elected sheriffs and prosecutors should be accomplished by an expansion of defined-contribution plans available to them rather than an increase in their defined-benefit pensions. Expanding the opportunities for these well-compensated elected officials to participate in 457 retirement plans [which are like 401(k) accounts but for public employees] or similar alternatives is a better way to allow them to save for retirement without further burdening taxpayers.

Missouri sheriffs and prosecutors deserve our support, but Amendment 6 is not the way to show it. There are several good reasons for all Missourians to reconsider their typical support for law enforcement in this case, and for the people of St. Louis County, this choice should be easier than rooting against Stan Kroenke’s Rams in the Super Bowl.

The post Court Fee Increase Would Negatively Impact St. Louis County appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

If only someone had warned them about this years ago. Oh, that’s right . . . we did.

The topic of public-employee pension reform has long been important to Show-Me Institute writers. Back in 2013, for example, Andrew Biggs wrote Public Employee Pensions in Missouri: A Looming Crisis. The report did not specifically analyze St. Louis’s teacher pension fund, but the point about the pending crisis applied nonetheless.

When we call attention to impending problems, we are often called alarmists. I have twice had teacher groups circulate action alerts warning members not to respond to my requests for information regarding pensions. It was so bad we actually recorded a podcast telling people we were not trying to take away their pensions. The pushback we received led me to ask, “can we have meaningful dialogue on pension reform?”

So—what changed?

Now, it is the educators themselves raising the alarm. In the KSDK report, Byron Clemens, with the American Federation of Teachers in St. Louis, and his brother, state representative Doug Clemens (D-72nd District), are both quoted on the matter. They highlight how the underfunding of pension systems is harming retirees.

Unfortunately, the Clemens brothers do not call for significant pension reform. They see the symptoms of the problem, but rather than address the structural issues that got us to this point they seem to argue for policies that would only treat the symptoms.

St. Louis’s pension system is underfunded because of the program’s design. Missouri needs to explore new options, such as defined-contribution and hybrid plans, to provide retirees a safe and secure retirement.

The post Rising Concerns about St. Louis’s Teacher Pension Fund appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

Fast forward to 2024, and that sales tax is up for renewal. However, because the pension system is much better funded now, city leaders don’t want to renew the 3/4 cent sales tax as it is. That would generate more money for the pension than it needs.

So Springfield leaders put a commission together to come up with ways to alter the tax revenue distributions before it goes to voters in November.

A Kinsley Gaffe is when politicians accidentally say something truthful they didn’t mean to. (This is the second such gaffe worth highlighting in Missouri in the past few months.) In this case, the statement is filtered through the media, I admit, but the reporter must have got the gist of it from local leaders:

The tax will sunset at the end of March 2025, hence why the city has been adamant to put a replacement tax on the November ballot to avoid a lapse in the sales tax that local shoppers would feel. (emphasis added)

A lapse that voters would feel? Meaning a tax reduction Springfield residents may actually like? Dear Lord, we certainly can’t have that. If they like the reductions, they may not vote to increase the tax when we want them to, Oh, the humanity.

The new proposal is for voters to keep a 1/4 cent sales tax for public safety—which can still include pension costs—and change the rest of the tax (1/2 cent) to fund “comprehensive plan capital and parks projects and neighborhood and community initiatives.” (More on that issue later.)

Springfield still has a defined-benefit pension plan for its public safety employees. It should have switched to a defined-contribution plan years ago. At least the city, according to the article, closed the old plan to new members several years ago and, presumably, replaced it with a less generous plan for new hires. That’s progress, but a defined-contribution plan for Springfield employees would have been better for the taxpayers and the city. Throwing tax dollars at the pension fund appears to have worked for now, but further change is needed. As former Show-Me Institute Chief Economist Joe Haslag wrote about the Springfield pension situation years ago: “The existing approach got Springfield into this situation. Some reform is needed to avoid the same problems in the future.”

The post Springfield Wants to Be Darn Sure Its Sales Tax Rate Doesn’t Ever Go Down appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

The problem is that allowing retired teachers to come back to the classroom does nothing to address the problem. Let me be clear on what I mean by “the problem.” I am not talking about the problem of teacher recruitment and the number of people entering the profession. I’m talking about the teacher pipeline problem caused by the retirement system itself. It is a system that pushes people out. It incentivizes teachers, principals, and superintendents to retire in their mid-50s. This new provision does not address that issue; instead, it makes it worse.

