Tag: reform

Americans Should Be Less Complacent About Social Security

Mary Pat Campbell

Link: https://www.discoursemagazine.com/p/americans-should-be-less-complacent

Excerpt:

In December 2023, Gallup released the results of its latest survey of Americans’ expectations of Social Security. Gallup has been conducting these surveys in essentially similar form for many years, and their latest results qualitatively resemble previous ones. They show a slight uptick in Americans’ optimism that Social Security will make good on future benefit promises, producing Gallup’s headline finding: “Americans More Upbeat About Future Social Security Benefits.”

Unfortunately, the optimism expressed by Gallup’s respondents is at odds with the reality of Social Security’s deteriorating finances, as evidenced by the worsening actuarial shortfall documented in its trustees’ annual reports. Never before have Americans had greater reason for concern that they will not receive the benefits Social Security is promising. The reason Americans are feeling blithe about Social Security’s future is not because of its actual condition, but because elected officials and media figures avoid a subject whose harsh realities contradict their preferred political narratives.

….

Another recurring feature of the Gallup surveys is to question respondents as to whether they would prefer that Social Security solvency be restored by raising taxes or by “cutting” or “curbing” benefits. Whenever the question is phrased in such a way, Americans express a preference for raising taxes, a preference that increased in the latest poll. The rising preference for raising taxes may partially reflect the bigger-government tilt of young adults, combined with the large number of baby boomers on the verge of claiming benefits. However, a portion of that expressed preference has been present in every survey, and it is worth understanding why.

All Social Security survey responses tend to be extremely sensitive to the wording of questions and to background understanding of the program. For example, a previous Gallup poll showing majority opposition to proposals to “curb” benefits for middle- to high-income workers was contradicted by a contemporaneous poll finding that 59% of respondents favored slowing the rate of benefit growth for middle- to high-income workers. When proposals to moderate future benefit growth are accurately described as such, they tend to draw much more support than when proposals are described as “cutting” or “curbing” benefits. Language such as “cut” or “curb” implants the mistaken notion that such proposals would reduce benefits from current levels.

Author(s): Charles Blahous

Publication Date: 9 Feb 2024

Publication Site: Discourse Magazine

Protecting Social Security for All: Making the Wealthy Pay Their Fair Share Testimony by Stephen C. Goss, Chief Actuary, Social Security Administration United States Senate Committee on the Budget

Mary Pat Campbell

Link:https://www.budget.senate.gov/imo/media/doc/Mr.%20Stephen%20C.%20Goss%20-%20Testimony%20-%20Senate%20Budget%20Committee.pdf

Graphic:

Excerpt:

First, the 1983 Amendments were an interim solution to the well-understood changing of the age distribution due to the drop in birth rate after 1965. These Amendments were expected to extend the ability to pay scheduled benefits from 1982 to the mid-2050s, with the clear understanding that further changes would be needed by then.

Second, the redistribution of earned income to the highest earners was not anticipated in 1983. This shift resulted in about 8 percent less payroll tax revenue by 2000 than had been expected, with this reduced level continuing thereafter. The severity of the 2007-09 recession was also not anticipated.

Third, with the passage of 40 years since 1983, we clearly see the shortcomings of the 1983 Amendments in achieving “sustainable solvency” for Social Security. We are now in a position to formulate further changes needed, building on the start made in 1983.

Fourth, the long-known and understood shift in the age distribution of the US population will continue to increase the aged dependency ratio until about 2040, and in turn increase the cost of the OASDI program as a percentage of taxable payroll and GDP. Once this shift, which reflects the drop in the birth rate after 1965, is complete, the cost of the program will be relatively stable at around 6 percent of GDP. The unfunded obligation for the OASDI program over the next 75 years represents 1.2 percent of GDP over the period as a whole.

Author(s): Stephen C. Goss, Chief Actuary, Social Security Administration

Publication Date: 12 July 2023

Publication Site: Senate Budget Committee

Social Security is Running Out of Time and Money, What Do Biden and Trump Propose?

Mary Pat Campbell

Link: https://mishtalk.com/economics/social-security-is-running-out-of-time-and-money-what-do-biden-and-trump-propose

Graphic:

Excerpt:

Please consider the Biden-Trump Plan to Cut Social Security

  • Joe Biden: “I guarantee you I will protect Social Security and Medicare without any change. Guaranteed,” the president said in March. 
  • Donald Trump: “I will do everything within my power not to touch Social Security, to leave it the way it is.” A pro-Trump super PAC launched an ad attacking Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis for his efforts as a member of Congress to restructure benefits.

