Join the Movement!

You are here

Oregon Blog

PERS 101: What is PERS and why do parents need to know about it?

+Share

Public Employee Retirement System (PERS) is the retirement fund for the employees of state and local agencies like schools, police, and government workers. It’s how the State of Oregon pays retirement benefits, or pensions, to its retired workers.

Sensible modifications to PERS are one of the necessary parts to a comprehensive solution to Oregon's ongoing school funding crisis.  Revenue reforms that provide greater stability and increase overall school funding must also be part of the fix.

Why does PERS matter right now?

The amount of money that school districts must pay to PERS each year is increasing dramatically.  Less than 10% of a district’s budget used to cover PERS costs. For most districts, that number will nearly double from to 2009-2015. The main reason costs have increased is because of decisions made by the Board that manages PERS in the 1980s and 90s. Those decisions resulted in significant increases in pension payouts for certain categories of retirees—increases above what was originally agreed upon by employers and public employee unions. Continuing to pay at that increased level of benefit has now become very costly, which means we don't have enough money to pay for the services we need now—like education.

Currently, the state cannot afford to give districts all the money they need to cover their increased PERS costs. If our legislators do not address PERS costs this session, they will continue to rise at a much faster rate than revenue, even if the State of Oregon finds new sources of income.

How will PERS impact Oregon classrooms?

Since almost all of a school district’s budget is spent on teachers, the only ways a district can save money is by cutting the number of teachers it has, or the number of schools days.

That’s one reason Oregon ends up with one of the shortest school years and some of the largest class sizes in the country. Next year, we are facing the loss of thousands more teachers if we don’t control costs, and that’s why we need to find ways to lower the cost of PERS.

How can we reduce PERS costs and rescue Oregon public schools?

The PERS Board originally promised—and employee unions accepted—that a fair benefit for a retired employee was approximately 75 to 85 percent of their final salary including PERS and Social Security. This is called a replacement ratio. The actual replacement ratio for most State of Oregon retirees has ended up significantly higher, at 100 to 140 percent of final salary.  The Governor is proposing several adjustments to PERS that will sustain and protect our current services, but also attempt to treat current and retired public employees fairly.

Homework:

The Khan Academy cleverly illustrates how pension plans work in a digestible manner. Even with revenue reform, pensions will continue to eat up our schools’ budgets, and teacher cuts will loom every year into the foreseeable future. Here’s why. 

Up next:

Next Wednesday, Stand for Children will host a webinar to help our members get smart on PERS and its impact on school funding. You must be a member to attend this webinar. If you are not a member, please join here. If you are unsure about your membership status, call (503) 308-7292 or email membership@stand.org. Register for the webinar online.

Updated 3/6/2013:

 

RESources:

PERS: By the Numbers: Oregon PERS Board, February 2013
The Oregon PERS Challenge: ECONorthwest, February 2013
Oregon PERS: Burdened by the Past, Poised for the Future: City Club of Portland, May 2011

