in Massachusetts

Fiscal Budgets Massachusetts state budget and finances Tax policy in Massachusetts Finance Financial regulation in Massachusetts Pensions Public pensions in Massachusetts Pension health in Massachusetts Civil liberties Affirmative action in Massachusetts Campaign finance requirements in Massachusetts Campaign finance requirements for Massachusetts ballot measures Nonprofit regulation in Massachusetts Education Charter schools in Massachusetts Higher education in Massachusetts Public education in Massachusetts School choice in Massachusetts Elections Ballot access Ballot access requirements for political candidates in Massachusetts Ballot access requirements for political parties in Massachusetts Political parties in Massachusetts Ballot access requirements for presidential candidates in Massachusetts Redistricting in Massachusetts Voting in Massachusetts Energy and Environment Energy policy in Massachusetts Fracking in Massachusetts Oil and gas extraction on federal land in Massachusetts Endangered species in Massachusetts Environmental policy in Massachusetts Healthcare Healthcare policy in Massachusetts Medicaid spending in Massachusetts Effect of the Affordable Care Act in Massachusetts Immigration Immigration in Massachusetts

This article does not contain the most recently published data on this subject. If you would like to help our coverage grow, consider donating to Ballotpedia.

The historical Massachusetts pension information below applies to prior calendar years. The tabs below may contain information from several different fiscal years; for example, the tab labeled "As published 2015" contains information from fiscal years 2013 and 2012 (the most recent data available at the time of initial publication). For more current information regarding Massachusetts' pension system, click here.

As published 2016[edit]

Massachusetts information (2015)

Total contributions: $5,129,721,000

Employee contributions: $1,968,873,000

Government contributions: $3,160,848,000

Total payments: $7,217,066,000

Total cash and investment holdings: $74,458,401,000

Number of state and local pension systems: 14

Active membership: 314,756

Inactive membership: 104,961

Key terms

Actuarial value of assets (AVA) • Unfunded actuarial accrued liability (UAAL) • Annual required contribution (ARC) • Discount rate • Funded ratio • Rate of return • Active member • Inactive member • OPEB

Hover over the above terms for definitions.

Note: This page utilizes information from a variety of sources. The information presented on this page reflects the most recent data available as of August 2016.

Massachusetts public pensions are the state mechanism by which state and many local government employees in Massachusetts receive retirement benefits.

According to the United States Census Bureau, there were 14 public pension systems in Massachusetts as of 2015. Of these, 14 were state-level programs, while data for local systems were unavailable. As of fiscal year 2015, membership in Massachusetts' various pension systems totaled 419,717. Of these, 314,756 were active members.^[1]

According to a 2013 report by Morningstar, an independent financial research group, most states' pension plans continued to be funded below the 80 percent level considered necessary for a healthy fund. Decreased funding and increasing liabilities since the 2008 recession continued to put pressure on local and state budgets, in some cases leading to bankruptcy. Higher pension costs can have the following consequences:^[2]

• higher taxes
• less intergovernmental aid for services
• lower credit ratings
• higher interest rates on state borrowing

State pension systems can vary in their organization, management, and accounting principles, making them difficult to compare. The basic information on this page comes from the U.S. Census Bureau, as reported by the states and pension funds themselves for fiscal year 2015.

General information[edit]

See also: Pension data, U.S. Census

According to the U.S. Census Bureau, Massachusetts had 14 state pension plans as of 2015:^[3]

1. Massachusetts Port Authority Employees Retirement System
2. Massachusetts Teachers Retirement Board
3. Massachusetts Water Resources Authority Employees Retirement System
4. Massachusetts Housing Finance Agency Employees Retirement System
5. Massachusetts State Employee Retirement System
6. Massachusetts Bay Transportation Authority
7. Massachusetts Police Association Pension Plan
8. Franklin Regional Retirement System
9. Middlesex Regional Retirement System
10. Hampden Regional Retirement System
11. Hampshire Regional Retirement System
12. Essex Regional Retirement System
13. Worcester Regional Retirement System
14. Berkshire Regional Retirement System

Data were unavailable for locally administered systems.^[1]

The table below provides general pension system information for Massachusetts and surrounding states.

Contributions[edit]

See also: Pension contribution and payment data, U.S. Census

Pension contributions are the funds paid into pension systems. These contributions come from the employer (in the case of public pensions, the government) and employees. Investment earnings are the main source of increases in the fund and are listed separately in the rightmost column in the below table.