Researchers have long known that defined-benefit pensions, such as those used in the Missouri teaching profession, have two key effects on the labor market. They provide a pull for workers to stay until the peak benefit period, then they push workers out. If a teacher begins working in Missouri right out of college around the age of 22, they will likely hit their peak benefit period around the age of 53.

If lawmakers truly want to keep great late-career teachers in the profession, they should revise the system that pushes them out in the first place. The best way to do this would be to move to a new type of pension system where teachers’ retirement plans would continue to accrue wealth as they continue to work through their 50s.

If we view Senate Bill 75 as a temporary fix (it does have a sunset built in) to address an immediate issue of teacher shortages, then the bill is fine. It is not, however, a fix to a teacher pension system that pushes out individuals who have so much more to give.

The post A Bandage Approach: Teaching after Retirement appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

If I offered you $100,000 a year for the rest of your life to retire from your current job, would you take me up on the offer? What if I said you could have the money and also get a different job if you wanted? If you would answer yes to these questions, you have gone a long way toward understanding why turnover is high among public school superintendents. We financially incentivize them to “retire.”

Take a look at the recent article from Springfield News-Leader’s Claudette Riley, in which she discussed the problem of superintendent turnover. Nearly every person cited in the report was a superintendent who has retired and is working another job. Doug Hayter retired as superintendent of Branson Public Schools; he now draws his retirement benefit and serves as the executive director of the Missouri Association of School Administrators (MASA). Kelly Hinshaw and John Jungman, also quoted in the report, are retired administrators who now work for MASA.

Given the rules of our current state pension system, it makes financial sense to do just as these folks have done. Consider some of the other retiring superintendents listed in Riley’s report. Shawn Randles is retiring from the Logan-Rogersville School District. After a 31-year career, he’s eligible to draw 75 percent of his final average salary of $152,002 for the rest of his life. Depending on the payout he chooses, this could be as much as $114,000 a year. According to Riley, Randles “plans to start a second career in an education-related field.”

Chris Ford, Fordland’s “retiring” superintendent is in a similar position. He’s eligible to draw $108,000 a year for the rest of his life while continuing to work. He has taken a position at Evangel University.

We are told turnover among superintendents is high because the job is stressful. It is curious then that many retire and take up similar positions in other states. Take Crane’s retiring superintendent, Chris Johnson, who has accepted the superintendent post in Prairie View, Kansas.

Stress may be a factor, but the truth is that superintendent turnover is high because our state’s pension system makes it financially beneficial for our veteran administrators to leave. They can earn more by retiring than they could if they kept working.

As Riley’s piece explained, superintendents are eligible to retire after 30 years of service in the profession or after their years of service plus their age equal 80. This means that someone who starts teaching right out of college could be eligible for retirement by their mid-50s. These individuals can then draw their pension and take on new roles, as long as those roles are not covered by Missouri’s Public School Retirement System.

We should applaud efforts to mentor and train superintendents, but if we truly want to reduce turnover the solution is clear—we must change our retirement system. This does not have to mean abandoning the current defined-benefit pension system, though offering a defined-contribution option is something that should be considered. The solution could be as simple as allowing superintendents to draw early disbursements from their pension fund while retaining their current jobs. This would diminish the financial pull to retire and take up a new job in another state or outside of PSRS.

As long as we continue to make it financially lucrative to retire, we will continue to see our best educational administrators retire shortly after they hit year 30.

The post To Reduce Superintendent Turnover, Change the Pension System appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

This isn’t that complicated. The new St. Louis city fireman’s pension board was created because the old one was dominated by union interests who made it incredibly generous for firemen and civilian employees of the department. One of those civilian employees received a half-million-dollar (!!!) cash payout upon her retirement, on top of her generous pension. As this recent Post-Dispatch story explains, the union trustees on the new board have implemented draconian changes to the pension funds, things such as cancelling the annual pension board training trip to Key West. Cue the outrage; from the Post story:

Paul Payne, the city’s budget director, said going to an industry conference in South Florida looked less like education than vacation. And he told Kenny Mitchell, a firefighter trustee who wanted to go, just that.

Meeting minutes relay what happened next: “Trustee Mitchell responded to Trustee Payne with a profane remark.”

I’ve been to Key West many times. It is uniquely wonderful for many things. Pension board training is not one of them.

The St. Louis Board of Aldermen just passed, once again, a bill to return the pension plan to the control of the fireman’s union instead of the new city board that runs it for the benefit of both firemen and taxpayers. That means having a pension system that pays fireman what they deserve, but also considers the interests of the taxpayers at the same time. It doesn’t mean pension training trip to Key West, nor does it mean half-million-dollar cash payouts on top of the pensions. What does St. Louis City’s budget director think it means?