Comments

The Khan Academy videos on the pension topic are wonderful in their clarity and so easy to digest. Thank you for including them.
PERS pensions ARE fully subject to both State and Federal income taxes.
PERS pensions are most definitely subject to federal and Oregon state taxes. Please do your homework.
The statements made about PERS are full of errors. PERS is not a simple system and there are many myths and misunderstanding that have been repeated so often some think they are fact. I invite you and others to find out more and please do not believe what is offered here about PERS.
The assertion that PERS pensions are not subject to income tax is WRONG, WRONG, WRONG!!!! I am an Oregon Licensed Tax Preparer so I know Tax Law, especially as it applies to Oregon. When you make such a blatantly incorrect statement about one easily checked "fact" it makes one question whether your other assertions of "facts" about PERS are equally dubious. It certainly undermines the credibility of the entire post.
That are two blatant lies in this report. First, all Oregon PERS retiree living in Oregon pay the full state and federal income tax on their PERS benefits. Second, the 100-140% of final average salary canard is not supported by any ( zero) data. The figure ranges closer to 10-15% of all PERS retirees receive such benefits and that overall percentage continues to decline annually since 2003. It is about 5% of most recent retirements. Moreover, those cases involve one of three groups - members with > 30 years of service, members who risked a high % of their contributions in the variable, which offers no guaranteed rate of return, or members who left their $$ on deposit after vesting but left employment after 10 or fewer years in the '80s. If you can get these two basic facts right, the rest of everything you write is suspect.
Lie 1: The PERS Board originally promised—and employee unions accepted—that a fair benefit for a retired employee was approximately 75 to 85 percent of their final salary including PERS and Social Security. . Lie 2: (Remember that since pensions are not subject to income tax, the replacement ratio results in more disposable income than the person had when they were working.) Lie 3: The actual replacement ratio for most State of Oregon retirees has ended up significantly higher, at 100 to 140 percent of final salary.
Pers is taxed. "Remember, get your facts right before submitting."
Re: pensions not subject to income tax???? Wow! Did I miss out on something? I'm paying both (Oregon) state and federal income taxes on my PERS pension (which, by the way is equal to about 50% of my final gross salary) and I pay income taxes on part of my Social Security income. I don't know if other states tax pensions; it seems that the U.S. government does, though. See this link from the IRS for more info: http://www.irs.gov/taxtopics/tc410.html
I am a PERS retiree and have a total of 60% replacement of my working wage. I also must pay almost $1800.00 each month for medical insurance. That leaves me with 35% to pay other bills, food and medical co-pays. So I dip into savings if I need anything not in my very tight budget .
My wife just retired from 26 years of teaching at Bellview School in Ashland and is making about a third of her final salary. I'm not sure where you are getting your 100-140% last salary, but it isn't from Cathy Murphy. Get your facts straight. I have supported Stand, but now I'm not sure. You don't seem like much of a true advocate for teachers and kids.I'm teaching at Griffin Creek in Medford and have for 26 years too, and the Trib. posted a story two weeks ago that if I teach for 30 years I can expect 74%. I'm disapointed in you and your organization that I was supporting until now. TJ.
EQUALIZE PERS! TJ, thank you for your essential comment -- and for all your years of service, and for Cathy's, as well. STAND should never bite the hand that FEEDS the brains, and FED the brains, of our students, especially when they do not even have their facts straight. Is there inequality in PERS distribution? Yes, and that doesn't seem too difficult to fix with a calculator. Administrators who received more than what they made when working, are now paying some of it back. This is right. I hope the $43K a month (at last count) PERS wad that the retired UO coach receives is not too big a lump under his pillow at night. This needs to be an EQUAL system for all. Classroom teachers are getting lumped into the whole PERS mess, being paid a smaller percentage (I'm grateful to receive 50% of my last paycheck,) and getting yelled at by STAND for taking too much of the pie. STAND stands for children, so when looking for their money holes, they best be looking at the potholes and loopholes where the money is hiding, and not to benefits that were/are a part of our salaries. Paying curriculum companies for costly, poorly done, “silver-bullet” programs, giving superintendents huge raises, hiring administrators when teachers are needed to reduce class size, and buying building improvements for meetings and office space, are just a few places that they could start looking. But that might bump the noses of our school board, or suggest that they actually think about the rubber-stamped choices that they make. The further school employees get from the classroom, the less they know about what is needed to teach children, and their salaries/benefits should reflect this. Not the other way around, as it is now. Teachers and support staff, if you’re reading this, start saving for your own retirement. It can’t hurt, and nobody can take it from you. You deserve comfort and happiness for all the love and learning that you give to our children.
My wife and I are both retired public employees. I worked for North Clackamas School District 12 for nearly 30 years. My wife worked for Clackamas Community College for about 15 years. My retirement benefit is not 100% of what I earned as you suggest. My wife's is about 25% of what she earned in salary. We were both on tier I. Both of us took a cut in wages when be accepted the positions in the public sector. Had it not been for the promise of PERS benefits, neither of us could have justified our decision to work in public employment. It is misleading to suggest all PERS retirees are draining the system with their enormous pensions, when the truth is most public employee retire with quite modest PERS incomes. Because of the 2003 legislation, my wife who retired during the "window" period, just had her small PERS check reduced. If she were a single person living on just her own income, she would qualify for public assistance. I find it difficult to believe it is folks like us who are causing the problems with education funding.
First of all, we appreciate that PERS recipients feel very strongly about this issue! We do NOT believe this argument should be about the value of contributions made by our public servants, and we are keenly aware that many people on fixed incomes are economically vulnerable. We are in favor of fixes, like a COLA adjustment, that focus on those retirees who are receiving significantly in excess of what they were promised. Second, we have corrected our error about income tax rates for retirees. Here's what we should have said: "Income taxes go down after retirement. Extra deductions are available for those over 65, taxable income decreases, and Social Security taxes end completely. Social Security benefits are partially or fully tax-free." Third, in terms of replacement ratios (which are calculate by PERS plus Social Security) here's what the PERS board said last month in "PERS by the Numbers": 'For retirees in 2009 the average replacement ratio for an employee retiring with 30 years of service was 77%, not including Social Security. When Social Security is added in, the average PERS retiree with 30 years of service has more income in retirement than while working." Finally, we return to the larger issue that the current PERS contribution rates for employers are not sustainable for school districts. The price is currently being paid by active teachers and students in crowded classrooms, and by elimination of programs our kids need. Long-term, reasonable and fair modifications to PERS are only part of the solution to our schools' revenue problems, but they are an important and necessary part of the solution.