In fiscal year 2015, the most recent year for which information is available, total contributions of $5.1 billion were made to Massachusetts' state and local pension systems. Of this amount, approximately $2.0 billion came from employees. The remainder came from state and local governments. The table below provides information about pension contributions in Massachusetts and surrounding states in fiscal year 2015.^[1]

Payments[edit]

See also: Pension contribution and payment data, U.S. Census

Payments are the amounts paid to pension recipients by their pension plans. Pension payments include benefits and withdrawals. Benefits are the regular payments made by a pension plan to the plan's recipients. Pension beneficiaries may also withdraw funds before they are due to receive regular benefits.

In fiscal year 2015, Massachusetts' state and local pension systems made payments totaling $7.2 billion. The table below provides pension payment information for Massachusetts and surrounding states in fiscal year 2015. The columns labeled "Benefits," "Withdrawals," and "Other" are subsets of total payments. All dollar amounts displayed should be multiplied by 1,000 ($240,000 is equal to $240,000,000).^[1]

Other post-employment benefits[edit]

See also: Other post-employment benefits, data

In addition to standard pension payments, some plans may offer pensioners additional benefits. These benefits, sometimes referred to as "other post-employment benefits," or "OPEBs," consist of health insurance, life insurance or other benefits that the pensioner may have received while employed. The cost of these benefits can prove complicated for actuaries to calculate because of the changes in fields like medicine. This, coupled with the normal challenges in calculating and meeting pension requirements, can result in funding shortages for pension plans.

Unfunded liabilities totaled nearly $500 billion throughout the country for OPEBs. Massachusetts was reported to have about $15.4 billion in unfunded liabilities for OPEBs. This was equal to about 3.09 percent of the country's total unfunded liabilities for these other services.

The chart below displays the unfunded liabilities for Massachusetts and its surrounding states. All dollar amounts displayed should be multiplied by 1,000,000. For instance, $300 translates to $300,000,000.

Cash and investment holdings[edit]

See also: Pension data, U.S. Census

Investments are a crucial part of the pension process. The goal is that, by investing pension contributions, the pensioner will receive more money when he or she retires than he or she and the employer were able to contribute. These investments can come in the form of cash investments, short-term investments, securities, or other investments. Cash investments are usually low-risk, short-term investments that have a lower rate of return than other types of investments. Other short-term investments are riskier than cash investments, but have the potential for greater returns. Securities can refer to stocks, bonds, or other types of financial certificates that hold some sort of financial value. As the values of these securities change, they can be traded to make a profit. While there are other applications of securities investments, this represents one of the most common practices.^[4][5][6]

As of fiscal year 2015, Massachusetts' state and local pension systems held $74.5 billion in total cash and investment holdings. The table below summarizes pension system cash and investment holdings for Massachusetts and surrounding states. The columns labeled "Total cash and short-term investments," "Total securities," and "Total other investments" are subsets of the grand total. All dollar amounts displayed should be multiplied by 1,000 ($240,000 is equal to $240,000,000).^[1]

Pension fund management fees[edit]

See also: Public pension fund management fees

In July 2013, the Maryland Public Policy Institute (MPPI) and the Maryland Tax Education Foundation released a report detailing the fees paid for the management of state pension systems. According to MPPI, the 10 state pension funds that paid the most in management fees relative to net assets experienced lower returns over a five-year period than the 10 state pension funds that paid the least in management fees. For example, in fiscal year 2012, South Carolina's pension system paid approximately $296.1 million in total management fees (1.31 percent of total net assets at the beginning of the fiscal year) and its five-year rate of return was 1.46 percent. By contrast, Alabama's pension system paid roughly $13.3 million in management fees (0.05 percent of total net assets) and its five-year rate of return was 7.53 percent.^[7]

The table below presents the information collected by MPPI for Massachusetts and surrounding states. For each state's pension system, total net assets are listed (both for the beginning and end of the fiscal year in question), as well as the total amount paid in management fees. In addition, the rates of return for the pension systems are presented. Compared to surrounding states, Massachusetts had much higher total net assets and total management fees.

