Patch Test
A story in today's New York Times correctly notes that Social Security can be "fixed" without private investment accounts: by raising payroll taxes, cutting benefits, raising the retirement age, or some combination of those. To counter this argument, advocates of privatization will have to do a better job of explaining its unique advantages. The Times gives short shrift to one of them, saying "letting people invest some of their payroll taxes in private accounts…would do nothing in itself to eliminate the long-term gap." This is literally true, but has anyone proposed a privatization plan that does not include cuts in guaranteed benefits for those who choose to put their tax money in private accounts? Moving toward a system in which benefits are financed out of private investments instead of transfers from current workers would make it possible to cut government payments even while increasing returns. That's a long-term financial advantage that you can't get simply by patching the existing system.
Editor's Note: As of February 29, 2024, commenting privileges on reason.com posts are limited to Reason Plus subscribers. Past commenters are grandfathered in for a temporary period. Subscribe here to preserve your ability to comment. Your Reason Plus subscription also gives you an ad-free version of reason.com, along with full access to the digital edition and archives of Reason magazine. We request that comments be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment and ban commenters for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please
to post comments
"This is literally true, but has anyone proposed a privatization plan that does not include cuts in guaranteed benefits for those who choose to put their tax money in private accounts?"
But, if you only cut the payments by the same amount you allow to be diverted into private accounts, you have the same shortfall.
In other words, privitization and "fixing" the current system are two separate issues.
The political advantage of linking two was illusory since the need to do one to accomplish the other was so easily debunked.
joe,
you have the same shortfall
Yes and no. If 1/4 of SS goes into private accounts, then the shortfall for the remainder becomes 3/4 of what it would have been. But your pool of available revenue would also be cut by the same amount, so the reduction would be illusory.
I remember when the possible benefits of welfare reform were so easily debunked, all those lofty quotes by economists and professors and folks who just knew more than the rest of us....
"The political advantage of linking two was illusory since the need to do one to accomplish the other was so easily debunked."
Don't forget how good this administration is at, um, bunk. And given the last five years, why would they be afraid of the public getting wise to realy? Who's going to contradict them, The Washington Post?
Don't forget how good this administration is at, um, bunk.
Well, there's a limit to everything! 🙂
Why has no one proposed that the gummint simply stop applying the payroll taxes to the mainline budget, and keep that money in some sort of storage/investment? Seems like that would at least extend the life of the system, and should be way easier to implement politically. (Although the belt-tightening that would have to accompany it might be painful) I think Moynihan wanted to do this in the late eighties...
Bob, I thought that was what the government was supposed to be doing with the SS money all along, but congress has been "borrowing" against the money to fund other things? I may be woefully misinformed. The whole social security thing makes my blood boil so much that my doctor has forbidden me from thinking about it for more then 5 minutes a week.
Bob, Mikiel, there's a word for what you're referring to.
That word is "lockbox."
Have a nice day.
joe,
There's a word for what you're referring to.
That word is "illusion".
Have a nice day.
MP,
If you had been halfway clever you would have said, "Have an even nicer day." 😉
Hey, it wasn't MY idea.
And with the big national debt still left over from the 80s, Gore wanted to use the payroll receipts to pay off debt (putting us in a position to take on debt at a later date to fund the pig in the python).
'That word is "lockbox."'
and it has always been a fraud.
The reason SS was set up the way it was was to create a pool of revenue that could be used for general spending. Nobody cared in 1937 that the program was a boondogle because it served two purposes; it gave the masses the feeling that their retirement was secure and it created the aforemention revenue stream that made it possible for pols to buy even more votes.
Respectable words like "solvency" or "reform" should not be applied to a scam like SS. If a bank robber switches to burglary he can hardly be said to have reformed.
"And with the big national debt still left over from the 80s, Gore wanted to use the payroll receipts to pay off debt "
That would not have paid off the debt, just changed the owner.
IOUs to yourself are not assets.
Isaac, the core of the lockbox proposal was to pay off the IOUs with actual money.
Are you quite young, and don't remember the 2000 campaign?
Gore promised no such thing. Depending on his what his target audience was, he promised:
- economic responsibility
- increased entitlement spending
- tax cuts for the "middle class"
- tax hikes for the "rich"
- benefits to whatever interest group he was pandering to at the moment.
