|
|
|
Jewish World Review May 6, 2005 / 27 Nissan, 5765 Fixing Social Secutity is doable — but only if we're willing to sacrifice By Jack Kelly
http://www.JewishWorldReview.com |
Social Security is going broke. To make the system solvent, would you
rather:
(1) Pay 50 percent more in Social Security tax? Payroll taxes would have
to rise from the current 12.4 percent to about 18 percent if the deficit
were to be closed by tax increases alone.
(2) Work an additional year or two before you can retire? When Social
Security was going bust in 1983, Congress raised the retirement age for
younger workers to 67 from 65, along with raising the payroll tax from 10.8
to 12.4 percent.
(3) Reduce the rate of growth of Social Security benefits to just above the
cost of living?
Social Security benefits had been indexed to prices, to make sure retirees
could keep pace with inflation. But in 1972, Congress changed the COLA
formula. Benefits are now indexed to increases in wages, which have, on
average, been increasing one percent more a year than prices.
President Bush opted for door number 3 in his news conference April 28th.
Social Security benefits are paid out roughly in proportion to the amount a
worker paid in, but lower income workers receive a proportionately higher
benefit. Lower income workers receive about half their pre-retirement income
in benefits. Middle income workers get about 40 percent, upper income
workers only 27 percent.
The president wants to use the wage index for calculating benefit increases
for the first increment of Social Security benefits. But COLAs above those
that lower income retirees get would be indexed to prices.
Benefits for all Social Security recipients would go up faster than the
actual cost of living, but rise more slowly for middle and upper income
workers. Bush thinks this change would wipe out about 70 percent of the
Social Security deficit.
Though this plan for "progressive indexation" originated with a Democratic
businessman, most Democrats in Congress oppose it. Democrats have not
proposed a plan of their own for making Social Security solvent.
Even if progressive indexation were adopted, more would have to be done to
put Social Security back in the black. Bush is against raising the payroll
tax, because it already places a proportionately heavier burden on low and
middle income workers than it does on wealthier wage earners, and it would
have the most negative effects on the economy.
The payroll tax is regressive because Social Security was designed as a
social insurance program, not a welfare program. Benefits received are
supposed to be in rough proportion to taxes paid.
The main complaint Democrats have made against progressive indexation is
that it would turn Social Security into more of a welfare program because
wealthier workers would pay more and get less. Democrats fear that if
Social Security is seen primarily as a welfare program, public support for
it will decline.
This complaint applies with greater force to a proposal some Democrats have
advanced, to lift the cap on Social Security taxes, currently set at
$90,000. About 13 percent of Americans earn more than this.
Lifting the cap would provide a short term infusion of funds, but would do
nothing for the long term solvency of Social Security if benefits for
wealthier workers rise along with the higher taxes they would pay. If
benefits don't rise, this would turn Social Security into a welfare program,
and do it at a level that would be burdensome for the middle class, a sure
recipe for loss of public favor.
Since half the payroll tax is paid by employers, lifting the cap would have
a profoundly negative effect on the economy, a drag that progressive
indexation would not impose.
I think the best way to make Social Security solvent for the long term is
gradually to raise the retirement age for younger workers. When Social
Security established a retirement age of 65 in 1937, average life expectancy
was 62. If Social Security were to maintain the same relationship to life
expectancy today, the retirement age would have to be raised to 79 or 80.
Nobody is advocating that. But raising the retirement age to 68 or 69,
coupled with progressive indexation, would solve Social Security's funding
problems for a long time to come.
President Bush proposed personal retirement accounts as the spoonful of
sugar to help the medicine go down. But an analysis of why personal
accounts are a good idea — and the one big problem with them — will have
to wait for another column.
Every weekday JewishWorldReview.com publishes what many in in the media and Washington consider "must-reading". Sign up for the daily JWR update. It's free. Just click here.
© 2005, Jack Kelly |
Arnold Ahlert | |||||||||||
>
