Reason.com - Free Minds and Free Markets
Reason logo Reason logo
  • Latest
  • Magazine
    • Current Issue
    • Archives
    • Subscribe
    • Crossword
  • Video
  • Podcasts
    • All Shows
    • The Reason Roundtable
    • The Reason Interview With Nick Gillespie
    • The Soho Forum Debates
    • Just Asking Questions
    • The Best of Reason Magazine
    • Why We Can't Have Nice Things
  • Volokh
  • Newsletters
  • Donate
    • Donate Online
    • Donate Crypto
    • Ways To Give To Reason Foundation
    • Torchbearer Society
    • Planned Giving
  • Subscribe
    • Reason Plus Subscription
    • Print Subscription
    • Gift Subscriptions
    • Subscriber Support

Login Form

Create new account
Forgot password

Building a Nest Egg

Rick Henderson | From the May 1991 issue

Share on FacebookShare on XShare on RedditShare by emailPrint friendly versionCopy page URL
Media Contact & Reprint Requests

Nearly 18 months after Rep. John Edward Porter (R–Ill.) asked the General Accounting Office to estimate the effects of partially privatizing the Social Security system, the GAO's report is out. (See Trends, Dec. 1989.) If Congress pays attention to the GAO's findings, the prospects for future retirees could improve dramatically.

Social Security currently collects billions more in payroll taxes than it pays out in benefits. This surplus is supposed to be reinvested in government securities that will pay benefits for future retirees; in truth, the surplus merely masks the overall federal deficit. The GAO study estimated the return on investment individual taxpayers would receive if they invested their surplus taxes in private, interest-bearing accounts (Individual Social Security Retirement Accounts).

Allowing for estimated cost-of-living increases, the GAO worked out how much money would accumulate in an ISSRA with a long-term real return comparable to government securities (1 percent), to corporate bonds (1.6 percent), or to stocks that match the Standard & Poor 500 index (5.5 percent). The GAO estimated that the average S&P investor would accumulate 24 percent more at retirement than someone who stuck with Social Security alone; the other investments would about match Social Security.

Of course, individual investments or Social Security might do worse than expected. Indeed, Peter Ferrara of the Cato Institute has reported that Social Security's true return on investment for younger taxpayers can actually lag behind the inflation rate.

Robert Gustafson, Porter's legislative director, says ISSRAs would have a built-in advantage over Social Security: At retirement, accumulated ISSRA funds would belong to the retiree—and not be swallowed up in a bogus trust fund that's later paid out to somebody else. Millions of low- and moderate-income Americans would have a retiement nest egg—or a substantial death benefit for their survivors, whether or not they live past retirement.

Gustafson says that Porter will introduce at least one bill to establish a program like the one in the GAO study. Porter's bill would end the Social Security surplus, allowing individual taxpayers to invest excess payroll taxes in the ISSRAs of their choice.

While Gustafson says he doesn't know if an ISSRA plan can win congressional support, a February 1990 poll by Market Opinion Research shows 68 percent of adults support the concept. The proposal's strongest supporters are young people: 87 percent of 18- to 25-year-olds and 78 percent of 25- to 39-year-olds favor the plan.

Porter's program would not return excess payroll taxes to individuals. It is a forced savings plan. But it would allow Americans who retire in the 21st century to have a lot more control over the money they've earned.

This article originally appeared in print under the headline "Building a Nest Egg."

Start your day with Reason. Get a daily brief of the most important stories and trends every weekday morning when you subscribe to Reason Roundup.

This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.

NEXT: The Law: Gun-Shy Judges

Rick Henderson
Share on FacebookShare on XShare on RedditShare by emailPrint friendly versionCopy page URL
Media Contact & Reprint Requests

Show Comments (0)

Latest

Mothers Are Losing Custody Over Sketchy Drug Tests

Emma Camp | From the June 2025 issue

Should the
Civilization Video Games Be Fun—or Real?

Jason Russell | From the June 2025 issue

Government Argues It's Too Much To Ask the FBI To Check the Address Before Blowing Up a Home

Billy Binion | 5.9.2025 5:01 PM

The U.K. Trade Deal Screws American Consumers

Eric Boehm | 5.9.2025 4:05 PM

A New Survey Suggests Illicit Opioid Use Is Much More Common Than the Government's Numbers Indicate

Jacob Sullum | 5.9.2025 3:50 PM

Recommended

  • About
  • Browse Topics
  • Events
  • Staff
  • Jobs
  • Donate
  • Advertise
  • Subscribe
  • Contact
  • Media
  • Shop
  • Amazon
Reason Facebook@reason on XReason InstagramReason TikTokReason YoutubeApple PodcastsReason on FlipboardReason RSS

© 2024 Reason Foundation | Accessibility | Privacy Policy | Terms Of Use

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.

r

Do you care about free minds and free markets? Sign up to get the biggest stories from Reason in your inbox every afternoon.

This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.

This modal will close in 10

Reason Plus

Special Offer!

  • Full digital edition access
  • No ads
  • Commenting privileges

Just $25 per year

Join Today!