Tuesday, April 25, 2017

Priorities V – Social Security

Social Security and Medicare payments, the major American social safety net programs, account for most of the $2.45 trillion each year in mandatory spending – spending required by law. Let’s examine these in more detail.

The original theory of Social Security was as a pay-as-you-go system. Workers would put money in, and that would provide funds to pay out to retirees. In 1945 there were 41 workers paying in for each retiree receiving payouts, and the system ran a surplus. By 1960, with an aging population, that ratio had dropped precipitously to 5.1 workers per beneficiary, and now it stands at about 2.9 workers per beneficiary, and is estimated to be at about 2 workers per retiree by 2030. The system was stable at about 3 workers per retiree, but now we take in less in payroll taxes than we pay out each year.

By the way, the Social Security Trustees annual report in all its detail is available for reading or download here

In 1983 President Reagan, foreseeing problems in Social Security with the approaching wave of baby boomer retirements, increased the payroll tax that supported Social Security by enough to produce a surplus that would sustain Social Security for another 30 years. The surplus in the Social Security Trust Fund was, by law, require to be invested in government bonds, and as of the 2016 Trustee’s Report should support the system through 2034.  In theory there are about $2.8 trillion in the Trust Fund as of last year. Actually, there are two such funds, the Old Age and Survivors Insurance (OASI) Trust Fund to the Disability Insurance (DI) Trust Fund, but we will treat them as one.

Unfortunately that pot of money was just too tempting for Congress, and both parties have essentially raided it in ensuing years to fund tax cuts, wars in the Middle East and vote-getting social programs. Putting it in government bonds makes it sound respectable, and makes it look for accounting and political purposes like the Trust Fund has actual money in it, but in effect Congress took the money and replaced it with paper IOUs (government bonds) which can only be redeemed out of current income or current borrowing, so in effect there really isn’t any surplus real money stored up for Social Security.

So for practical purposes, Social Security is now again a pay-as-you-go system, and the system is currently projected to run a real deficit of around $84 billion per year through 2019. I say “real deficit” because politicians like to include the interest on the Trust Fund bonds as income to the program, so that it will look like it is running a surplus. But of course interest on the Trust Fund bonds also comes out of taxpayer money or government borrowing, so it really isn’t income to the Trust Fund except for accounting and political purposes.

So the real cost these days of Social Security is the approximately $84 billion per year deficit – the difference between what the government takes in in payroll taxes and what it pays out in Social Security checks each year. And we can just ignore the Trust Fund as a political accounting fiction – it is really just government bonds we will have to pay back (or default on) someday.

On the scale of other things the government spends money on, $84 billion per year to keep Social Security going isn’t too bad.  But it would be even better if the program were permanently self-funded. An increase of about 10-12% in the payroll tax, indexing the payroll tax to inflation and/or eliminating the cap on income taxed for Social Security could easily cover the current deficit, if Congress could get its act together enough to make the change.  Beyond 2019 of course, if the ratio of workers to retirees really drops to 2 or less as currently projected, larger increases in the payroll tax will be necessary.

Of course Social Security is supposed to be only a supplement to a retiree’s own savings and pensions, not a complete retirement package in itself. So tax laws that would encourage more saving for retirement, and encourage more companies to provide more generous and more portable (across jobs) pension plans would also help the problem.