Detroit is not alone -- all public pension funding underreported

[Wesley Mouch]

The biggest difference between Detroit and other places is that other places still have a tax base large/wealthy enough to make up the pension shortfalls, if/when push comes to shove.

I think taxpayers in Chicago would be more willing to take on a 10% or more tax increase to cover the pension shortfalls [[given how great of a city it is and how relatively well the city's government functions) than the few remaining taxpayers in Detroit.

Sure, the yuppies in Near North would probably be happy -- maybe a little less so on the South Side.

I find it troubling that you only think the problem is lack of money. Is the way we account for public pensions and let municipalities under-fund as outlined in the article acceptable to you? Or should we just toss cash at this problem.

[mwilbert]

Sure, the yuppies in Near North would probably be happy -- maybe a little less so on the South Side.

I find it troubling that you only think the problem is lack of money. Is the way we account for public pensions and let municipalities under-fund as outlined in the article acceptable to you? Or should we just toss cash at this problem.

That is what underfunding means--you aren't putting in enough money to pay for what you are planning to spend. That doesn't mean the accounting is correct. It is not. But "lack of money" is the exact problem. The reason you fix the accounting is so that people have to put in enough money, so that there isn't a lack of money.

[Wesley Mouch]

That is what underfunding means--you aren't putting in enough money to pay for what you are planning to spend. That doesn't mean the accounting is correct. It is not. But "lack of money" is the exact problem. The reason you fix the accounting is so that people have to put in enough money, so that there isn't a lack of money.

I should have used the word 'under-estimated', not 'under-funded'. The estimation drives the funding.