EIGHT WAYS TO FIX SOCIAL SECURITY
NOW THAT IT’S TOO LATE, “to do it the easy way.” Dale Coberly . . .
Notes on possible fixes after reaching “short range financial inadequacy.”
The Social Security Trust Fund is projected to run out of money by 2033. Possible fixes to fix the short fall in the Social Security Trust Fund.
first possible fix Wait until 2033 then raise payroll tax 4% (combined worker and employer tax rate). Most workers would only see a 2% raise.
This would fix SS essentially forever, because the projected shortfall in funding is 4% of payroll. It would be not the best fix because by 2033 the Trust Fund will run out of money and therefore will not be able to pay the interest that otherwise pays the one-half percent of payroll needed each year to make up the difference between the payroll tax and the cost for the benefits that year. Moreover, the loss of the Trust Fund would mean that Social Security would not have a “prudent reserve” to meet any short-term gaps between income and outgo.
Also, the sudden need for a 4% increase in the payroll tax would be portrayed by the enemies of Social Security as an unbearable burden. Actually, it would probably not even be felt by people who are not already disposed to resent all taxes. It is very hard to explain to them that Social Security is the only “tax” that gives them their money back with interest when they need it most. It also ensures the money will be there for certain, adjusted for inflation and the rise in the general standard of living, (that is, the rise in real wages). SS also provides insurance for those whose lifetime of working did not pay enough for them to save an adequate amount for retirement. The money for this insurance comes mostly from the SS taxes paid by the rich . . . which is why it is wrong to say the rich do not pay their fair share. The “rich” pay into SS more money than low earners, but if they stay rich they get back in benefits a lower percent of what they paid in. Thus, Social Security is a progressive program in spite of being called a “regressive tax” by some people who want to turn SS into welfare.
second possible fix Increase the tax the “immediate and permanent” 3.5% that the Trustees Report says will keep Social Security “solvent” for the next 75 years. This would work. However, the Trustees Report says that at the end of the 75 years a “significant” increase would be required.
The enemies of Social Security call this “kicking the can down the road,” apparently because they believe the people living seventy-five years from now will be unable to raise their own payroll tax the additional one half of one percent that would be needed. …even though their real incomes will be about four times greater than ours today. The real problem that I see with this is that 3.5% “all at once” would be noticed and would be used to panic voters into letting Congress cut benefits, raise the retirement age, privatize Social Security, or “make the rich pay,” any of which would destroy Social Security as we know it…that is, as it has worked for over eighty years to keep old people, widows and orphans, and the disabled out of severe poverty.
third possible fix Add to the Trustees “immediate and permanent” a provision to raise the tax a further one tenth of one percent per year (each for the worker and for the employer) whenever the Trustees Report projects “short range financial inadequacy.” This should happen in about 2085. giving the program time to raise the payroll tax the needed extra one half of one percent (combined) that would keep SS solvent as far as the eye can see. This “extra” increase would be better introduced earlier than 2085 so the program can overshoot “solvency” enough to remove all doubt about the soundness of the program. But not raised so soon that people will feel betrayed by calling it “immediate and permanent.”
It was only going to be permanent for the current seventy-five-year actuarial window. But each year we move into a new seventy-five-year window with one less year where the costs have already been paid, and with one more year where the taxes have not already been paid for. This moving window would allow the enemies of SS to shout every year the “SS is going broke!” It is likely that any new tax increase needed after the current seventy-five-year window will be covered by the interest from the Trust Fund. During all this time while the tax is going up at a rate that will average less than one tenth of one percent per year (each), real wages will increase over one full percent per year. So, the worker will have more money in his paycheck AFTER paying the higher tax than he has today. As well, he will have paid for a longer retirement with higher real benefits than retirees get today.
fourth possible fix, Raise the payroll tax one tenth of one percent per year for each the worker and the employer. This is about one dollar per week per year. the American Academy of Actuaries would work, and it is the only plan on the table that would preserve Social Security as it has worked for over eighty years—as worker paid insurance for workers. There is one problem with this plan: the one tenth percent increases per year would need to start by 2025 or they will be too late to avoid the Trust Fund running out of money and therefore SS being unable to pay full scheduled benefits. There is no indication that Congress will act soon enough.
fifth Increase the tax TWO tenths of one percent . . . about two dollars per week . . . per year. This would create long term solvency instantly removing the threat of the Trust Fund running out in ten years as currently projected and reaching the 4% increase needed for permanent solvency by 2035.
[ note the two tenth percent increase is what the worker would see. The ultimate 4% needed increase is for the program as a whole . . . includes both the worker share and the employer share.
sixth Increase the tax in 2026 by one full percent . . . 1/2 percent for each the worker and the employer. follow that with one tenth or two tenth percent increases, with or without the “short range financial inadequacy” trigger. This has the virtue of solving the problem entirely very quickly. The problem is not so much the finances of SS, but the screaming and lying about it we hear every year.
seventh possible fix Increase the tax 2% . . . 1% for the worker and 1% for the employer. Polls have shown that that workers would rather see a 1% increase in their tax than any cut in benefits. Following this increase with yearly increases of one tenth percent or two tenths’ percent would make SS solvent forever by 2031 at a lower final tax rate than the 1/2 of one percent increases described above in the “sixth fix.”
eighth possible fix just raise the tax in any year to make up the difference between expected income and expected outgo in the following year. . . This would be on the order of one tenth of one percent of income until the payroll tax rate is increased about 4% above present level. Note: this 4% increase is for the “program.” Most workers and their employers would only see a 2% increase each.