While Trump promised to not touch SS, Biden said he would protect SS “without any change“.

Biden’s “guarantee” is impossible, by existing law. 

The pledge to not change a thing means automatic benefit cuts starting in 2033 according to the bipartisan Congressional Budget Office (CBO). 

Author(s): Mike Shedlock

Publication Date: 15 April 2023

Publication Site: Mish Talk

Capital regulation and the Treasury market

Mary Pat Campbell

Link: https://www.brookings.edu/research/capital-regulation-and-the-treasury-market/

PDF: https://www.brookings.edu/wp-content/uploads/2023/03/Brookings-Tarullo-Capital-Regulation-and-Treasuries_3.17.23.pdf

Excerpt:

The dramatic, though short-lived, disruption of the market for U.S. Treasury debt in September 2019 and the more profound market dislocations at the onset of the COVID crisis in March 2020 have raised the issue of whether the treatment of central bank reserves and sovereign debt in bank capital requirements exacerbated the problems. Changes have been proposed to the Enhanced Supplementary Leverage Ratio (eSLR) and G-SIB (Global Systemically Important Bank) capital surcharge, both of which apply only to the eight U.S. banks designated as globally significant. Because these banks are some of the most important dealers in U.S. Treasuries, regulatory disincentives to hold and trade Treasuries can adversely affect the liquidity of the world’s most important debt market.

Disagreement over whether to adjust the eSLR, the surcharge or both is often just a version of the continuing debate over the right level of required capital. Some banking interests seize on episodes of Treasury market dysfunction to argue for reductions in the eSLR and surcharge. Some regulators, elected representatives, and commentators see any adjustments as weakening post-Global Financial Crisis (GFC) capital standards. Yet it is possible to reduce the current regulatory disincentive of banks, especially at the margin, to hold and trade Treasuries without diminishing the overall capital resiliency of large banks.

The concern with eSLR is that when it is effectively the binding regulatory capital constraint on a bank, that institution will limit its holding and trading of Treasuries. The eSLR can be modified to accommodate considerably more intermediation of Treasuries without significantly undercutting its regulatory rationale. As for the G-SIB surcharge, there are some unproblematic changes that could help.  But the chief complaints from banks about the G-SIB surcharge will be harder to satisfy without undermining the rationale of imposing higher capital requirements on systemically important banks.

Even with a change in the eSLR, banks’ holdings of Treasuries would continue to be subject to capital requirements for market risk. Moreover, as the failure of Silicon Valley Bank has demonstrated, the exclusion of unrealized gains and losses on banks’ available-for-sale portfolio of debt securities, including Treasuries, can give a misleading picture of a bank’s capital position. Following the Federal Reserve’s 2019 regulatory changes, only banks with more than $700 billion in assets or more than $75 billion in cross-jurisdictional activity are required to reflect unrecognized gains and losses in their capital calculations. The banking agencies should consider a significant reduction in these thresholds.

Far-reaching deregulatory changes would not remedy all that is worrisome in Treasury markets today. As the studies cited in the full paper emphasize, a multi-pronged program is needed. In any case, it would be misguided to seek greater bank capacity for Treasury intermediation at the cost of undermining the increased resiliency of the most important U.S. banking organizations or international bank regulatory arrangements. At the same time, it would be ill-advised not to recognize the changes in Treasury markets, beginning with their increased size because of fiscal policy. The modifications of capital regulation, especially the eSLR, outlined in the paper should ease (though not eliminate) constraints on banks holding and trading Treasuries without endangering the foundations of the post-GFC reforms.

Author(s): Daniel K. Tarullo

Publication Date: 17 Mar 2023

Publication Site: Brookings

Meet the Grinch Stealing the Future of Gen Y And Z

Mary Pat Campbell

Link: https://www.ineteconomics.org/perspectives/blog/meet-the-grinch-stealing-the-future-of-gen-y-and-z

Excerpt:

There’s one threat that gets far less attention, which has been impacting American workers since the 1970s: wages that just don’t keep up, despite increased productivity. Social Security was designed for wages that rise with inflation – but that’s not happening. In an interview with the Institute for New Economic Thinking, Eric Laursen, author of The People’s Pension: The Struggle to Defend Social Security Since Reagan, breaks down how the program works, why wage stagnation represents a mounting threat, and what can be done to strengthen and update the program for the 21stcentury.

