Anyone working in the pension reform movement is soon confronted with arguments from defenders of the current pension system that are--to put it nicely--inconsistent with standard financial economics. I call these "public pension fallacies," and I address a long list of them in a recent paper for the Heritage Foundation.
There is, of course, a spirited and entirely legitimate debate about the best ways to pursue pension reform. But defenders of the current system argue that major reform is not needed at all, because pension benefits are somehow not nearly as generous or costly as they actually are.
Public pension fallacies are simply wrong as a matter of fact, logic, or economic theory. But they are so often repeated--in press releases, talking points, letters to the editor, debates on radio and television, think tank reports, and even actuarial statements--that many seem to have become conventional wisdom in some circles, even as finance economists roundly reject them.
The full list of fallacies is below. Please follow the link above to read concise explanations, written in laymen's terms, of why economists find these arguments so unpersuasive. I'm hoping the paper will be a particularly useful reference for journalists who are studying the pension reform issue.
Fallacy 2: The cost of a public-pension plan is equal to whatever the government contributes to the pension fund each year.
Fallacy 3: Public-pension plans can "assume away" risk because governments are long-lived.
Fallacy 4: Advocates of risk-adjusted discounting are merely a niche group of contrarian economists.
Fallacy 5: Critics of public-pension accounting assumptions are projecting low rates of return.
Fallacy 6: The investment returns earned by a pension fund pay for most pension benefits, so taxpayers are actually charged very little.
Fallacy 7: Public pensions are not overly generous because they are simply deferred compensation.
Fallacy 8: Generous pensions are necessary because some government employees do not participate in Social Security.
Fallacy 9: Closing a public pension carries major transition costs.
If The Democrats Didn’t Give ” Sweetheart Deals ” To Your Public Service Union.
Goon Employees To Get Reelected; You Would Have Plenty Of Money and The.
Taxpayer would have Some Spare Change in His Pockets! Democratic Hustler
Politicians + Corrupt Union Goons = BANKRUPTCY BABY! Time To Bring.
RICO Conspiracy Charges Against The Hustler Corrupt Democrats and the.
Criminal Unions!
The Public Pension issue is, in my opinion, not the real pension issue facing this country. The real issue is that more and more working people are heading toward their retirement age without adequate resources to maintain their standard of living. In short there is a national pension (or lack thereof) crisis on the horizon that I fear is going to turn into a social catastrophe of millions of impoverished old people. 401k's are not a viable answer for most working people - if you have any doubt about that, if you have one take a look at how it's been doing over the last decade, and think about all the hidden fees and charges that eat at the principal, including redemption fees when you get to the point where you start tapping it to fund your daily retirement living.
You have got to be kidding. You surely can't use a calculator. This is blind trust in a greatly underfunded system that will fall apart.