Don't deny this.
Privatization has another benefit, which is to eliminate the 100% estate tax on the poor that the current SS scheme levies. Right now, if you die the day after your 65th birthday, your heirs get nothing from your lifelong contributions into SS. (A surviving spouse may continue to receive SS payments, but your offspring get nothing.) With privatization, you could bequeath your private fund to your heirs, thereby transferring wealth from generation to generation.
Wait a minute, joe?
Are you saying the NYT is without bunk?
Selective memory indeed.
Nice dodge, VoiceOver. Gore was quite specific about using the federal surplus to pay off IOUs in the Social Security Trust Fund, to reduce the amount that would have to be shifted in from general revenues to cover anticipated costs down the road. Listing Gore's rhetorical strategies doesn't change this.
"Are you saying the NYT is without bunk?"
No, I didn't mention the Times at all.
Reduced to "You, too!" already? Sad.
joe, since the SS surplus (ie the excess of payroll tax receipts over benefit payouts) can ONLY be used to BUY special T-bills (the "TRUST FUND") this can only, all other things being equal, INCREASE the debt, ever.
Only an actual General Revenue surplus sufficiently large to offset the debt increase automaticaly created by SS could reduce the National Debt.
And paying off "IOUs in the Social Security Trust Fund" is not an option, since "IOUs in the Social Security Trust Fund" are "the Social Security Trust Fund"'s ONLY "ASSETS". If Gore proposed such a thing he was only further demonstrating his economic ignorance.
Now using the General fund surplus to pay off the National Debt is a fine idea, except since it was mostly a product of the Clinton/Greenspan debt/investment bubble (whose full consequences we have yet to see), it never really was an option. It was doomed to be wiped out by the inevitable adjustment.
For the record I am opposed to "privatization". For one thing the word has gotten a bad name after all of the "piratizations" we've seen. But to the extent that it has a respectable meaning it should not be used in connection with the scam that the Bushies are proposing.
Wow, back in the 30s they created a politicized pension scheme and now that the chickens, the ducks, the geese and all the other poultry have come home to roost everyone's pointing fingers at everyone else and saying "Stop politicizing Social Security".
And joe you are, by the way, absolutely right. SS can continue to pay benefits (possibly slightly reduced) to its beneficiaries (eligibility slightly altered by raising the retirement age) indefinitely. Of course it will only do so by increasing the tax burden on the young workers who pay the payroll tax.
Apparently you think redistribution from young (generally poorer) citizens to old (generally wealthier) citizens is just. You will therefore continue to suuport it. Those of us who think it unjust will continue to object.
Wow, the entirety of Social Security funding comes from collections from young, "generally poorer" workers? Really?
I was pretty sure there was another half that come from employers, but I guess not.
I'd love to fix the regressiveness of the payroll tax - maybe by lowering the rate and eliminating the cap, for example, but you people will have none of that. Oh well, once this scam does to the Republican Congress what Hillarycare did to the Dems in 94, a lot more options will become possible.
"I was pretty sure there was another half that come from employers, but I guess not."
Oh yeah, I forgot about that. It, of course, comes from the money tree. I don't have the energy to explain that one to you, joe. Anyone else want to take a try.
"I'd love to fix the regressiveness of the payroll tax - maybe by lowering the rate and eliminating the cap, for example, but you people will have none of that."
There you go again. What fucking "you people" am I?
For what it's worth I would abolish the whole fucking thing including the payroll tax and replace it with a means tested program funded from general revenue.
Oh, but part of the menans testing would be you would have to be UNABLE TO WORK, not just OLD. There is nothing mystical about passing 65 that makes it OK to sponge.
"once this scam does to the Republican Congress what Hillarycare did to the Dems in 94"
Hey man, I'm still praying for impeachment. Maybe after the 06 elections when the dimmycraps get a majority. hehehehehe
I'd love to fix the regressiveness of the payroll tax - maybe by lowering the rate and eliminating the cap, for example, but you people will have none of that.
"You people"??? FWIW, while I think SS is a bad idea for several reasons, I would probably lean slightly towards doing just that compared to the current system.
Oh well, once this scam does to the Republican Congress what Hillarycare did to the Dems in 94, a lot more options will become possible.
