The Impact of Mandatory Coverage on State and Local Budgets

Q3 Social Sciences Social Security Bulletin Pub Date : 2014-05-01 DOI:10.2139/SSRN.2443857
A. Munnell, J. Aubry, Anek Belbase
{"title":"The Impact of Mandatory Coverage on State and Local Budgets","authors":"A. Munnell, J. Aubry, Anek Belbase","doi":"10.2139/SSRN.2443857","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"The policy option of extending mandatory Social Security coverage to newly hired uncovered state and local workers is often included in packages to eliminate the program’s financing shortfall. The arguments for mandatory coverage go beyond financial considerations, though, as extending coverage would bring benefit protections that state and local workers currently lack and would improve equity by more broadly sharing the burden of Social Security’s legacy costs. The main argument against mandatory coverage is that it would raise costs to public employers and workers. The actual cost increase depends on the extent to which employers reduce their existing pensions when adopting Social Security. This paper estimates the costs under four different integration strategies: 1) no adjustment to existing pensions; 2) match the level of the first-year benefit; 3) match the lifetime benefit; and 4) match the benefit to levels in neighboring states with Social Security coverage. This analysis is conducted for 22 state-administered plans in 13 states that were identified as lacking coverage. The results show that the cost of adding Social Security varies significantly, with the smallest increase for the “match lifetime benefit” option and the largest increase for the “no adjustment” option. Presenting the additional costs as a percent of payroll may exaggerate their burden on the employer as the increases will likely be split between employer and employee. Perhaps a better way to gauge the size of the cost increase is as a share of a state’s budget; this measure shows only a very modest impact.","PeriodicalId":39542,"journal":{"name":"Social Security Bulletin","volume":"96 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2014-05-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"9","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Social Security Bulletin","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.2139/SSRN.2443857","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"Social Sciences","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 9

Abstract

The policy option of extending mandatory Social Security coverage to newly hired uncovered state and local workers is often included in packages to eliminate the program’s financing shortfall. The arguments for mandatory coverage go beyond financial considerations, though, as extending coverage would bring benefit protections that state and local workers currently lack and would improve equity by more broadly sharing the burden of Social Security’s legacy costs. The main argument against mandatory coverage is that it would raise costs to public employers and workers. The actual cost increase depends on the extent to which employers reduce their existing pensions when adopting Social Security. This paper estimates the costs under four different integration strategies: 1) no adjustment to existing pensions; 2) match the level of the first-year benefit; 3) match the lifetime benefit; and 4) match the benefit to levels in neighboring states with Social Security coverage. This analysis is conducted for 22 state-administered plans in 13 states that were identified as lacking coverage. The results show that the cost of adding Social Security varies significantly, with the smallest increase for the “match lifetime benefit” option and the largest increase for the “no adjustment” option. Presenting the additional costs as a percent of payroll may exaggerate their burden on the employer as the increases will likely be split between employer and employee. Perhaps a better way to gauge the size of the cost increase is as a share of a state’s budget; this measure shows only a very modest impact.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
强制性保险对州和地方预算的影响
将强制性社会保障覆盖范围扩大到新雇佣的未覆盖的州和地方工人的政策选项通常包含在一揽子计划中,以消除该计划的资金短缺。然而,强制覆盖的理由不仅仅是出于经济上的考虑,因为扩大覆盖范围将带来州和地方工人目前缺乏的福利保护,并将通过更广泛地分担社会保障遗留成本的负担来提高公平性。反对强制医保的主要理由是,它会增加公共部门雇主和工人的成本。实际增加的成本取决于雇主在采用社会保障制度时减少现有养老金的程度。本文估计了四种不同整合策略下的成本:1)不调整现有养老金;2)匹配第一年的福利水平;3)匹配终身福利;4)将福利与邻近州的社会保障覆盖水平相匹配。这项分析是对13个州的22个州管理的计划进行的,这些计划被确定为缺乏覆盖。结果表明,增加社会保障的成本差异显著,“匹配终身福利”选项增加的成本最小,“不调整”选项增加的成本最大。以工资的百分比来表示额外成本可能会夸大雇主的负担,因为增加的成本可能会在雇主和雇员之间分摊。也许衡量成本增长规模的更好方法是将其作为州预算的一部分;这一措施只显示出非常有限的影响。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
Social Security Bulletin
Social Security Bulletin Social Sciences-Social Sciences (miscellaneous)
CiteScore
0.70
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
Introduction: Present Principles Industrial Life Assurance Widows', Orphans' and Old Age Pensions Finance of the Social Services National Health Insurance
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1