Lynn Parramore: Social Security has been America’s most successful retirement program for the last 87 years. Yet the public is constantly hearing that the program is going to “run out of money.” Is that actually true? Can Social Security actually go bankrupt?

Eric Laursen: No, and the word bankrupt is just about a complete misnomer when it comes to Social Security. The program is funded by contributions that participants and their employers make through their paychecks. It’s also backed by a Trust Fund which is accumulated over time.

That Trust Fund is dwindling now, and it’s expected to run out of money in the early 2030s. But Social Security can’t actually go bankrupt. If the situation arises where there is not enough money either in the Trust Fund or coming through from contributions to fund current benefits, then those benefits can’t be paid, perhaps as much as 25%. In that case, Congress would be faced with a choice to either cut benefits or increase contributions.

There’s a lot of pressure from people who want to cut Social Security to do it now rather than waiting for that point in the future, because at that point, Congress would be under a lot of pressure to make good on what people have been promised.

….

LP: What would you do to make sure that Social Security is protected and remains strong? Does it need to be modernized in some ways to keep it effective?

EL: There are a number of things that can be done. One is to raise the cap. More of income beyond the $147,000 threshold needs to be taxed for payroll tax purposes. Another thing that can be done is passing the Social Security Expansion Act that Sanders, Elizabeth Warren, and others have backed. There is a special minimum benefit for Social Security recipients that’s aimed at keeping people who have really low incomes during their lifetimes above the poverty level, and that needs to be improved. That’s not asking a lot. It should be done.

You can also change the rules for wealthy people. One of the differences between now and 40 years ago is that people in the really high income brackets get much more of their income from investments, stock options, and other business holdings than they do from salaries and wages. We need to figure out a formula for applying the payroll tax to at least some of that investment income – like capital gains and so forth. Definitely, the CPI-E needs to be instituted. There should be an expansion of benefits across the board for Social Security benefits. We need the CPI-E at a base level that’s more reasonable. Another thing I think is important: one of the changes that happened in ’83 that was really bad was that Social Security survivor benefits were ended for children of deceased or disabled workers above the age of 18. It used to be that you could get those until 22 and they would help you to go to college. That was abolished. It would be a very good thing if that could be reinstated so that more people have some level of security to pursue higher education.

Author(s): Lynn Parramore

Publication Date: 20 Dec 2022

Publication Site: Institute for New Economic Thinking

Office of the Chief Actuary’s Estimates of Proposals to Change the Social Security Program or the SSI Program

Mary Pat Campbell

Link: https://www.ssa.gov/oact/solvency/index.html

Excerpt:

The last 11 Trustees Reports have indicated that Social Security’s Old-Age, Survivors, and Disability Insurance (OASDI) Trust Fund reserves would become depleted between 2033 and 2035 under the intermediate set of assumptions provided in each report. If no legislative change is enacted, scheduled tax revenues will be sufficient to pay only about three-fourths of the scheduled benefits after trust fund depletion. Policymakers have developed proposals and options that have financial effects on the OASDI Trust Funds. Many of these proposals and options have the intent of addressing the long-range solvency problem.

The Office of the Chief Actuary also develops estimates of proposals to change the Supplemental Security Income (SSI) program.

We have prepared letters or memoranda for many of these proposals and options. Each letter or memorandum provides an actuarial analysis showing the estimated effect on the financial status of the Social Security program and/or the SSI program.

Publication Date: accessed 4 Dec 2022

Publication Site: Office of the Chief Actuary, Social Security Administration

Social Security Needs Saving Again

Mary Pat Campbell

Link: https://www.wsj.com/articles/social-security-needs-saving-again-retirement-planning-wages-earnings-benefits-eligible-savings-11654631767?mod=opinion_lead_pos5

Excerpt:

— Raise the full retirement age further. Starting in 2028, it would go up by one month every half-year until it reaches 68 1/2 in nine years. That means that in 101 years (1935-2036) the full retirement age would have risen 3 1/2 years — far less than the increase in average life span over the same period.

— Raise the early eligibility age. Since the 1960s, all workers have had the option of retiring at 62 with benefits reduced by around 25%. Most retirees now claim Social Security at 62, and the rising full retirement age strengthens the incentive to do so. Once it’s at 67, holding out for higher payments will mean giving up five years’ worth of benefits — a three-year gap will have widened to five.

