TIA Data

2020 Financial State of Vermont (Released 9/28/2021)

Use Create Your Own State Chart to see additional financial, demographic and economic data for this and other states

Vermont owes more than it owns.
Vermont's Taxpayer Burden™ is -$24,700, and it received an "F" from TIA.
Vermont is a Sinkhole State without enough assets to cover its debt.
Elected officials have created a Taxpayer Burden™, which is each taxpayer's share of state bills after its available assets have been tapped.
TIA's Taxpayer Burden™ measurement incorporates both assets and liabilities, not just pension debt.
Vermont only has $5.3 billion of assets available to pay bills totaling $11 billion.
Because Vermont doesn't have enough money to pay its bills, it has a $5.7 billion financial hole. To fill it, each Vermont taxpayer would have to send $24,700 to the state.
Vermont's reported net position is overstated by $373.7 million, largely because the state delays recognizing losses incurred when the net pension liability increases.
The state's financial report was released 182 days after its fiscal year end, which is considered untimely according to the 180 day standard.

Prior Years' TIA Data

2019 Financial State of Vermont

2018 Financial State of Vermont

2017 Financial State of Vermont

2016 Financial State of Vermont

2015 Financial State of Vermont

2014 Financial State of Vermont

2013 Financial State of Vermont

2012 Financial State of Vermont

2011 Financial State of Vermont

2010 Financial State of Vermont

2009 Financial State of Vermont

Other Resources

Vermont Comprehensive Annual Financial Reports

Publishing Entity: Department of Finance & Management

Unions, lawmakers finalize plan to address Vt. pension shortfall

JANUARY 12, 2022 | VERMONT PUBLIC RADIO | by Peter Hirschfeld

By Peter Hirschfeld, includes “… ‘The biggest difference between this proposal and where we started is this proposal does not require our members to work longer for less retirement security,’ Howard said. ‘That was an important guiding principle, I think, of the discussion — to try to protect the commitment that people were given when they were hired to work a certain number of years and then be able to retire with some fiscal stability.’ …”