The [proposed] move will consolidate pension oversight under a firefighter-run board that spent double what a city-run panel paid for administration last year. And Budget Director Paul Payne says it would be a first step toward taking the pension system back to where it was a decade ago, when years of rubber-stamping benefit increases led to a budget crisis and forced painful cuts.

“Their history,” Payne said of the firefighters, “is not one of saving money.”

Mayor Jones has vetoed the legislation, just as Mayor Krewson vetoed it previously, and as Mayor Slay would likely recommend after having spent considerable time, effort, and political capital during his term making these necessary reforms in the first place. Good for Mayor Jones. Pension funds should be run for the benefit of those government employees promised good benefits in accordance with the overall fiscal health of the city and its taxpayers, not just one of them.

The post Taxpayers Getting Burned appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

Less funny are the continuing efforts by the St. Louis City fireman’s union to return to the extremely generous and biased-against-taxpayers pension system of the past. After years of political fighting, the Slay administration successfully revised the fireman’s pension system in 2012. The new plan put control of the fireman’s pension under a board of city appointees— under the old system, the pension was run by the fire department and the union itself. What was wrong with the old system? Well, nobody was watching out for the taxpayer’s interests, and they are the ones who paid for everything.

Ever since those changes were made, the union has been “never stopping” in its efforts to get the old system back. How generous was the old system? Well, the former director of the fireman’s pension system, Vicky Grass (who was subsequently elected to the board of aldermen), received a cash payout of $579,000 when she retired in 2015, on top of her monthly $4,870 monthly pension. That’s $579,000 in taxpayer dollars! What did Ms. Grass think of the changes to the new system?

“The new system is not as good as the one we had,” Grass said.

Well, I would think not if you were enjoying the benefits of the old system.

But the city and taxpayers are not being exploited by the union now, and firemen are still receiving the fair benefits and pension that we all agree they deserve. How much money has city government been able to save with the pension reform? This article from 2015 documents the savings the city experienced shortly after making the pension changes:

The city pays when there is a shortfall. In 2013, the city pumped $20 million into the system. Pension reforms have since reduced the city’s liability. Paul Payne, the city’s budget director, said the city paid $1 million into the system in 2015. And it’s not expected to pay anything in 2016.

Mayor Krewson vetoed the attempt last year to change the pension system back to the old system, and hopefully Mayor Jones will do the same if it comes to that. Honestly, it should not come to that at all, but this is a classic example of a special interest group carrying outsized influence with elected officials—in this case, members of the board of aldermen the union helped put into office in the first place. Controlling pension costs for public employee unions is a key responsibility of local government. The City of St. Louis deserves credit for the reforms it made, and those reforms need to be kept in place.

The post The Fireman’s Union Never Stops Never Stopping appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

There are other sorts of inequities, however, that are much stealthier. They are no less unfair, just less noticeable. Take for example the Public School Teacher’s Retirement System of Missouri. Most public school teachers love this retirement plan. It allows many teachers to retire by their mid-fifties and earn a steady income for the rest of their lives. But most teachers don’t know that this system has been built with a structural flaw that favors some individuals over others.

As Andrew Tipping and I demonstrate in our forthcoming peer-reviewed article in Educational Researcher, “Cross-subsidization in Teacher Pension Benefits: Examining Rates of Return Among School Districts,” teachers in some school districts get disproportionately larger returns on their retirement contributions. We calculated the rate of return for a career teacher in 490 school districts. The rate of return is the interest rate that would be needed, based on all contributions, to pay out a specific benefit for a pre-determined period of time. For instance, if I put $100 into a savings account and wanted to take out $110 in a year, I would need to earn a 10 percent return. We simply do the same sort of calculation, but over a 30-year career and a 30-year retirement. We find a tremendous disparity in the rates of return among career teachers in different school districts. The variation of rates of return among school districts is displayed in the histogram below taken from our article:

Source: Authors’ calculations on the basis of Missouri School Boards’ Assocation (2015), Public School Retirement SYstem of Missouri (2016), and district salary schedules.

We found that in general, smaller, lower-paying school districts have lower rates of return and larger, higher-paying school districts have higher rates of return. This occurs because of the structure of the system. So why does this happen?

Let me try to explain. Imagine you and I decide to pool our investments, and we each invest $500 for a total of $1,000. Only, we do not invest our money all at once. We do it over a period of five months. You invest $100 every month for five months. I invest $65 the first month and increase my investment each month with a final contribution of $123 in the fifth month. I somehow convince you that we should base the payout on just the fifth period and not our entire investment. We earn a 10 percent return on our $1,000 investment, but distribute the funds based on our final period five contributions, which leads to a 45/55 split, despite both investing the same amount of money in total.