I dunno joe, you had me all excited when you confidently predicted Bush was going down... 🙂
"Oh yeah, I forgot about that. It, of course, comes from the money tree. I don't have the energy to explain that one to you, joe. Anyone else want to take a try."
So now we're pretending that all of the employers' share would have otherwise been passed on as salaries? Where would libertarianism be without the wonderful counterfactuals?
For the record, I never predicted Bush would lose, just that the race would be close.
I never predicted Bush would lose, just that the race would be close.
That's sure not how I remember it, but hell if I'm gonna search the H&R archives to prove it.
"So now we're pretending that all of the employers' share would have otherwise been passed on as salaries? Where would libertarianism be without the wonderful counterfactuals?"
Actually it might be passed on to consumers in the form of lower prices, or reinvested to grow the business or (HORRORS) the employer might just decide to spend HIS MONEY on his own greedy self.
Of course there would have to be some kind of tax increase in the general revenue part to fund a welfare scheme for grannies but everything costs.
With that last I have not only continued to piss you off (since nothing short of accepting God's own true gospel according to St Franklin of Roosevelt and St Albert of Gore is good enough for you) I've also betrayed the true libertarian gospel. Sorry guys but I'm cursed with this sense of the politically possible.
When I reach 65 (or is that 66) and start getting Social Security and your still a youngster, if AARP calls out the "senior troops" to get another tax increase on your wages to pay my Social Security from a rapidly colapsing trust fund, I'm sure you will just smile and say what a great nation we have that you can pay more taxes. Right ? Yeah sure.
If you had a private account that you knew was going to be there, would if reduce some of your outrage ? Even a little ? OK, the individual accounts aren't needed and you will just be screwed.
I note that many employers provide retirement benefits like contributions to 401(k) plans. This is not required by the government, yet some employers provide this benefit.
There is a market for labour. Businesses compete in this marketplace. Employees can choose to work for one employer or another based a number of criteria including compensation.
The taxes on employers (including payroll taxes) are a labor-related cost. If the costs are reduced, any number of things might happen (as noted by Bartram). One possibility not mentioned is hiring more workers.
I was pretty sure there was another half that come from employers, but I guess not.
Joe, as one of millions of self-employed people in this country I get to pay BOTH halves of the social security bill. (Yeah, I know that everyone pays both halves, but it stings just a bit more when you have to write the gov a check for 12.4% every month for social security and another 2.90% for medicare.) However, technically, you are correct: the other half is paid by my "employers" and this is accomplished by charging all of my customers an extra 7.65%.
"One possibility not mentioned is hiring more workers."
I would have mentioned that but joe would have accused me of advocating trickle down theory. I sort of thought it might be included in "growing the business".
I'm glad you saw where I was going.
Oh, for the last eight years the solicitations from THE ASSOCIATION OF AGED RICH PEOPLE have been adding to my waste stream.
At the risk of being branded a TRAITOR TO MY CLASS I feel obligated to object to the SS scam.
The magic age of 65 was set by Otto von Bismark. He sold the plan to the Germans, but his real reason for inventing the first Social Security plan was to raise money for his plans of conquest. Pretty much the same reasons Roosevelt had.
btw: the average German's life expectancy when Bismark chose 65 as the retirmement age was 45. that is the flaw in our current plan as well. People are living to long.
Joe: "I was pretty sure there was another half that come from employers, but I guess not."
Isaac: "Oh yeah, I forgot about that. It, of course, comes from the money tree. I don't have the energy to explain that one to you, joe. Anyone else want to take a try."
Joe (later): "So now we're pretending that all of the employers' share would have otherwise been passed on as salaries?"
Joe,
It only needs to be true that SOME of the employers' contribution would be passed on as salaries for your statement to be incorrect, not all. Only if NONE of the contribution would be passed on in salaries would it be true that half comes from employers.
Aside:
For someone who begins working at age 22, earning $25,000 per year, and receives 4% annual pay increases, if no employer contributions were made, and the employee set aside their current 6.2% SS withholding, they would only have to achieve a 4.2% rate of return on their investments to match the benefit that they would have otherwise received from SS. If you make more than $25k, the required return is lower due to the progressive nature of SS benefits. If ALL of the employer's contribution is passed on to the previously described employee, only a 1.2% return is necesssary.