As published 2015[edit]

Public pensions in Massachusetts

General information (2013)

Total contributions: $4,798,875,000

Employee contributions: $1,898,451,000

Government contributions: $2,900,424,000

Total payments: $6,500,305,000

Total cash and investment holdings: $64,984,732,000

Number of state and local pension systems: 100 (14 state systems, 86 local systems)

Active membership: 308,704

Inactive membership: 61,873

Pension health (2012)

Assets: $42,649,119,000

Actuarial accrued liability (AAL): $64,267,758,000

Unfunded actuarial accrued liability (UAAL): $21,618,639,000

Funded ratio: 66.4%

UAAL per capita: $3,338

Public pensions in the states

Alabama • Alaska • Arizona • Arkansas • California • Colorado • Connecticut • Delaware • Florida • Georgia • Hawaii • Idaho • Illinois • Indiana • Iowa • Kansas • Kentucky • Louisiana • Maine • Maryland • Massachusetts • Michigan • Minnesota • Mississippi • Missouri • Montana • Nebraska • Nevada • New Hampshire • New Jersey • New Mexico • New York • North Carolina • North Dakota • Ohio • Oklahoma • Oregon • Pennsylvania • Rhode Island • South Carolina • South Dakota • Tennessee • Texas • Utah • Vermont • Virginia • Washington • West Virginia • Wisconsin • Wyoming

Public pensions • State public pension plans • Massachusetts state budget and finances

Note: This page utilizes information from a variety of sources. As such, the currency of the information varies somewhat. The information presented on this page reflects the most recent data available as of March 2015.

Massachusetts public pensions are the state mechanism by which state and many local government employees in Massachusetts receive retirement benefits.

According to the United States Census Bureau, there were 100 public pension systems in Massachusetts as of 2013. Of these, 14 were state-level programs, while the remaining 86 were administered at the local level. As of 2013, membership in Massachusetts' various pension systems totaled 370,577. Of these, 308,704 were active members.^[1]

According to a 2013 report by Morningstar, an independent financial research group, most states' pension plans continued to be funded below the 80 percent level considered necessary for a healthy fund. Decreased funding and increasing liabilities since the 2008 recession continued to put pressure on local and state budgets, in some cases leading to bankruptcy. Higher pension costs can have the following consequences:^[2]

• higher taxes
• less intergovernmental aid for services
• lower credit ratings
• higher interest rates on state borrowing

Background[edit]

The basic information on this page comes from the U.S. Census Bureau, as reported by the states and pension funds themselves for fiscal year 2013. Also included are comparative data from three different reports, which looked at the states' Comprehensive Annual Financial Reports (CAFRs).

General information[edit]

See also: Pension data, U.S. Census

According to the U.S. Census, Massachusetts had 14 state pension plans as of 2013:

1. Massachusetts Port Authority Employees Retirement System
2. Massachusetts Teachers Retirement Board
3. Massachusetts Water Resources Authority Employees Retirement System
4. Massachusetts Housing Finance Agency Employees Retirement System
5. Massachusetts State Employee Retirement System
6. Massachusetts Bay Transportation Authority (Offers two different plans)^[9]

Although the following may be considered local pension systems, the Census Bureau counted them as state-level systems:

1. Franklin Regional Retirement System
2. Middlesex Regional Retirement System
3. Hampden Regional Retirement System
4. Hampshire Regional Retirement System
5. Essex Regional Retirement System
6. Worcester Regional Retirement System
7. Berkshire Regional Retirement System^[9]

In addition to the aforementioned state-level pension systems, there were 86 locally administered pension systems in Massachusetts.^[1]

The table below provides general pension system information for Massachusetts and surrounding states.

Contributions[edit]

See also: Pension contribution and payment data, U.S. Census

Pension contributions are the funds paid into pension systems. These contributions come from the employer (in the case of public pensions, the government) and employees. Investment earnings are the main source of increases in the fund and are listed separately in the rightmost column in the below table.

In fiscal year 2013, total contributions of $4.8 billion were made to Massachusetts' state and local pension systems. Of this amount, $1.9 billion came from employees. The remainder came from state and local governments. The table below provides information about pension contributions in Massachusetts and surrounding states in fiscal year 2013.^[1]

Payments[edit]

See also: Pension contribution and payment data, U.S. Census

Payments are the amounts paid to pension recipients by their pension plans. Pension payments include benefits and withdrawals. Benefits are the regular payments made by a pension plan to the plan's recipients. Pension beneficiaries may also withdraw funds before they are due to receive regular benefits.

In fiscal year 2013, Massachusetts' state and local pension systems made payments totaling $6.5 billion. The table below provides pension payment information for Massachusetts and surrounding states in fiscal year 2013. The columns labeled "Benefits," "Withdrawals," and "Other" are subsets of total payments. All dollar amounts displayed should be multiplied by 1,000 ($240,000 is equal to $240,000,000).

Cash and investment holdings[edit]

See also: Pension data, U.S. Census

As of fiscal year 2013, Massachusetts' state and local pension systems held $65 billion in total cash and investment holdings. The table below summarizes pension system cash and investment holdings for Massachusetts and surrounding states. The columns labeled "Total cash and short-term investments," "Total securities," and "Total other investments" are subsets of the grand total. All dollar amounts displayed should be multiplied by 1,000 ($240,000 is equal to $240,000,000).^[1]

Pension health[edit]

Pension health is a term used to describe the overall state of pension systems. It can be difficult to gauge pension health in each state, but many studies use calculations to determine the average liabilities, unfunded liabilities, funded ratio and other data. Most experts believe that pension systems need to be funded at least 80 percent to be considered healthy. This information is then used to provide a snapshot of the state's overall pension health. This section provides information from three studies regarding the health of pensions in Massachusetts and neighboring states. They found the following:

• According to the Pew Charitable Trusts, Massachusetts paid 87 percent of its required contribution and its funded ratio was only 61 percent in fiscal year 2012.
• According to Morningstar, the state had a per capita pension debt of $3,338 and a funded ratio of 66.4 percent in fiscal year 2012.
• According to State Budget Solutions, which assumed a lower rate of return, Massachusetts had a per capita pension debt of $15,545 and a funded ratio of 29 percent in fiscal year 2013.

Pew research[edit]

See also: Pew Charitable Trusts pensions study, 2014

According to a 2014 report by the Pew Charitable Trusts, “Many states are seeing their pension debt continue to increase, despite reform efforts, because of missed contributions and the continued impact of investment losses.” The funding gap between what state pension systems have promised in benefits (liabilities) and current funding (assets) increased by $158 billion from 2010 to 2012 (14 percent), leaving state-run retirement systems with $915 billion in unfunded liabilities. Only 15 states made at least 95 percent of the annual required contributions (ARCs) for their pensions between 2010 and 2012; the aggregate shortfall in funding for all state plans was $21 billion. Data on these state pensions come from the Comprehensive Annual Financial Reports (CAFRs) that each state’s pension plan prepared for fiscal year 2012; these reports include actuarial valuations based on “the expected rate of return on investments and estimates of employee life spans, retirement ages, salary growth, retention rates, and other demographic characteristics.”^[10]

All dollar amounts displayed should be multiplied by 1,000,000 (e.g., $240,000 is equal to $240,000,000,000).

Morningstar report[edit]

See also: Pension data, 2013 Morningstar report

In 2013, independent investment research firm Morningstar released "The State of State Pension Plans 2013," a report detailing various metrics of pension system health in all 50 states. Morningstar found a $1.2 trillion gap in 2012 for the largest 100 U.S. public pension plans (according to the actuarial firm Milliman). Based on two key drivers in Morningstar’s analysis—the funded ratio and the unfunded actuarial accrued liability (UAAL) per capita—the fiscal solvency and management of these plans varied greatly. Overall, the firm found that "more than half of all states fall below Morningstar’s fiscally sound threshold of a 70 percent funded ratio" and all state plans combined were "72.6 percent funded with a UAAL per capita of roughly $2,600.”^[2]

According to Morningstar's research, Massachusetts' state pension plans were funded at a rate of 66.4 percent in fiscal year 2012. The table below provides state pension system health metrics for Massachusetts and surrounding states in fiscal year 2012. Figures in the columns labeled "Assets," "AAL," and "UAAL" are rendered in thousands of dollars (for example, $2,400,000 translates to $2,400,000,000). Figures in the remaining columns have not been abbreviated. To view the full report, click here.

State Budget Solutions report[edit]

See also: Pension data, State Budget Solutions report

State Budget Solutions is "a nonpartisan, nonprofit, national public policy organization with the mission to change the way state and local governments do business."^[11] It should be noted that although the organization is technically nonpartisan, its ideology and mission have conservative leanings. In November 2014, the organization released a research report that used a fair market valuation based on a discount rate of 2.743 percent to determine the unfunded liabilities of public pension plans. The group concluded that "state public pension plans were underfunded by $4.7 trillion in 2014, up from $4.1 trillion in 2013. Overall, the combined plans' funded status ... dipped 3 percentage points to 36 percent. Split among all Americans, the unfunded liability [was] over $15,000 per person."^[12]

According to the State Budget Solutions report, Massachusetts' pension plans were funded at a rate of 29 percent.