That is essentially what happens in the pension system and no one seems to notice.

Teachers in poorer school districts contribute more in the beginning of their career relative to the end, and because of the way the system works, they end up subsidizing the retirement benefits of teachers in wealthier school districts. This cross-subsidization of pension benefits occurs because benefits are not tied to total lifetime contributions. In fact, only the final three years out of a teacher’s entire career are used to determine benefits. It is this design of the system that allows this unfairness to occur. Yet, unlike my first graders, no one seems to be shouting out “That’s not fair!”

The post Unfairness in Missouri Teacher Pension System appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

In a recent article in the journal Perspectives on Politics, Sarah Anzia and Terry Moe examine whether pension plans that have pension beneficiaries serving on the board are more likely to underfund their pension systems. In the paper, they explain the logic behind underfunded pensions:

Another basic feature of pension politics is that public workers and their unions have incentives to support the chronic underfunding of their own pensions. Due to state statutes, constitutions, and judicial decisions, pensions promised by state politicians are backed by strong legal protections almost everywhere; and public workers thus know they will eventually get what they are promised even if their pension plans are currently underfunded. Indeed, because full funding on a regular schedule would be tremendously costly for state (and local) budgets— crowding out other services, forcing higher taxes, making the true costs of pensions painfully transparent to citizens —public workers and their unions have incentives to prefer that their pension plans be underfunded. Underfunding enables the fiscal illusion that pension benefits are much less expensive than they really are. If public workers and their unions want increasingly generous benefits in future years, they need to convince the public that these benefits are not costly to provide. At the same time, underfunding keeps employee contributions to their own pension funds at low levels; and by keeping contributions by their employers down, they are freeing up public money for other government services, keeping public workers employed—and providing funds for their own salaries and raises.

Each of Missouri’s three teacher pension systems (Kansas City, St. Louis, and Public School & Education Employee Retirement Systems of Missouri (PSRS)) have board members who are also members of the pension system. In St. Louis, the system is currently funded at 78.1%, the lowest funded ratio since 1992. Kansas City’s funded ratio is just 66.2%. PSRS, the system which covers teachers throughout the rest of the state, has the highest-funded ratio, 84.4%. These figures, of course, rely on the pension plan’s rosy assumptions. More conservative (and arguably more realistic) estimates put the funded ratios for each of the plans below 60%.

Overall, support among teachers for Missouri’s teacher pension systems is high. But would teachers continue to support the pension plan if they had to increase their contributions to fully fund their plan? 

The post Why Are Public Pensions Often Underfunded? appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

Advocates for Missouri’s current defined-benefit pension system argue that this type of system, where teachers are promised a generous and guaranteed pension once they retire, is needed because it increases teacher retention. Yet, there is little evidence that this type of system is a cost-effective method for increasing teacher retention. Rather, the example of these superintendents demonstrates how the system pushes out high-quality individuals. It does the same for teachers (teachers and superintendents are in the same pension system). When teachers hit 30 or 31 years, regardless of their quality or their desire to continue teaching, the financial incentive of the pension pushes them out.

Recently, Gov. Parson asked school superintendents to come up with a plan to increase teacher pay. One solution, which I have little hope will ever be recommended by the superintendents, is to change how we compensate teachers. A pension is basically a form of delayed compensation. We require teachers and their districts to contribute 14.5% of their salary to the pension system (the numbers are different in St. Louis City and Kanas City). That’s 29% of a teacher’s salary that is going into a pool that they may have access to if they make it to retirement.

We could give teachers in Missouri a 10% raise next year, with minimal cost to the state, if we just change this system.

Currently, teachers in the Public School Retirement System (PSRS) do not contribute to Social Security. The pension system is their only required retirement savings. In this proposed scenario, the teacher would receive a 10 percent raise on his or her salary. The teacher would begin contributing to Social Security (6.2 percent from the individual and the employer) and would be eligible for Social Security benefits. Additionally, the teacher and his or her employer could contribute a combined 5 percent of salary to a defined-contribution retirement account, such as a 401k or a cash balance plan. Of course, with a smaller raise the teacher could contribute more to retirement. 

There are numerous benefits to this proposal. First, teachers would own their retirement accounts. They would not lose any money if for some reason they do not vest at five years. They could also continue to work past 31 years and their accounts would not lose value. Teachers could also choose to invest more in their account, as many do now in 403b accounts.