If my first reform were enacted, the gap would grow further, to an irresistible 6 1/2 years. So Congress should return to the three-year gap by raising the early eligibility age to 65 1/2 as soon as possible.

— Change the way benefits are calculated for new recipients. At a 1983 White House Rose Garden ceremony, I sat next to a Senate member of the Social Security Reform Commission. I told him, “You can fix Social Security by not indexing the bend points for five years.” His response: “What the hell are bend points?”

Bend points determine how much your initial Social Security check will be. First they take the 35 years of your highest income. Thirty-five years ago, you were a junior employee and the dollar didn’t go as far. So each year’s wages are adjusted for inflation to compute an average monthly wage in today’s dollars.

Using the present rules, assume you’re retiring in 2022 and your average inflation-adjusted monthly wage is $6,572. Your first check would be $2,628.96 — 90% of the first $1,024 (or $921.60), plus 32% from $1,024 to $6,172 (or 1,647.36), plus 15% in excess of $6,172 (or $60).

The bend points are $1,024 and $6,172. They were $230 and $1,388 in 1982, when I wrote my constituent newsletter. The growth in benefits could be constrained by indexing the bend points every other year rather than annually for six to 10 years. In addition, the initial benefit should be based on 38 years of wages rather than 35, since Americans not only live longer but work longer, and the inflation-adjusted average wage should be discounted by 5%.

— Slow the growth of benefits for new and existing beneficiaries alike by changing the basis on which they’re indexed for inflation. All indexing of Social Security now uses the Consumer Price Index for Urban Wage Earners and Clerical Workers, or CPI-W. Economists agree that the Chained CPI is the most accurate inflation index available. Between 2000 and 2020, the Chained CPI was around 0.3 percentage point lower each year than the CPI-W. The government uses Chained CPI to index income-tax brackets and the higher CPI-W to calculate government outlays, including Social Security cost-of-living adjustments — which leads both taxes and spending to rise more quickly.

— Withhold some Social Security COLAs from higher-income retirees. Those who report income of more than $60,000 (a threshold that itself would rise with inflation) from sources other than Social Security could be denied the COLA every other year for up to six years.

— Give the COLA not annually but every 14 or 15 months using the 12 months of lowest inflation.

— Tax Social Security income for higher-bracket taxpayers, and give them the option to forgo all or part of their monthly payment. The forgone amount could be deducted as a charitable contribution. In high-income-tax states, forgoing Social Security payments would incur little or no cost. Skeptics may be surprised by how many Americans will forgo a part of their monthly checks to assure the system’s solvency for their grandchildren. The election to forgo would be reversible annually.

— Raise the payroll tax by 0.1% of wages every other year — half from withholding, half for the employer’s contribution — for 20 years, a total tax increase of 1%.

Author(s): Rudy Boschwitz

Publication Date: 7 June 2022

Publication Site: WSJ

Social Security Reform: Taxation Options

Mary Pat Campbell

Link: https://www.actuary.org/sites/default/files/2022-08/SocSecReformTaxation0822.pdf

Graphic:

Excerpt:

Social Security was originally
funded by a tax on the wages of
covered workers plus interest on
accumulated taxes not yet paid
out as benefits. Later, a tax on the
benefits of some beneficiaries
was added.
• Both the tax rate and the limit
on wages subject to taxation
have been raised periodically to
fund increases in the scope and
amount of benefits.
• According to the 2021 Social
Security Trustees Report,
accumulated assets will be
depleted by 2034 and income
to the system thereafter will be
insufficient to pay all scheduled
benefits when due.
• Some or all of this shortfall can
be averted by raising the tax rate
on wages, increasing the limit
on wages subject to taxation,
broadening coverage to include
all state and local government
employees, increasing taxes on
benefits, and/or creating new
taxes dedicated to funding Social
Security benefits.
• This issue brief explores a
wide variety of proposals for
increasing system revenue
that have been made over the
years by members of Congress,
government-appointed panels
and commissions, and outside
experts.

