The top 1.12% of all retires take in 4.42% of all payments.

Thank you for posting this raw data. It should demonstrate that not all defined benefit plans pay out richly just because they are "defined". Some would prefer to accept market risk and upside potential in exchange for a guaranteed low payout. So not all public employees desire a defined benefit plan - especially one with a bad definition.

Raw data require some analysis.

1.These data show that 52.6% of pensioners receive less than $1500 per month. That is not their net payment. Would you consider researching the medical and tax deductions? Many of your readers may not make a distinction between the gross pension and the net.
Is it possible that the health deductions may rise so quickly that the net will reach 0 very quickly? There is a cola cap on the pension - but no cap on the health deductions.

2. How do these numbers compare to other states?

3. How do these numbers compare to MD counties like PG and MoCo? My county employees have received raises, steps (increments), colas, longevity increases and extra bonuses, for every year that state workers pay has been frozen and had furloughs. Their pensions are salary-based, so the disparity has grown very wide. Why the focus on state workers?

4. How do these numbers stack up against the unverified police disability retirements in some counties? How much does the average 30 year state worker get at age 62 compared to the 2 year MoCo cop retiring on disability from a paper cut?

5. Most current state retirees were in the "old system" for pre-1979 hires. That system was contributory and the pensions are considered about average relative to other states - and much superior to the "new system since 1979. Many current workers spent 2 decades in the "new system" which was non-contributory, had a nation-low 1.2% multiplier. They will not retire with nearly the pensions of current retirees. Isn't it possible that future retirees with lower individual pensions will aid recovery of the pension fund?

Has anyone compared the ROI from the point of the retiree for social security - which requires a 6.2% employee contribution (+ same from employer) with the 5% or 7% contribution to the MD retirement plan? Is a 7% contribution from the employee, with either a 1.5 or 1.8% multiplier, a better or worse investment than the 6.2% deducted for social security?

Have you considered that some state workers would choose to opt out of this particular defined benefit plan if given a choice? Could it be a false assumption that all public employees everywhere automatically prefer any defined benefit plan?

How likely is it that the next governor, or the legislature, will further tinker with the pension plan to the retirees' detriment when they want to spend on something else?

Great post. Thanks for the data.
Here's a novel idea. Suppose the state capped gross payments at $6500/month. That's $78,000 a year in retirement pay.
594 individuals subject to the cap would save the pension fund $810,000 per month or about $10 million per year.
Anyone at that level want to discuss it?

Very interesting data. I wonder if this result holds true for veterans as well.