Have you ever bothered to investigate the question of WHY PERS employer contribution rates rise? Leave out the reasons the PERS Board provides and concentrate on the bigger question of what these employers did with the savings from the 2003 reforms, which allowed the actuaries to reduce contribution levels to all time lows? Where did those long term savings disappear to? Second what happened in 2007 when the PERS Board succumbed to additional employer pressure to liquidate most of the very reserves the employers sued PERS to put in place in the City of Eugene case. Against the advice of the actuary, the Board capitulated to the whims of the employers to apply substantial reserves to buy down employer rates more. Then 2008 arrived and PERS had few reserves left in place to dampen the fall for the system, guess what? Employer rates are rising again because employers are unable to save any of the money that was recovered from members and retirees during times when their rates were kept artificially low? Why is it that the only solution to these problems is to claim members are greedy, employer rates are unsustainable and therefore members (including retirees) must have promised and reasonable benefits reduced?
I am a Tier 1 PERS member. I worked for local government in Oregon for 23 years. My projected benefit is about 52% of my final average salary, at best. And now, even that is being threatened. And what keeps the fire fueled to screw people that made the choice to serve the public? Inaccuracies like those on this webpage certainly.
In looking at all the comments about this story, it becomes apparent that this so called story is in fact someones attempt to spread lies and complete mis-information. Seeing that the comments contain the real information (TRUTH) and the story does not why not pull the story? Or at the very least why not use the label that this "story" a advertisement paid for by someone wanting spreading mis-information or from those that will do anything to keep the real truth from being told. Sad that a so called "story" that labels itself as something parents need to know is nothing less than a propaganda piece. Where is the information that parents need? Is there some part of the story that can help parents? If anyone cares to see the real numbers on PERS please use the following link: http://www.oregon.gov/PERS/docs/general_information/pers_by_the_numbers_2_12.pdf The truth on PERS has always been available to the general public. It has always been called "PERS; By The Numbers"
You've chosen to analyze only 30 year employees, which are very rare breed (about 9% of all retirees. A better look at the replacement ratio would be to examine all retirees. This is straight from Page 4 of PERS By The Numbers:  For all retirees from 1990-2011, the average annual retirement benefit equaled 54% of final salary at the time of retirement  For 2011 retirees, the average annual retirement benefit equaled 50% of final salary **** So 50% from PERS and 22% from Social Security (current average), brings you to 72% replacement ratio. Please try to be honest in your arguments.
Your information on PERS is so full of errors, distortions, and inflammatory misstatements that it is pathetic. Who did the research and where did you come up with this data? Your blog is patently biased and unfair and I thought that Stand was better than this. I am embarrassed to be a member.
Thanks for your comment Steve. As a member of Stand, please join us for the webinar on PERS with presenters John Tapogna and Tim Nesbitt. You'll have the chance to ask them both questions. Stand believes that Tim Nesbitt has fair and balanced ideas for reform, that keep our kids in mind. (http://www.oregonlive.com/opinion/index.ssf/2013/03/tim_nesbitt_pers_reform_is_a_j.html#incart_river). The bottom line is that the system is not working for children in school today - they are the ones paying for these steeply rising PERS costs, with large class sizes and fewer programs. Please consider joining in the conversation for bringing about meaningful change.
It looks like you have run into a problem with your misinformation campaign. More people are smarter than you thought.
mcardwell, you can keep saying the same thing over and over, but that doesn't make it true. You are welcome to your opinion, but don't present it as facts. It is quite sad when a "grassroots" organization like Stand ignores the feedback it has been receiving from its members on this issue and instead presents an opinion piece full of factual errors in the guise of an educational "PERS 101" piece. Stand does not have anything to teach on this topic and instead should do the listening and the learning. It's ironic for an organization that advocates for more money for more and better schools and teachers to actually now advocate to take away the retirement savings of the public school teachers they supposedly advocate for. Retirements benefits are part of total compensation. Does Stand really think public school teachers have been and continue to be overcompensated for their work? What message is Stand sending to the next generation of teachers? The supposed PERS reform is nothing more than taking away the contractually-obligated retirement benefits of the working class to pay for the education and social services of the working class. This is false choice the wealthy elite want the working class to grapple with. Stand is apparently more than willing to comply and the wealthy elite are more than glad to have Stand do their dirty work. It's not that long ago that Jonah Edelmen just about sunk Stand with his duplicity and obvious anti public worker and anti union messaging. It looks like that approach now permeates the Stand leadership and Board who are looking to finish the job with their approach to PERS reform.
It is truly unfortunate that the original article went out with so much misinformation. I doubt any of it is intentional lying, just not enough eyes on and then pressure to put something out quickly. Not excuseable, but just like anything one reads, the source must always be considered as true unbias rarely exists. Many seem in danger of tossing out the baby with the bathwater, as the adage goes. Let's hope most people do more than read one article before taking a final stance on any issue, particularly if it is an emotionally charged topic. I don't think even members take it hook, line and sinker if they are thinking people.
I believe the false statements are intentional because there has been an adamant refusal to correct or even moderate them-except for the tax statement which was a blatant lie. The other reasons I believe this are that no research appears to have been done because the facts are so readily available, and the quote in the response that was attributed to the PERS board actually came from the City Club report. This article is political propaganda and an example of the end-justifies-the-means thinking which is poisoning our society. A group that presents itself as an advocate for children should follow a higher ethical standard. I now believe that the negative press about this organization is in fact the truth.