Advanced Search
MyIDEAS: Login to save this paper or follow this series

Are pensions worth the cost?

Contents:

Author Info

  • Alicia H. Munnell

Abstract

The U.S. Treasury estimates that personal income tax receipts in fiscal 1992 would be $51 billion higher without the special provisions accorded employer-sponsored pension plans. Pension provisions, in fact, were the single largest item in the tax expenditure budget. Like most other tax expenditures, and unlike direct expenditures, the revenue loss from favorable tax provisions for employer-sponsored plans is not submitted to a formal and systematic review each year by Congress. Therefore, the question of whether taxpayers are getting their money’s worth from this very large implicit outlay should be addressed periodically. ; To that end, this paper first takes a closer look at the tax expenditure for employer-sponsored pensions--a number that has been the subject of considerable controversy. After establishing that the forgone revenues are substantial no matter how they are estimated, the following sections explore whether the expenditures produce the desired results. Section II addresses the saving issue and concludes that support for employer-sponsored pension plans should not rest on the assumption that they increase national saving. ; The last three sections assess the effectiveness of pensions as a provider of supplementary retirement income. They discuss three serious weaknesses with the current system. Section III focuses on the coverage problem; only 46 percent of the private work force is currently covered and coverage continues to decline. Section IV explores the erosion in the value of benefits experienced by mobile employees under defined benefit plans. Section V addresses the lack of cost-of-living adjustments to annuity payments to retired employees, under either defined benefit or defined contribution plans. ; The conclusion that emerges from this review is that despite a myriad of legislative changes, all of which combine to increase the likelihood that persons covered by pension plans will actually receive benefits, the U.S. pension system is still a very erratic and unpredictable way to provide retirement income and it benefits only a privileged subset of the population. In short, the $51 billion is not well spent. If the government is going to use taxpayers’ money to subsidize supplementary retirement income, it should do so in a fashion whereby all citizens enjoy the subsidy. If this seems unrealistic in the current environment, the alternative is to recoup the subsidy. One way to accomplish this goal would be simply to levy an annual tax of roughly 2.5 percent on the stock of pension assets; of course, numerous other approaches are possible. The important message is that it is time to explore the alternatives for revising the tax treatment of employer-sponsored pension plans.

Download Info

If you experience problems downloading a file, check if you have the proper application to view it first. 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.
File URL: http://www.bostonfed.org/economic/wp/wp1991/wp91_2.pdf
Download Restriction: no

Bibliographic Info

Paper provided by Federal Reserve Bank of Boston in its series Working Papers with number 91-2.

as in new window
Length:
Date of creation: 1991
Date of revision:
Publication status: Published in National Tax Journal, May 9 - 10, 1991 XLIV, no. 3 (September 1991): 393-403.
Handle: RePEc:fip:fedbwp:91-2

Contact details of provider:
Postal: 600 Atlantic Avenue, Boston, Massachusetts 02210
Phone: 617-973-3397
Fax: 617-973-4221
Email:
Web page: http://www.bos.frb.org/
More information through EDIRC

Order Information:
Email:

Related research

Keywords: Pensions;

Other versions of this item:

References

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.:
as in new window
  1. Alicia H. Munnell & Joseph B. Grolnic, 1986. "Should the U.S. government issue index bonds?," New England Economic Review, Federal Reserve Bank of Boston, issue Sep, pages 3-21.
  2. Alicia H. Munnell & Frederick O. Yohn, 1991. "What is the impact of pensions on saving?," Working Papers 91-5, Federal Reserve Bank of Boston.
Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

Citations

Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
as in new window

Cited by:
  1. Gerard Hughes, 2002. "Private Pensions and Equity in Ireland and the U.K," Papers WP142, Economic and Social Research Institute (ESRI).
  2. Callan, Tim & van de Ven, Justin & Keane, Claire & O'Connell, Philip J., 2012. "A Framework for Pension Policy Analysis in Ireland: PENMOD, a Dynamic Simulation Model," Book Chapters, in: Callan, Tim (ed.), Analysing Pensions: Modelling and Policy Issues, pages 43-101 Economic and Social Research Institute (ESRI).
  3. Callan, Tim & O'Connell, Philip J., 2012. "Analysing Pensions: Modelling and Policy Issues," Research Series, Economic and Social Research Institute (ESRI), number RS29, September.
  4. Geoffrey M. B. Tootell, 1996. "Can studies of application denials and mortgage defaults uncover taste-based discrimination?," Working Papers 96-10, Federal Reserve Bank of Boston.
  5. Gerard Hughes, 2001. "The Cost and Distribution of Tax Expenditure on Occupational Pensions in Ireland," Papers WP139, Economic and Social Research Institute (ESRI).

Lists

This item is not listed on Wikipedia, on a reading list or among the top items on IDEAS.

Statistics

Access and download statistics

Corrections

When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:fip:fedbwp:91-2. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: (Catherine Spozio).

If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

If references are entirely missing, you can add them using this form.

If the full references list an item that is present in RePEc, but the system did not link to it, you can help with this form.

If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.