The biggest benefit is that teachers would have higher salaries today. If we want to keep our best teachers and superintendents, higher salaries are a much more effective tool than outdated pension systems.

The post We Could Give Teachers a Ten Percent Raise Next Year appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

Dear Missouri teachers and all Missouri citizens:

As a Missouri public-school employee, I don’t pay into Social Security; I pay into the Public School Retirement System (PSRS) pension—to the tune of 13-15% of my salary.

The Missouri pension system for public employees REPLACES Social Security (i.e., I will never get Social Security or my spouse’s SS); that’s why the word “pension” misleads a lot of people.

We don’t get both.

Last month, a Missouri state representative from Nixa, MO, introduced a bill to change the current funding structure for teacher pensions to a defined contribution rather than a defined benefit plan, claiming that taxpayers might need to pay for any shortfalls in future years should the funds not be adequate. THIS IS NOT CORRECT.

Missouri’s PSRS has long been admired nation-wide as one of the MOST SOLVENT pension plans IN THE NATION.

We (teachers) are not the enemy; we are not the problem. Missouri’s financial problems should not be balanced on the backs of teachers who have paid into the system for their entire careers. The Missouri government set the rules. We have followed them. They have not. Now, they want to blame teachers for the State’s money woes, and steal from teachers’ retirement again!

Please call your state reps to support teacher-retirement funding and not changing it!

PLEASE.

Claim 1: “I pay into Public School Retirement System (PSRS) pension— to the tune of 13-15% of my salary.”

MOSTLY TRUE

Since 2012, Missouri teachers have paid 14.5 percent of their salary into the public school retirement system. This is matched by another 14.5 percent from the employer. It rose steeply from around 10 percent in the early 2000s in an effort to address unfunded liabilities (See Figure 3 here).

Claim 2: “The Missouri pension system for public employees REPLACES Social Security (i.e., I will never get Social Security or my spouse’s SS); that’s why the word “pension” misleads a lot of people.”

MIX OF TRUE AND FALSE

Missouri teachers do not pay into Social Security, but they may still be eligible for a benefit. According to the PSRS website, teachers “may qualify for Social Security benefits if you have 40 units (10 years) of Social Security-covered employment. You may also be eligible for benefits from Social Security through your spouse or ex-spouse (living or deceased).”

Claim 3: “Last month, a Missouri state representative from Nixa, MO, introduced a bill to change the current funding structure for teacher pensions to a defined contribution rather than a defined benefit plan…”

FALSE

House Bill 864 does not change the structure of current defined-benefit pension system for anyone in the system. In fact, it sets the current PSRS system as the default option for all incoming teachers. It would simply allow teachers the option of choosing a defined-contribution (DC) plan if they want to. Teachers who opt into the DC plan could chose to contribute between 3 and 50 percent of their salary into their own individual retirement account. The school district would be required to contribute 5 percent. If teachers wanted to stay with their traditional plan, they could. HB 864 would just give them more options.

This is a very important point that is worth repeating. The current bill, which has not even been referred to a committee and has virtually no chance of passing, would not change anything for anyone unless the individual teacher chose to opt into the DC plan. (To find out why some teachers might choose a DC plan, click here.) Florida has a DC option and roughly a quarter of teachers choose this plan.

Claim 4: “Missouri’s PSRS has long been admired nation-wide as one of the MOST SOLVENT pension plans IN THE NATION.”

MIX OF TRUE AND FALSE

Yes, it is true that PSRS is rated as one of the best funded pension systems in the nation. According to PSRS, PSRS was 84 percent funded as of June 30, 2018. This amounts to over $7.4 billion in unfunded liabilities. According to an analysis by Rebecca Sielman, an actuary at Milliman, this puts PSRS in the top quarter in terms of funded ratios among the 100 largest U.S. pension plans. This fact, however, says more about the sad state of other systems.

It should be noted that these comparisons are slightly suspect as they are based on plan reporting, and plans use very different assumptions. In determining that PSRS is 84 percent funded, the plan uses a high assumed discount rate of 7.75 percent to calculate liabilities. The median discount rate was 7.5 percent. That difference may not sound like much, but when you are talking about compound interest on billions of dollars, it adds up quickly. As Sielman writes, “A relatively small change in the discount rate can have a significant impact on the Total Pension Liability.”    

In an analysis for the Show-Me Institute, economist Andrew Biggs shows that if PSRS used a Corporate Bond Yield rate of 4.26 percent, the plan would be 52 percent funded and would have over $27.7 billion in unfunded liabilities.

It’s important to understand that not all of the money that is contributed to a teacher’s pension actually ends up funding the pension. Teachers contribute 14.5 percent of their pay into the pension, and their employer adds an equivalent amount, so the amount that goes into the pension is equal to 29 percent of the teacher’s salary. Only 17.44 percent is required, according to plan actuaries, to pay for the teacher’s retirement benefits. This means nearly two-fifths of the contributions are used to pay for unfunded liabilities (see p. 106 here).

Claim 5: “Missouri’s financial problems should not be balanced on the backs of teachers who have paid into the system for their entire careers. The Missouri government set the rules. We have followed them. They have not. Now, they want to blame teachers for the State’s money woes, and steal from teachers’ retirement again!”

COMPLETE NONSENSE

Ok there isn’t really a claim here, but there is a completely nonsensical assertion that this bill would somehow take money away. A version of this myth has been repeated numerous times—they want to take our pension money to pay for roads is a popular one. This bill (and every other pension reform bill that I have ever seen in Missouri) would not touch teacher contributions to the system. There is absolutely no mechanism for the state to take that money.

CONCLUSION

Teachers who spread viral posts with completely inaccurate information do not reflect well on their profession. Why are you trying to scare your colleagues? And have you thought of the unintended consequences?

My advice, teacher to teacher, is the next time you see a viral post like the one above and feel compelled to do something, consider this: read the actual bill, think critically, and do not blindly share hyperbolic posts filled with factual errors.

The post Viral Facebook Post about Missouri Teacher Pension Bill Is Filled with Falsehoods appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

Not so in the public sector, where 84 percent of employees can still expect to retire at a relatively early age (55 or so) and get a paycheck (and possibly health insurance) until they die. A bill to allow Missouri public school teachers to decide for themselves whether they wanted a traditional pension or a 401(k) type retirement benefit was filed in Jefferson City last week and immediately attacked by both the Missouri State Teachers Association (the teachers union) and the Missouri Retired Teachers Association.

These two associations claim their main mission is advancing the best interests of teachers. But which teachers? It’s estimated that nearly 4 in 10 Missouri teachers won’t get to the five-year vesting requirement to receive any employer benefits. Furthermore, because Missouri’s system is so backloaded that teachers have to stay in the system for 26 years just to break even, only about 38 percent will even hit that point.

So the Missouri teachers union and the retired teachers association are sounding the alarm about “harmful retirement legislation” being filed. But they apparently are not considering the best interests of young teachers who would prefer contributing 5 percent of their salary towards retirement instead of nearly 15 percent. They apparently are not considering anyone who leaves before vesting and would like to take with them what their employer has been contributing on their behalf for 3 or 4 years. And they apparently are not considering teachers who leave before their breakeven point and end up getting less in retirement than what they contributed.

Defined benefit pension plans are expensive, unsustainable, and antiquated. Yes, they work great for teachers who hit the “Rule of 80”—years of work, plus age (retire at 53 with 27 years of service). What are the chances that our best and brightest college graduates see that as their future? Shouldn’t we at least give them some options? Shouldn’t we let them have some control over their careers and earnings?

The post Support for Teachers? Or Just Some Teachers? appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

Learn more about pension reform at showmeinstitute.org

The post Ask An Economist: Can a Strong Market Fix Missouri’s Pension Crisis? appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

Missouri’s largest teacher pension fund, the Public School Retirement System (PSRS), has already begun to recognize the improved mortality rates of teachers. A PSRS report on contribution rates for 2017-2018 notes that the system has already begun updating the plan’s mortality assumptions:

People are living longer. Mortality is improving, not just in Missouri, but also across the nation. As a result, actuaries are utilizing updated mortality tables, which reflect this trend. PSRS/PEERS conducted Actuarial Experience Studies to compare our actuarial assumptions to the actual experience of the Systems. In other words, are members living as long as we assumed they would, or are they actually living longer?

According to the internal PSRS analysis, people are living longer than the plan had assumed. Adjusting for greater longevity led to a tremendous increase in the plan’s liabilities. According to PSRS board chairman Aaron Zalis, “the revised mortality assumptions better reflect PSRS/PEERS’ actual experience, which results in an increase of over $2.1 billion in liabilities to the Systems.”

Teachers in PSRS are eligible to retire with full benefits after 30 years of service, and there are also early retirement options. This means a teacher may retire by 55 with 30 years of service. Given the new mortality tables from the SOA, a large subset of teachers might be expected to live beyond 90 years old, drawing a pension for 35 years or more.