I thought the trust fund was supposed to run out of money. That it repress the fruit of a temporary overcharge to deal with the boomers.
The trust fund “was supposed” to go back to being a reserve after being allowed to grow large enough to cover the bulge of the Boomer generation.
Except, Congress “was supposed” to keep making adjustments as better data came along as to how changes in factors such as economic growth, payroll distribution, and demography impacted what is needed to provide insurance against not having enough to live on after retirement.
Arne:
Thanks for the explanation. You added some I did not know and that is so logical.
Arne
this is another case where adequate explanation is too complex to fit into one sentence. Actually the economic growth, payroll distribution, and demography have not changed much since 1983.What happened is that Congress, and the people who pay for thier campaigns have chosen to demagogue the declining Trust Fund and the “long range actuarial deficit” to build animosity toward Social Security, call it a Ponzi Schem, and claim it will bankrupt the country and be a huge burden on “young people.” Meanwhile the “Left” ..if there is such a thing…has utterly failed to explain what is really happening, choosing instead to play the political game and use SS as a useful tool to get votes for their side…ultimately leading to the utterly irresponsible call to “make the rich pay their fair share.” The rich already pay their fair share. In fact, as long as they do not become poor themselves, they pay a good bit of your share.
Contrary to what I have been called, I am not a shill for the rich. I just believe that being honest is the best way to deal with this “problem” and get SS funded properly to the benefit of both the rich and the poor. The rich cannot thrive in a country where half the old people are eating out of dumpsters. But they, the rich, are too dumb to know that.
Sometimes a one sentence answer is all that will be read.
Economic growth has changed – in cycles. Bruce Webb was lead down his Low Cost garden path because growth was relatively high when he was writing. Smoothing it out, as Intermediate is intended to do, not so much has changed.
Payroll distribution has changed – notably due to increased inequality.
Demography has changed – notably in terms of fertility. The 1995 report assumed an out-year fertility of 2.2. The 2024 report assumes 1.9. It makes enough difference that Congress would need to act on it if they actually performed the job of making adjustments for long-term balance.
The critical part of the NW Plan, which anyone on Angry Bear should know that Dale and I and Bruce all agreed on, was a mechanism to take making the adjustments out of the hands of each new Congress by tying them to the 10-year projection. Dale’s spreadsheets have always shown that the increases would be small enough to be only a small part of the increase in income that the annual report projected for the typical earner.
It is too late to implement the NW Pan as envisioned years ago; thus today’s post by Dale with other acceptable levels of adjustment.
Arne
yes. that is pretty much what i meant by “not much.”
and yes, i know that one sentence is all that anyone will read, or at least remember long enough to talk about.
and yes, you summed up NW plan pretty well. if adopted it would have taken care of all those other changes w/o anyone even noticing.
SW
yes. the much larger Trust Fund that was created by the 1983 tax increase was/is supposed to run out of money as it pays for the baby boomer retirement (helps to pay for). But there is a “normal” Trust Fund that is kept near 100% of one year’s benfits: that is called a “prudent reserve. We will reach that level very soon now that the Congress has ignored the “short range financial inadequacy warning” the Trustees issue when they project the TF will fall below 100% of “prudent reserve.” Since the Congress has ignored the warning, we are now in danger of running the Trust Fund down to zero, losing not only the prudent reserve, but…because Congress has also allowed the payroll tax to fall below the level needed to pay benefits…but also losing the ability to pay promised benefits. Trust Fund zero is not necessarily a problem…but the inablity to pay benefits is a big problem. I am sorry if you were misled by my saying the TF was “intended” to run down..or out of money. I was responding to the hysteria we were hearing about the Trust Fund running out when it was still three times the needed 100% reserve. Sometimes things are too complicated to say all in one sentence, but time marches on.
Does that clear it up for you?
Would raising the SSSA tax cap on income be beneficial is some way?
Thanks
Sam:
I believe Dale has a better answer than I on this. However, the cap is increased from year to year.
The federal government adjusts the Social Security cap annually to keep pace with inflation based on changes in the National Average Wage Index.
The maximum earnings subject to Social Security taxes in 2024 is $168,600, which is up from $160,200 in 2023. Workers earning at least $160,200 during the 2023 tax year faced an annual increase of $520.80 in payroll taxes assessed at a 6.2% annual rate as a result of the cap increase.
The Social Security Income Cap is raisd Year to Year.
Sam W
the cap was at 100k when I started writing about SS. made it easier to think about SS in round numbers. So Bill is right…the cap is raised every year.
But raising it more “in order to make the rich pay” is a bad idea. The “rich” already pay what SS is worth to them as insurance as well as the benefits they can expect. The rich don’t expect to need the insurance…no one ever does….so they are not really happy to be paying into SS at all. Making them pay more than it is worth to them would make even the sane rich determined to destroy SS. I liken “make the rich pay their fair share” to making a rich man pay ten times as much for a loaf of bread as you pay…”because he has more money than I do.
Besides that, the proposals to raise the cap that are on the table would NOT solve the “actuarial deficit” that everyone is yelling about. The only plan that solves that deficit is the workers raising their own payroll tax….about two percent over the next few years. That can still be done gradually enough that no one would ever feel it. The “tax” is really their own savings rate… they will get that money back with interest…it is the safest way for ordinary workers to save money they will absolutely need.
Instead what we have is the Congress lying about SS “causing the National Debt [it doesn’t; it is paid for entirely by the people who will get the benefits], “the rich” wanting to turn it into “take your chances on the stock market,” and the Left wanting to make “the rich” pay for your benefits.