Archive for the ‘Pensions’ Category

Unintended consequences: Measure 66 may tax your retirement savings

Monday, January 11th, 2010

The business press and investment advisers have declared this year to be the Year of the Roth IRA.

Roth IRA: “One of the best deals in retirement planning”

With a Roth IRA, virtually all income growth and withdrawals are tax-free.  Because retirees don’t pay taxes on their withdrawals, the Roth IRA has been called one of the best deals in retirement planning.

With the turn of the New Year, the income limits that have prevented many individuals from converting a traditional IRA or employer-sponsored retirement plan to a Roth have been eliminated.   The loosening of the rules is particularly well-timed for a period when workers are losing their jobs and are no longer employed with the company that holds their retirement account.

There is a catch, though.  If you convert your traditional IRA or employer-sponsored retirement plan to a Roth IRA, you must pay taxes on the converted money as if it was earned income.

Even so, the Federal government has made this part less painful in 2010. You can report the amount you convert in 2010 on your tax return for that year. Or, you can spread the amount converted equally across your 2011 and 2012 tax returns, paying any resulting tax in those years. For example, if you convert $50,000 next year and choose not to declare the conversion on your 2010 return, you must declare $25,000 on your tax return for 2011 and $25,000 on you return for 2012. The two-year option is a one-time offer for 2010 conversions.

Many Roth IRA conversions may be subject to Measure 66’s higher rates

While most of the attention on Measure 66 has been directed at the impacts on entrepreneurs and investors, the increased taxes will also affect the thousands of middle class households that are considering a Roth IRA conversion.  Oregon’s Measure 66 will make such conversions especially painful because some or all of the money that investors have saved over the years may be subject to Measure 66’s highest tax rates.

Measure 66 imposes two new tax brackets affecting 2010 income:

  • A new marginal tax rate of 10.8 percent would be levied for taxable income between $250,000 and $500,000 for joint filers and $125,000 and $250,000 for single filers.
  • A new 11 percent marginal tax bracket would be created for taxable income above $500,000 for joint filers and $250,000 for single filers.

More than 40 percent of all families in the U.S. participate in some type of employment-based retirement plan.  These plans include defined benefit (pension) plans and defined contribution plans such as a 401(k) or 403(b).  In addition, approximately 1 in 3 families has an IRA or Keogh account.

Among those with either a defined contribution plan or an IRA/Keogh account, the average account balance is $148,440.  For those age 55 and older, the average account balance is more than $250,000.  More than 1 in 10 families have account balances in excess of $500,000.

A family converting $300,000 in retirement funds would have to come up with another $900 in Oregon taxes if subject to Measure 66.  A family converting a $600,000 retirement account would have to find another $6,500 in cash to pay additional Measure 66 taxes.

As an unintended consequence, Measure 66 may deny many Oregonians the chance to participate in a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity to get into what has been called one of the best deals in retirement planning.

The Wall Street Journal provides a summary of the provisions of the Roth IRA conversion program.  The Employee Benefit Research Institute provides statistics on retirement plans and balances in the plans.

Oregon’s Public Employee Retirement System (PERS) is facing another financial crisis

Monday, November 16th, 2009

skinny-piggy-bank

Phil Keisling served as Oregon Secretary of State from 1991 to 1999 and is most famous for having championed the state’s vote-by-mail system. Now, he is turning his attention to the impending crisis in Oregon’s Public Employee Retirement System, known as PERS. His 54-page memo is called PERS in Crisis: The Sequel.

PERS impending crisis is driven by rules that mandate that PERS accounts earn at least 8 percent per year.  Even if PERS investments have double digit losses, the accounts must earn at least 8 percent. The gap between the mandated earnings and what is actually earned is filled with increased taxes and fees imposed by state and local governments or reduced spending on government programs.

The PERS crisis is well-documented.  An crisis earlier in decade prompted a set of reforms, many of which were rejected by the Oregon Supreme Court. As noted in a recent op-ed, despite efforts by some state and local governments to slow the impacts of the crisis on their own budgets, the crisis continues, even though the PERS Board touted Oregon’s system as the best funded in the country (pdf).

Some of Kieslings findings:

  • An estimated $1.5 billion of additional tax dollars will be required by state, K-12, and local government employers in 2011-13 to meet PERS-related obligations.
  • By 2013-15 PERS obligations will require $2.5 billion in new, additional money that could otherwise be used to provide government services and/or reduce taxes.
  • By early 2009, leaders and financial officials in Oregon governments were keenly aware—or should have been, based on available public documents produced by PERS, its staff, and hired experts—that PERS’ problems were going to cause significant budget pressures on state and local governments. Nonetheless, no widely visible, public debate of the enormous implications of this scenario occurred in key arenas—especially during the 2009 Oregon legislature—foreclosing the possibility of certain actions that could have been taken ameliorate the current crisis.

Op-Ed: Public Employee Retirement System will cost taxpayers

Tuesday, November 10th, 2009

Oregon PERS - A Financial Train WreckThe Oregon Public Employees Retirement System (PERS) is an impending train wreck. We can delay the wreck and we can move some passengers to the back of the train. Nevertheless, the PERS train will wreck and taxpayers are going to pay for it.

When financial markets tanked earlier this decade, governments were facing huge increases in the amounts they would have to contribute to their employee’s PERS accounts to fill the defined benefit gap. The Oregon economy was in recession and the electorate had little or no tolerance for increased taxes. In response, the state and some local governments issued pension obligation bonds.

The plan carried some risks: While it would make high returns higher, it could make low returns disastrous. At the time, the stock market was about to begin a four-year run of double digit annual returns, the housing market was taking off and interest rates were nearing record lows. These factors caused state and local governments to determine that the benefits of issuing bonds outweighed the downside risks. The governments that used the bonds have moved themselves toward the back of the train, but they nevertheless remain on the train.

Read the entire op-ed at the Statesman-Journal, or download a PDF.

Oregon’s state and local spending: 11th highest in the nation

Friday, July 11th, 2008

Eric Fruits was invited by Oregon’s Revenue Restructuring Task Force to compare Oregon’s state and local government expenditures with other states. In his presentation, Dr. Fruits reported that:

  • Oregon’s per capita state and local expenditures almost doubled between the 1998-99 fiscal year and the 2004-05 fiscal year.  The most recent data from the Census shows expenditures of $8,060 per person.
  • Oregon has the 11th highest state and local expenditures in the U.S. as a share of personal income.
  • Oregon’s state and local expenditures are $2.8 billion higher than statistically predicted by its income and demographics.  That amounts to $776 per person.
  • Oregon’s public employee pension system and insurance payments contribute to the higher spending.  Oregon’s spending on these items accounts for 12.5 percent of total state and local expenditures.  The average among all states is 8.3 percent.  Oregon’s spending on these items would be approximately $1 billion lower if it was “in line” with other states.

The most recent study, co-authored with Randall Pozdena and published by Cascade Policy Institute, is a follow-up to earlier studies published in 2002 and 2004.

Expert testimony of economic impacts of pension reforms

Wednesday, March 31st, 2004

Eric Fruits provided expert testimony to the Oregon Supreme Court regarding the economic impacts associated with reforms to the state’s public employee retirement system. In re: Consolidated PERS Litigation.