To read the full report, click here.

Note that all dollar amounts displayed (excluding those under the "Unfunded liability per capita" column) should be multiplied by 1,000 (e.g., $240,000 is equal to $240,000,000).

Other factors[edit]

Rate of return[edit]

According to a 2012 analysis by the Pew Center for the States, most state pension plans assumed an 8 percent rate of return on investments at that time. Proponents argued that an 8 percent rate of return would bear out over the long-term (15-30 years). Critics asserted that this assumption was unrealistic, citing changing market conditions and lower investment returns across the board in preceding years.^[13][14]

Assuming a lower rate of return to predict investment earnings increases current plan liabilities, thereby lowering the percent funded ratio and requiring increased employer contributions (ARCs). This is because future plan liabilities are discounted based on the rate of return, so smaller expected investment returns result in larger actuarially accrued liabilities.^[15] For example, on September 21, 2012, the Illinois Teachers Retirement System voted to lower its rate of return from 8.5 percent to 8.0 percent. This change increased the state's fiscal year 2014 ARC from $3.07 billion to $3.36 billion.^[16] Similarly, when California's CalPERS reduced its projected annual rate of return from 7.75 percent to 7.5 percent in March 2012, it cost the state an additional $303 million for fiscal year 2013.^[17]

Financial crisis[edit]

In the wake of the 2008 recession, proponents of a lower assumed rate of return argued that the standard 8 percent assumptions could cause pension fund managers to engage in more risky investments and imprudent stewardship of public funds. Jeffrey Friedman, a senior market strategist at MF Global, said, "To target 8 percent means some aggressive trading. Ten-year Treasury [bonds] are yielding around 2 percent, economists say we are headed for a double-dip, and house prices aren't getting back to 2007 levels for the next decade, maybe.".^{[18][19][20][21][22]}

Advocates of the 8 percent return rate argued that the dip following the 2008 financial crisis did not prove that there was a long-term downward trend in investment returns. According to Chris Hoene, executive director of the California Budget Project, "The problem with [the market rate] argument is there isn’t significant evidence other than the short term blip during the economic crisis that there’s been that shift. It’s a speculative argument coming out of a very deep recession."^[23]

The National Association of State Retirement Administrators researched the median annualized rate of return for public pensions for the 1-, 3-, 5-, 10-, 20- and 25-year periods ending in 2013 and found it was 7.9 percent over the 20-year period, and exceeded 8 percent for the 1-, 3- and 25-year periods. It is important to note that the NASRA data reported the median returns, which means that median annualized returns of investment portfolios for half of the examined public pension funds failed to meet an 8 percent assumed rate of return.^[24]

Studies and reports[edit]

Pension fund management fees[edit]

See also: Public pension fund management fees

In July 2013, the Maryland Public Policy Institute (MPPI) and the Maryland Tax Education Foundation released a report detailing the fees paid for the management of state pension systems. According to MPPI, the 10 state pension funds that paid the most in management fees relative to net assets experienced lower returns over a five-year period than the 10 state pension funds that paid the least in management fees. For example, in fiscal year 2012, South Carolina's pension system paid approximately $296.1 million in total management fees (1.31 percent of total net assets at the beginning of the fiscal year) and its five-year rate of return was 1.46 percent. By contrast, Alabama's pension system paid roughly $13.3 million in management fees (0.05 percent of total net assets) and its five-year rate of return was 7.53 percent.^[7]

The table below presents the information collected by MPPI for Massachusetts and surrounding states. For each state's pension system, total net assets are listed (both for the beginning and end of the fiscal year in question), as well as the total amount paid in management fees. In addition, the rates of return for the pension systems are presented.

Other post-employment benefits[edit]

See also: Other post-employment benefits, data

In addition to standard pension payments, some plans may offer pensioners additional benefits. These benefits, sometimes referred to as "other post-employment benefits," or "OPEBs," consist of health insurance, life insurance or other benefits that the pensioner may have received while employed. The cost of these benefits can prove complicated for actuaries to calculate because of the changes in fields like medicine. This, coupled with the normal challenges in calculating and meeting pension requirements, can result in funding shortages for pension plans.

Unfunded liabilities totaled nearly $500 billion throughout the country for OPEBs. Massachusetts was reported to have about $15.4 billion in unfunded liabilities for OPEBs. This was equal to about 3.09 percent of the country's total unfunded liabilities for these other services.

