Tier 2 and Social Security
Safe Harbor Concerns
“Some pension experts warned as early as 2010 that the new benefit
structure was so low that it might force certain government employees to
participate in the Social Security system. In Illinois most public employees,
including teachers and public safety workers (but excluding most members of the
State Employees’ Retirement System), do not pay into Social Security. To
qualify for exemption from Social Security coverage, government workers must
receive a retirement benefit from their public pension plan that is at least
equal to the benefit they would receive under Social Security.
“The IRS has issued rules, known as safe harbors, for determining if plans meet
the minimum benefit standard. If Tier 2 benefits do not meet the safe harbor
tests, either the benefits might have to be increased or employees might have
to pay 6.2% of their salary to Social Security, matched by an equal employer
contribution.
“Unions and other Tier 2 critics are also concerned about the relatively low benefits provided to
new employees. Tier 2 members of the Teachers’ Retirement System, which covers
public school teachers outside of Chicago, pay 9% of their salary for
pension benefits, the same as Tier 1 members. However, the cost of the Tier 2 benefit in FY2019 was 7.1% of
salary, compared with 21.6% for Tier 1 benefits. As a result, Tier 2 members
paid about 1.9% of their salary to subsidize Tier 1 benefits.
Senate Bill 616’s Proposed Tier 2 Changes
“In October the
Governor’s pension consolidation task force recommended three
changes in Tier 2 benefits for downstate and suburban police and fire funds,
all of which were incorporated into Senate Bill 616. The task force report said the following
changes were intended to address concerns about the fairness of Tier 2 and to
avoid running afoul of IRS regulations:
- Surviving spouse benefit: Tier
2 eliminated pension benefits for spouses of public safety workers whose
deaths occurred before the end of the ten-year period for pension benefit
vesting and whose deaths were not duty-related. Senate Bill 616 reinstates
the Tier 1 benefit for these surviving spouses.
- Pensionable salary cap: The
Tier 2 pensionable salary cap currently increases at one-half of CPI or
3%, whichever is less. The legislation raises the formula to the lesser of
full CPI or 3%.
- Final average salary: Senate
Bill 616 restores the higher Tier 1 level based on the average of the
highest four of the last five years, instead of the average of the highest
eight of the last ten years.
“The first change,
involving benefits paid to surviving spouses, is not expected to affect many
individuals and reportedly holds great significance for first responders. The other
two changes are designed, at least in part, to address the safe harbor concerns.
“According to a legal
analysis commissioned by the Illinois Municipal League, Tier 2 does
not satisfy the safe harbor rules because the pensionable salary cap has not
increased as fast as the Social Security wage base. The Social Security wage
base is the maximum amount of salary subject to Social Security tax. The wage
base is adjusted each year by the change in the national average
wage index. The salary cap under Tier 2 and the Social Security wage base
were the same in 2011—$106,800—but the Tier 2 cap for 2019 is $114,952, while
the Social Security wage base is $132,900. That is because the average wage
index increased faster than the CPI-based formula used to calculate the Tier 2
cap.
“However, the
Municipal League’s analysis points to an alternative IRS rule for retirement
systems that do not satisfy the safe harbor rules. That provision compares the
employee’s actual accrued pension benefit with the accrued benefit under a safe
harbor formula. The police and fire funds satisfy this test because of the
relatively high multiplier of 2.5% that is applied to final average salary to
determine the pension benefit. At some point, even with the high multiplier,
Tier 2 police and fire benefits might not meet the alternative IRS standards,
but the analysis does not suggest the timing of any potential violation.
Questions about Proposed Tier
2 Changes
“As indicated by the discussion above, determining when or if
Tier 2 benefits will violate IRS rules is not simple. The analysis must
consider the pension multiplier as well as the growth in the pensionable salary
cap. Supporters of Senate Bill 616 have not as yet shown whether the proposed
changes are needed to satisfy legal requirements and, if they are needed,
whether they must be implemented immediately.
“To the extent that growth in the pensionable salary cap is an
issue, it remains to be seen whether Senate Bill 616 solves the problem. The
legislation proposes that the salary cap grow by 3% or the inflation rate,
whichever is less. This is clearly a faster rate than the current formula of
the lesser of 3% of one-half of the inflation rate, but it does not match the
national average wage index used to calculate growth in the Social Security
wage base. The difference might be accounted for by the proposed change in the
calculation of final average salary, which lowers the required multiplier under
IRS rules.
“Up to now, neither the Governor’s task force nor supporters of
Senate Bill 616 have publicly provided actuarial reviews showing the cost of
the Tier 2 changes for the affected police and fire funds. In the task force report, the cost is estimated
at $70 million to $95 million over five years, or $14 million to $19 million
per year, but there is no supporting documentation for the estimate.
“The task force also noted that these estimated costs are minor
compared to increases in investment returns projected to be earned by the
consolidated funds compared with the 649 existing police and fire funds. The
task force estimated that the consolidated funds could generate an additional
$820 million to $2.5 billion in investment returns over five years, or $164
million to $500 million per year.
“However, it should be noted that these increased returns are
not guaranteed. Any increase in actual returns will be partly due to the
consolidated funds’ ability to invest in riskier investments. State law restricts the securities that the
existing police and fire funds are allowed to hold. In addition, because the
assumed rate of return is used as the discount rate for pension liabilities, an
increase in the expected return rate by the consolidated funds would also reduce
statutorily required annual pension contributions. Senate Bill 616 requires
that contribution changes due to changes in actuarial assumptions be phased in
over three years.
“Since Tier 2 applies to nearly all pension funds across the
State, there could be a move to simply apply the same changes to all funds
statewide, also without first determining whether the changes are the minimum
necessary so as not to impose additional fiscal hardship on already struggling
governments.
“In recent years, the State has frequently rushed to enact
pension changes without actuarial evaluation and public disclosure of their
financial impact. The latest example involved pension buyouts, which were
budgeted to reduce General Funds contributions by more than $400 million in FY2019 but
ended up saving about $13 million that year. The original
savings estimate was based largely on a different buyout plan; the enacted plan
surfaced in the last days of the spring 2018 legislative session and was not
vetted by pension actuaries before being approved by lawmakers.
"The Civic Federation urges the Governor’s Office and sponsors of
Senate Bill 616 to demonstrate the need for the specific Tier 2 enhancements in
the legislation. In addition, they must ensure that the financial impact of any
proposed Tier 2 changes is fully evaluated by pension actuaries and publicly
disclosed before any action is taken by the General Assembly."
It was on May 11, 2011 when I wrote in a blog post:
ReplyDeleteTier II members are subsidizing both Tier I and Tier II benefits. In the future, when Tier II members are the significant majority in TRS, the subsidy they pay will cause a reduction in the state's annual contribution. Eventually, the state will not owe any annual contribution to TRS because the members will be paying the entire cost and school districts will be responsible for making up the difference. Furthermore, these teachers will receive a TRS pension that will be less than Social Security; thus, it will be in violation of the Safe Harbor provision of the Social Security Administration, which states that anyone who does not receive Social Security must receive a benefit equal to a Social Security benefit.
Special note: teachers do not receive Social Security; the State of Illinois saves billions of dollars by not having to pay into Social Security.