4 Ways to Fix Social Security
Social Security celebrates its 80th birthday today, and the popular program that provides paychecks for 44 million elderly Americans is in need of a safety net of its own.
As the amount claimed by recipients continues to outpace the amount of money contributed by workers, the system will need to dip into its reserves to keep up with its obligations by 2020. Within 15 years after that (if nothing changes), those reserves will be gone and the system will only be able to pay 77 cents on every dollar owed, an amount that will continue to decrease with time.
The problem is even more acute given that future retirees won’t have the same access to pensions that many current retirees use to fund their retirement, and younger workers haven’t saved nearly enough to cover the costs they’ll face when they stop working.
To close the projected gap, the country needs to raise revenue, reduce benefits or some combination of the two. Here are four of the most commonly proposed solutions:
1. Raise the retirement age. For most Americans, the full retirement age (at which you can get full benefits) ranges from 65 through 67. Advocates of this solution would reduce the amount the government pays in Social Security by gradually pushing back the age at which you’re eligible for full benefits.
The drawback: Many Americans are already forced into retirement before they reach age 65. If they claim early and receive reduced benefits they may not have enough money to meet their basic needs. Also, workers in physically demanding jobs many not be able to work those extra years.
2. Raise the payroll cap. Social Security is funded via payroll taxes, which currently are only levied on the first $118,500 of income. That means that high earners effectively pay a much lower rate toward Social Security than others. Hiking or eliminating that cap, advocates say, would create a fairer system and increase revenue.
The drawback: Critics of this solution claim that increasing taxes on middle- and upper-income earners would reduce their income and stifle the country’s economic growth.
Related: 6 Popular Social Security Myths Busted
3. Institute a means test. While the vast majority of recipients (80 percent, per AARP) rely on Social Security as an integral part of funding their retirement, extremely high net worth individuals don’t need the additional income. This solution would create a net worth or retirement income threshold over which eligibility for social security phases out.
The drawbacks: It could be politically difficult to settle on a threshold, which might vary depending on the geography of a recipient. Plus, this would require people to pay into a system from which they get no benefits.
4. Freeze the cost of living adjustment. Social Security payments have historically been adjusted based on inflation as measured by the Consumer Price Index. This has been minimal in recent years, but the long-term, compounding effect of inflation makes this provision incredibly expensive.The drawbacks: For many people, Social Security is the only inflation-linked retirement income stream that they have. Limiting it could push some retirees over the financial edge as prices rise.
Trump: Repeal the Obamacare Mandate to Cut the Top Tax Rate
President Trump repeated his call Monday to repeal the Affordable Care Act’s individual mandate as part of the tax bill. In a tweet — geotagged from Pennsylvania, not the Philippines , where Trump currently is — Trump added that the billions in savings from ending the mandate should be used to cut the top marginal rate to 35 percent and the rest on cuts for the middle class.
The Congressional Budget Office said last week that eliminating the mandate would save $338 billion over the next decade.
The current version of the House tax bill keeps the top individual income tax rate at 39.6 percent, while the Senate bill lowers it to 38.5 percent. However, mandate repeal is not currently part of either tax bill, and, as The New York Times notes, “repeal of the individual mandate was not on the list of 355 amendments that the [Senate Finance Committee] released on Sunday night.”
Tax Reform Is Hard, but the GOP Could Have Made This Easier
The Tax Policy Center’s William G. Gale writes that the GOP’s approach to the tax bill combines a $5.8 trillion tax cut with a $4.3 trillion tax increase to offset the costs. There may have been an easier way. “What if the House GOP simply tried to cut business and individual taxes by $1.5 trillion. No offsets needed. They could have distributed small tax cuts to middle-income individuals by, say, modestly expanding the earned income tax credit and raising the standard deduction. And they could have trimmed the top corporate tax rate by a few percentage points. It would not have been base-broadening tax reform, but neither is the current bill. ... Tax reform is never easy, but crafting the bill this way has vastly increased the challenge of passing it.”
Alan Greenspan: Deal with the National Debt Before Cutting Taxes
Former Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan is warning that sharply cutting taxes right now would be an economic “mistake.”
In an interview with Maria Bartiromo on the Fox Business Network Thursday, the 91-year-old Greenspan said it’s more important for President Trump and Congress to put the nation on a sustainable fiscal path by addressing rising entitlement spending driven by the aging of the U.S. population.
“Frankly, I think what we ought to be concerned about is the fact the federal debt is rising at a very rapid pace, and there’s nothing in this bill that will essentially stop that from happening," Greenspan said. "So my view is that we’re premature on fiscal stimulus, whether it’s tax cuts or expenditure increases. We’ve got to get the debt stabilized before we can even think in those terms.”
GOP’s Estate-Tax Repeal Details Would Save Super-Rich Tens of Billions Extra
It’s no surprise that the House Republicans’ tax bill includes the eventual repeal of the estate tax, a long-held GOP goal. But The Washington Post’s Glenn Kessler highlights an unexpectedly generous aspect of the current bill: It “allows the beneficiaries of estates to not pay capital gains taxes on the increase in value of assets held by the estates. That has not been a feature of most previous estate-tax bills.”
Currently, estates face a federal tax if they’re valued at more than $5.49 million for individuals or almost $11 million for couples. But, for tax purposes, the value of assets passed on to heirs gets “stepped-up” or reset to their value at the time of death. Kessler’s example: “Imagine a home that had been purchased for $250,000 but was now worth $1 million. The ‘stepped-up basis’ would be $1 million. If the heirs sold the house for $1.1 million, they would only owe capital-gains tax on the $100,000 difference, not the $850,000 difference from the original purchase price.”
The GOP bill repeals the estate tax, but also keeps the stepped-up basis — a seemingly small detail that creates a huge tax shelter. It means that heirs of large estates would save tens of billions of dollars a year when they sell assets that have appreciated in value over time — or, as Kessler puts it, that the bill will allow “tens of billions of untapped capital gains to remain beyond the reach of the U.S. government.”
Republicans Are Still Coming After Obamacare’s Individual Mandate
Speaker Paul Ryan said Sunday that House Republicans are still considering a repeal of the Obamacare individual mandate as part of their tax bill. "We have an active conversation with our members and a whole host of ideas on things to add to this bill. And that’s one of the things that’s being discussed," Ryan said on Fox News. President Trump touted the idea in a tweet last week, and Sens. Tom Cotton and Rand Paul have recently spoken in favor of using the tax bill to eliminate the mandate. The move would save the government $416 billion over 10 years as roughly 15 million people go without insurance due to lower spending on subsidies and health care services, according to the CBO. Those savings could be appealing as Republicans look for revenues in their revised tax bill. But if the controversial repeal of the mandate isn’t included in the tax bill, the White House is reportedly ready to roll out an executive order weakening the requirement that taxpayers provide proof of insurance to avoid paying a penalty.