The chart below displays the unfunded liabilities for Massachusetts and its surrounding states. All dollar amounts displayed should be multiplied by 1,000,000. For instance, $300 translates to $300,000,000.

Public pensions in 2012[edit]

In fiscal year 2012, according to the systems' Comprehensive Annual Financial Reports, Massachusetts had a total of 172,795 active members in its retirement plans. Membership figures divide plan participants into two broad categories: active and other. Active members are current employees contributing to the pension system. Other members include retirees, beneficiaries, and other inactive plan participants (usually terminated employees entitled to benefits but not yet receiving them).^[25]

The following information was collected from the systems' Comprehensive Annual Financial Reports and Actuarial Valuation Reports. The "percentage funded" was calculated by taking the current value of the fund and dividing by the estimated amount of total liabilities. The assumed rate of return used to calculate fund value was 8.25 percent in fiscal year 2012. The Government Accountability Office (GAO) and Pew Research Centers cited a percent funded ratio of 80 percent as the minimum threshold for a healthy fund, though the American Academy of Actuaries suggested that all pension systems "have a strategy in place to attain or maintain a funded status of 100 percent or greater."^[26][27] The column labeled "SBS figure" refers to a market liability calculation of the fund by the nonprofit organization State Budget Solutions. This analysis used a rate of return of 3.225 percent, which was based upon the 15-year Treasury bond yield. The organization called this a "risk-free" rate of return that would make it easier for states to achieve their pension funding requirements in the future. Beginning in 2006, all private sector corporate pension plans incorporated market costs into their funding schemes.^[28]

Annual Required Contribution[edit]

Annual Required Contributions (ARC) are calculated annually and are a sum of two different costs. The first component is the "normal cost," or what the employer owes to the system in order to support the liabilities gained in the previous year of service. The second component is an additional payment in order to make up for previous liabilities that have not yet been paid for. According to a report by the Pew Center on the States, in 2010 Massachusetts paid 65 percent of its annual required contribution.^[35]

On June 25, 2012, the Government Accounting Standards Board (GASB) approved a plan to reform the accounting rules for state and local pension funds. These revised standards were set to take effect in fiscal years 2013 and 2014.^[36] As a result, ARCs were removed as a reporting requirement. Instead, plan administrators and accountants were instructed to use an actuarially determined contribution or a statutory contribution for reporting purposes.^[37]

Public pensions in 2011[edit]

On June 27, 2013, Moody's Investor Service released its report on adjusted pension liabilities in the states. The Moody's report ranked states "based on ratios measuring the size of their adjusted net pension liabilities (ANPL) relative to several measures of economic capacity." In its calculations of net pension liabilities, Moody's employed market-determined discount rates (5.54 percent for Massachusetts) instead of the state-reported assumed rates of return (8.25 percent for Massachusetts as of July 1, 2011).^[38]

The report's authors found that adjusted net pension liabilities varied dramatically from state to state, from 6.8 percent (Nebraska) to 241 percent (Illinois) of governmental revenues in fiscal year 2011.^[38]

The adjusted net pension liability for the Massachusetts state-sponsored retirement systems in fiscal year 2011 was ranked the sixth highest in the nation.^[38] The following table presents key state-specific findings from the Moody's report, as well as the state's national rank with respect to each indicator.

Historical pension plan data[edit]

Reforms[edit]

Enacted reforms[edit]

2011[edit]

On November 18, 2011, Governor Deval Patrick signed into law significant public pension reforms.^[39] These included raising the retirement age and reducing the actuarial accrual rate (and thereby reducing benefits).^[40][41] According to the governor's office, these reforms were expected to save more than $5 billion dollars over 30 years.^[39]

Proposed reforms[edit]

2013[edit]

A number of bills pertaining to public pension administration or reform were proposed in 2013, but each appeared to have stalled in committee.^[42]

See also[edit]

• Public pensions in the United States
• Massachusetts state budget and finances
• Tax policy in Massachusetts
• Pension statistics
• Public pension health by state
• Public pensions

External links[edit]

• Pension Tsunami
• Pension Calculator from Public Sector Inc.
• Massachusetts Pension publications

Footnotes[edit]

	v • e State of Massachusetts Boston (capital)
Elections	What's on my ballot? | Elections in 2024 | How to vote | How to run for office | Ballot measures
Government	Who represents me? | U.S. President | U.S. Congress | Federal courts | State executives | State legislature | State and local courts | Counties | Cities | School districts | Public policy