It is unclear if the SOA’s updated mortality tables for teachers will encourage PSRS or Missouri’s other two pension plans to once again change their assumptions. If they do, we can assume the financial health of the plans will decline.

Let’s process what that means for a second. Some teachers in the past did not put enough into the retirement system to cover their own benefits. As a result, the pension plan will become increasingly underfunded. To make up for this, the plan will have to increase contributions for new members, hold down retirement benefits for retirees, or seek higher returns on investments (Read: “risky investments”). None of this is good for teachers of today or tomorrow.

So teachers, keep this in mind when you sign that contract. You are agreeing to fund the benefits of those who went before you. You may be striking a bargain that you end up regretting.

The post Teachers Live Forever appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

The St. Louis Public School Retirement System (STLPSRS) has its own problems—it was just 64 percent funded in 2016, with 5,000 current teachers supporting 4,600 retirees. Teachers have been contributing 5 percent of payroll, with St. Louis Public Schools (SLPS) and charter schools making up the rest of what the annual actuarial analysis determines is necessary to keep it funded at least 70 percent. As a result, the bill for SLPS and the charter schools has climbed to over 15 percent and, in 2018, the actuarial analysis determined it needed to be 19 percent. However, difficulty keeping up with increasing costs led SLPS to request that the Missouri state legislature cap their contribution rate at 16 percent. In addition, teacher contributions would climb by one-half percent each year until they reach 9 percent (new teachers in fall 2018 will immediately begin paying 9 percent). According to STLPSRS, that would leave them with a $192 million shortfall within 15 years, so they’re suing SPLS and the St. Louis charter schools.

Economic conditions, unaffordable benefit promises, and an unwillingness to use realistic investment return assumptions have resulted in precarious fund positions, lawsuits, and attempts to balance the books on the back of the youngest workers. Does it have to be this way? No. Many states are moving away from defined-benefit plans (pensions) and toward defined-contribution plans [like 401(k), cash-balance, or hybrid plans]. In some cases, all new employees are placed in the new plans; in others, they can choose between the state defined-benefit plan or the new options.

We’re also seeing teacher retirement benefit innovation from within public education. In 19 states, charter schools may choose whether or not to participate in their states’ pension plans. A recent analysis of charter school participation in five states that make participation optional found that the schools most likely to opt out of the state plan are urban, elementary schools, and those that are managed by charter networks. Most of the opt-out charter schools offer their teachers 401(k) or 403(b) plans, and the teachers are vested in less than one year. The reasons given for choosing this path were mostly that the schools wanted to lower their estimated costs, give teachers a wider range of investment options, and make their teacher benefits more portable. For today’s youngest teachers, this is an important point. Most of them will not meet a vesting period of ten years in one state and, when that happens, they lose the amount that their employer contributed for them.

The good news for teachers and taxpayers is that there is time to protect current and future retirees before the system is bankrupt. The building isn’t on fire yet. However, those of us who pay close attention to this complicated topic are starting to see smoke under the door. It’s time to start talking about how to stabilize Missouri’s teacher pension systems.

The post A Retirement House of Cards appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

Consider the costs to taxpayers. As of 2018, the plan has assets equal to less than 70 percent of their liabilities and—just to maintain that level of funding—the Missouri state government will have to contribute nearly 20 percent of its total employee payroll to the plan this year. In addition, employees hired after 2011 contribute 4 percent of their paychecks to the system. Imagine a private-sector benefit that cost nearly one-quarter of employee salaries but was considered so sacrosanct as so be untouchable. The hard truth is that we’re going to have to start talking about policy changes aimed at averting a funding crisis. Biggs’s essay explores various options, including grandfathering current plan participants and designing a new system for future employees.

Of course, MOSERS is just one of many public pension plans in the state. The pension systems for teachers aren’t any better.  Teachers argue that they work for low salaries and, in exchange for their sacrifice, they are “taken care of” with generous retirement benefits. But that is only true for those teachers who start their teaching career right out of college and work in the same state for at least twenty-five years. In fact, an analysis of the Missouri Public Schools Retirement System (PSRS)—the plan that covers all Missouri teachers other than those in Kansas City or St. Louis—found that a teacher in the Springfield district would have to work for 26 years in order to hit the “crossover” point at which their total retirement benefit is worth more than what they contributed.

Imagine that! Working for 26 years before your retirement plan is worth more than you put in.

