Submitted by Bruce Krasting.
Both Mitt and Barack spoke about Social Security (SS) in their debate. For political reasons, they took the same approach. They indicated their continuing support for this busted program. They agreed that some “tweeks” might be necessary, but there would be no fundamental changes to America’s largest entitlement program.
I wish that one or the other of the candidates had spoken the truth about SS. The fact is it is a terrible program for the vast majority of workers who are forced to contribute to it in order to keep this dog alive.
Fortunately, the Congressional Budget Office has provided the information necessary to look at SS and evaluate how various income groups will fare over their lifetimes. The bottom line is as ugly as it can get. The fact is that SS is stiffing 80% of American workers.
The key statement from the CBO report (link):
For people born in the 1940s or later who have household earnings in the second quintile or above, the present value of taxes will be, on average, more than the present value of scheduled benefits.
Got that lovers of SS? 80% of the people who contribute to SS get less than what they paid in. Only the bottom 20% of income earners have a chance of breaking even.
The CBO provided a chart that describes the consequences to various income groups. I found the CBO presentation a bit confusing and also misleading. The following is the original chart from the CBO, after that is my stripped down version.
My version of the CBO chart:
I) – My chart eliminates all of the information marked “Scheduled Payments” (SP). This term refers to a theoretical number that an individual is accruing according to a schedule at SS. But that number is not going to be paid to a substantial number of workers. The law says so. From the CBO report:
Taxes are projected to be insufficient to pay for scheduled benefits
If you’re under 55, nix to any thoughts you might have on that statement from SS about your SP. All that information in dark blue is just smoke. (I don’t think they even send SPs anymore)
II) I eliminated the info for those born after 1940. It’s not significant.
My revised chart allows most people working in America today to evaluate what his or her results from SS will be. Consider the following when trying to find where you fit in:
-The data is a ratio of the NPV of contributions one will make versus the NPV of the benefits one will receive. 100 is breakeven. If you are below the 100 line, your a loser.
-The results are presented in vertical bars. The bars represent a range of outcomes. The key variables are how long you worked, and how long you will get benefits before you die. It is 80% certain that you fit into this range of outcomes. If your not sure about those variables, assume you are at the midpoint of the appropriate range.
-No information is provided for the second and fourth quintile of income earners. The language the CBO uses (above) confirms that the second quartile also suffers from negative net returns from SS. Those in the fourth quartile are deeply in the red.
-The following is the information on annual income by quintile. The first line is the CBO numbers from 2009, the second line is my updated numbers for today (I think I’m pretty close with these estimates)
Did you find yourself in this chart? Are you surprised by the results? My conclusions:
If you are on the bottom of the income scale today, and you expect to remain at the bottom for the rest of your working life, then you will be happy with the results that SS will deliver to you. Only a small portion of those in the lowest income bracket will face a negative return on their SS contributions. If you are on the bottom rung, you can expect, on average, to get about $1.25 back for every dollar you (and your employer) have kicked into the rat hole of SS.
If you are not now at the bottom, and/or you don’t expect to be in that position for the rest of your working life, then SS is a very bad deal for you. Fully 80% of all workers will see a negative return on the money they are forced to put into SS.
I don’t get it. Both political parties want to keep SS as it is, or raise taxes further to “strengthen” it. I believe that if there were a poll of workers asking if they were pro or con on SS, the results would conclude that a majority wants the program to continue. But 80% are getting screwed.
12.4% of an individual’s compensation goes out the door to SS. If this burden were eliminated, the economy would thrive. Unemployment would drop as the extra take-home pay works its way through the economy. As the economy expands, tax receipts would rise.
Alas, there is no possibility to eliminate SS. The committed costs for the next 20 years are impossible to reverse at this point. This beast can’t be killed any longer.
There might be an alternative; an opt-out for younger workers. If there were an opt-out, I think that many workers would accept the deal. If there were a lot of folks who did not want to “pay to lose” with SS it would result in a huge hole. That hole would have to be filled. Some payroll tax would have to be applied to those who opt out. I have not seen any numbers on this approach (Hello – JCT), I estimate that a 2% tax on opt-outs would be required to keep SS afloat.
I’m curious what people think about an opt-out. If you respond, keep in mind that most of you are getting about 50 cents on the dollar for what you are now putting in. My question:
If you opt-out, you will get a net 10% pay raise for the rest of your life. Your income will go up by 12.2%, but you will get hit with a 2% tax that goes out the door. You will not get SS benefits when you retire.
If there were an opt-out, there would be consequences:
*The size of the government’s role in society and the economy would decline over time.
*The opt-out would result in a near-term stimulus for the economy as forced savings is converted into take-home pay and consumption.
*As SS has a source of revenue and no long-term liability (the 2% tax/no future benefits) the actuarial solvency of SS would remain about the same.
*Opt-outers would have to be much more diligent about their savings and planning for retirement.
The risk of an opt-out is that 25-30 years from now those who did opt-out end up with no savings and become a burden to society. Depending on the numbers, this could be a real problem. I say “could” as it is impossible to predict what will happen.
I can, however, say with certainty that the existing SS "plan" insures that there will be a major crisis with SS and the economy in less than twenty-years. That outcome is written in stone. It would be worth our while to consider the alternatives. I doubt we will be given a chance for any real alternatives from either Mitt or Barack. Their plans guarantee that we will hit an iceberg.