Author(s): American Academy of Actuaries Social Security Committee

Publication Date: August 2022

Publication Site: American Academy of Actuaries

Social Security Reform: Benefit Formula Options

Mary Pat Campbell

Link: https://www.actuary.org/sites/default/files/2022-08/SocSecReformBenefits0822.pdf

Graphic:

Excerpt:

From its inception, the formulas
for determining benefits payable
under the Social Security System
have included elements of
individual equity and social
adequacy, so that benefits vary
in proportion to differences
in worker contributions, yet
benefits are sufficient to meet
the deemed financial needs
of most workers and covered
dependents.
• According to the 2021 Social
Security Trustees Report,
accumulated assets will be
depleted by 2034 and income
to the system thereafter will be
insufficient to pay all scheduled
benefits when due.
• Some or all of this shortfall
can be averted by changing
the primary formula for retired
worker benefits, changing the
formulas for determining the
benefits of eligible spouses and
other dependents of workers,
and/or changing the formula for
computing annual cost-of-living
increases.
• This issue brief explores a
wide variety of proposals for
changing the formulas for
determining benefits that
have been made over the
years by members of Congress,
government-appointed panels
and commissions, and outside
experts, with an eye toward how
the proposed changes would
affect the balance between
individual equity and social
adequacy.

Author(s): American Academy of Actuaries Social Security Committee

Publication Date: August 2022

Publication Site: American Academy of Actuaries

Will Democrats Try Cutting Social Security and Medicare After a Disastrous Midterms?

Mary Pat Campbell

Link: https://jacobin.com/2022/06/austerity-entitlement-reform-social-security-democrats-gop

Excerpt:

Days after Obama lamented Democrats’ 2010 electoral “shellacking,” his commission released a plan to slash Social Security benefits and raise the program’s eligibility age. Economist Paul Krugman noted at the time that the commission also suggested using newly gained revenue to finance “sharp reductions in both the top marginal tax rate and in the corporate tax rate.”

The plan ultimately did not receive the fourteen commission votes it needed to move forward, and a few years later in 2012, the House voted down a version of the proposal. That didn’t stop the Obama-Biden administration’s push: right after winning reelection — and after cementing much of the George W. Bush tax cuts — they tried to limit cost-of-living increases for Social Security, to the applause of Republican lawmakers.

…..

Like Obama, Biden campaigned on a promise to protect Medicare and Social Security. But as we have reported, Biden is already affirming big Medicare premium increases and accelerating the privatization of that health care program. Biden also has not pushed to fulfill his promise to expand Social Security, even though there is new Democratic legislation that would do so.

And now with Graham’s comments, Republicans are banking on him becoming the old Joe Biden on Social Security if they win in November.

It’s not an insane political bet. After all, Biden for decades proposed cuts and freezes to Social Security and publicly boasted about it. Indeed, Biden spent most of his career depicting himself as an allegedly rare and courageous Democrat who was willing to push off his party’s base and tout austerity.

Author(s): David Sirota

Publication Date: 16 Jun 2022

Publication Site: Jacobin

Action on Social Security 2100 Bill Coming ‘Very Soon’: Rep. Larson

Mary Pat Campbell

Link: https://www.thinkadvisor.com/2022/05/23/action-on-social-security-2100-bill-coming-very-soon-rep-larson/

Excerpt:

The House Ways and Means Social Security Subcommittee plans to debate his Social Security 2100: A Sacred Trust bill soon, Rep. John Larson, D-Conn., chairman of the House Ways and Means Social Security Subcommittee, told ThinkAdvisor in a recent email.

The legislation adopts the consumer price index for the elderly as the basis of the annual cost-of-living adjustment (COLA) and applies the payroll tax to annual wages above $400,000.

“We are in the process of working toward markup, which will be held hopefully very soon,” Larson said in the email.

Author(s): Melanie Waddell

Publication Date: 23 May 2022

Publication Site: Think Advisor

9 Ways to Strengthen Social Security

Mary Pat Campbell

Link: https://www.aarp.org/retirement/social-security/info-2022/benefits-current-status-future-stability.html

Graphic:

Excerpt:

How did we get here? ​​As long predicted, demographics explain a good deal: In a decade, the entirety of the boomer generation — some 70 million Americans born between 1946 and 1964 — will have hit retirement age. As a result, the number of people receiving Social Security benefits come 2034 will be more than double the beneficiaries in 1985. ​​

But what wasn’t known as accurately was how much longer those boomers would live. “From 1940 to 2019, life expectancies at age 65 have increased by about 6.5 years,” says Amy Kemp, chair of the Social Security Committee of the American Academy of Actuaries.

The impact: Many workers will be receiving benefits for a longer period of time. And those with higher incomes, which are generally those who receive higher benefit amounts, tend to live longer on average. ​

Author(s): John Waggoner

Publication Date: 1 March 2022

Publication Site: AARP