While the PSRS is in better financial health than MOSERS, total annual contributions to the plan are 29 percent of payroll (with 14.5 percent coming from the teacher and 14.5 percent from the school district). This is only likely to get higher because there are now 78,000 teachers (active members) supporting 60,000 retired teachers. In 2000, roughly the same number of active teachers supported just 25,000 retirees. In addition, while the plan is currently nearly 84 percent funded, it has an unfunded liability of more than $7 billion and its administrators continue to assume that the plan will earn a 7.6 percent return on its investments every year, indefinitely. You don’t have to be a math teacher to know those numbers just don’t add up.

The post Public Employee Pensions: Time to Get Our Heads Out of the Sand appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

According to a 2017 asset/liability analysis commissioned by KCPSRS, the system only has enough money in the bank to pay 64 percent of what it owes to current and future retirees. We’ve written about this problem before, but it’s worth repeating. The fund needs to earn at least 5 percent per year, every year, for the next 20 years, or they’ll be out of money. That’s right—no money left in the fund. (For reference, between 1998 and 2018 the annualized Dow-Jones Industrial Average inflation-adjusted return was 5.528 percent.) Not surprisingly, the KCPSRS has requested increases to the school contribution rate over the next few years from the state legislature. So, Kansas City Public Schools and Kansas City charter schools will have to take another chunk of their revenue out of the classroom to send to KCPSRS.

STLPSRS was also just 64 percent funded (see p. 11) in 2016 and has almost as many retirees as active teachers. An annual analysis by actuaries determines how much SLPS and the St. Louis charter schools have to contribute to the fund each year. However, difficulty keeping up with increasing costs led SLPS to request that the state legislature cap their contribution rate at 16 percent, and they did. Unfortunately, STLPSRS looked at how that cap would affect the fund and determined that it would leave them with a $192 million shortfall within 15 years, so they’re suing SLPS and the St. Louis charter schools.

Economic conditions, unaffordable benefit promises, and an unwillingness to use realistic investment return assumptions have resulted in shaky fund positions, lawsuits, and balancing the books on the back of the youngest workers. What’s worse is that in 2017, the average pension payment took about $1,200 per student out of the classroom.

Does it have to be this way? No. We’re actually seeing teacher retirement benefit innovation from within public education. In 19 states, charter schools may choose to participate in their state’s pension plans or not. A recent analysis of charter school participation in five states found that the schools most likely to opt out of the state plan are urban schools, elementary schools, and those that are managed by charter networks. And new schools in high-cost states like California are much less likely to join than they were just five years ago.

Most of the opt-out charter schools offer their teachers 401k or 403b plans in which the teachers are vested in less than one year. The reasons given for choosing this path include wanting to lower their estimated costs, giving teachers a wider range of investment options, and making their benefits more portable.

For today’s youngest teachers, this is an important point. Most of them will not meet a vesting period of ten years in one state, which means they will lose the amount that their employer contributed for them. Even if they stay, Missouri teachers have to work for 26 years before their contributions are higher than their expected benefit. When you take nearly 10 percent off the top of a teacher’s salary, plus another 6 percent for Social Security, you have to wonder why anyone would want to be a public school teacher in Kansas City or St. Louis.

The post Innovation Brings Hope for Teacher Pensions appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

The words are complicated and confusing. But two years ago, Beau Barnes, a KTRS lawyer, summed it up this way, “It’s a 100 percent certainty that if we don’t do something very soon, this problem continues to get much, much worse very quickly.”

What this means is that, as in so many states, Kentucky’s teacher retirement plan is in a hole that is only getting deeper. It is time to stop digging, and it appears they’re trying to do so. If Governor Bevin signs SB 151, current and retired teachers will be guaranteed pension payments for every dollar that they have been promised, plus an annual cost-of-living adjustment of 1.5 percent. New teachers—only those hired for the 2019–20 school year and thereafter—will be placed in a hybrid, cash balance plan, similar to what just about everyone in the private sector has today. This will allow the state to deal with the debt the plan has accumulated without it growing.

So, why Kentucky teachers are walking out? Are they that concerned about the next year’s crop of new teachers? Or is it just that they don’t really understand the system, the seriousness of the problem, and how reform actually protects their benefits by finding a way out of the financial mess? We found a similar lack of understanding when we surveyed Missouri teachers about pensions. So, while the teacher’s unions are whipping teachers into a frenzy behind the false narrative of “they’re taking our pensions!” Kentucky parents have to scramble to make arrangements for their kids.

A word of caution for St. Louis public school teachers. The financial situation of their retirement fund isn’t much better, and the fight over how much the St. Louis Public School Retirement System (PSRS) needs and how much St. Louis Public Schools (SLPS) is willing to pay is now in the courts.

The post Do Kentucky Teachers Even Know Why They’re Protesting? appeared first on Show-Me Institute.