Pennsylvania State and School Pension Costs


Pennsylvania State Budget Toolkit

Taxpayer Pension Contributions

  • Pennsylvania taxpayers fund two statewide pension plans for government employees—the State Employees' Retirement System (SERS) for state employees and the Public School Employees' Retirement System (PSERS) for school employees.
    • With taxpayer money, state government pays the entire employer contribution for SERS, and more than half of the PSERS costs.
    • PSERS and SERS project total taxpayer contributions for these two plans will increase from $1.7 billion in 2011-12 to more than $6.1 billion in 2016-17—a 257% increase.
    • The Independent Fiscal Office estimates pension payments in 2016-17 will represent 12% of the state General Fund budget, up from 4% this year.

PA State Pension Spending

Pension Funding and Investment Return

  • Under current projections, SERS' funded ratio—the ratio of assets to accrued pension liabilities (how much the funds needed to make future payouts)—will dip to 60.1%. PSERS' funded ratio is expected to decline to 59.1%.
    • All projections assume 8% annual rate of return on investment for SERS' and 7.5% for PSERS' funds.
    • Any investment losses or earnings less than this rate, as happened during the last recession, will reduce the funded ratio and require additional taxpayer contributions.

Pension Funded Ratio

  • The dramatic increase in taxpayer pension contributions is due to three main factors:
    • Legislative increase in pension benefits in 2001, followed by a cost-of-living adjustment in 2002;
    • Pension fund investment losses during 2001-02 and 2008-09; and
    • Legislation in 2003 and 2010 to delay pension contributions, requiring higher future payments.
  • In addition to SERS and PSERS, there are more than 3,200 local government pension funds.

# # #

For more information on the Pennsylvania State Budget, visit

PDF Version To download the full PDF version, please

comments powered by Disqus

A Budget of Convenience

July 19

The dust has settled on the 2016-17 budget debate—at least for the moment. Some people hail the agreement as an example of what Harrisburg can accomplish when two parties work together. Others defend it as an improvement over previous budgets and the least bad option under the circumstances. These ...