Some recent proposals to address Social Security’s financing shortfall have included an extension of coverage to the 5 million uncovered state and local workers. These proposals spark a predictable outcry from Massachusetts public employees and those in other affected states. This Issue in Brief analyzes the arguments for and against mandating Social Security coverage for newly hired state and local workers. The case against mandatory coverage centers on the issue of higher costs for state and local governments. The case for coverage rests on issues of equity and better protection for state and local workers. That is, mandatory coverage would better distribute the burden of paying for the system’s legacy debt and would improve benefits; it also would raise costs by about 6 percent of payrolls.
Download Info
To download:
If you experience problems downloading a file, check if you have the
proper application to
view it first. Information about this may be contained
in the File-Format links below. In case of further problems read
the IDEAS help
page. Note that these files are not on the IDEAS
site. Please be patient as the files may be large.
Publisher Info
Paper provided by Center for Retirement Research in its series Issues in Brief with number
ib32.
Find related papers by JEL classification: H55 - Public Economics - - National Government Expenditures and Related Policies - - - Social Security and Public Pensions J26 - Labor and Demographic Economics - - Demand and Supply of Labor - - - Retirement; Retirement Policies
This paper has been announced in the following NEP Reports:
References listed on IDEAS Please report citation or reference errors to , or , if you are the registered author of the cited work, log in to your RePEc Author Service profile, click on "citations" and make appropriate adjustments.: