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.
Goldman Sachs Says Corporate Tax Rate Cuts May Get Phased In
Despite the challenges the Republican tax overhaul faces, Goldman Sachs still puts the chances of a plan becoming law by early next year at about 65 percent — but its analysts see some substantial changes coming before that happens. “The proposed tax cut is more front-loaded than we have expected; official estimates suggest a tax cut of 0.75% of GDP in 2018. However, we expect the final version to have a smaller near-term effect as competing priorities lead tax-writers to phase in some cuts—particularly corporate rate cuts—over time,” Goldman said in a note to clients Sunday.
The Hidden Tax Bracket in the GOP Plan
Politico’s Danny Vinik: “Thanks to a quirky proposed surcharge, Americans who earn more than $1 million in taxable income would trigger an extra 6 percent tax on the next $200,000 they earn—a complicated change that effectively creates a new, unannounced tax bracket of 45.6 percent. … The new rate stems from a provision in the bill intended to help the government recover, from the very wealthy, some of the benefits that lower-income taxpayers enjoy. … After the first $1 million in taxable income, the government would impose a 6 percent surcharge on every dollar earned, until it made up for the tax benefits that the rich receive from the low tax rate on that first $45,000. That surcharge remains until the government has clawed back the full $12,420, which would occur at about $1.2 million in taxable income. At that point, the surcharge disappears and the top tax rate drops back to 39.6 percent.”
Vinik writes that the surcharge would have affected more than 400,000 tax filers in 2015, according to IRS data, and that it could raise more than $50 billion in revenue over a decade. At a Politico event Friday, House Ways and Means Chairman Kevin Brady said the surcharge, sometimes called a bubble rate, was included to try to drive more middle-class tax relief.
Read the Republican Tax Bill, Plus the Talking Points to Sell the Plan
House Republicans on Thursday released a 429-page draft of their "Tax Cuts and Jobs Act." Read the bill below, or scroll down for the House summary or a more digestible GOP list of highlights.
Another Analysis Finds GOP Tax Plan Would Balloon Deficits
A study by the University of Pennsylvania’s Wharton School, using the Penn Wharton Budget Model (PWBM), finds that three modeled versions of the plan would raise deficits by up to $3.5 trillion over 10 years and as much as $12.2 trillion by 2040. The lowest-cost plan modeled in the study — a version that would tax corporate income at 25 percent instead of the GOP’s proposed 20 percent and pass-through income at 28 percent instead of 25 percent, among a host of other assumptions and tweaks — would lose $1.5 trillion over 10 years, or $1 trillion after accounting for economic feedback effects. (The budget adopted by Republicans last week allows for up to $1.5 trillion to the added to the deficit.) The study also found that workers’ wages would increase by about 1.4 percent over a decade, far shy of the estimated benefits being claimed by the White House.
The Budget Vote May Depend on a SALT Deal
House GOP members concerned about the proposal to repeal the deduction for state and local taxes are supposed to meet with party leaders Wednesday evening. They’re reportedly looking to reach a compromise deal to keep the tax break in some form — and the budget vote might be at stake, Bloomberg reports: “House Republicans hold 239 seats and need 217 votes to adopt the budget — a critical step to passing tax changes without Democratic support. That means 23 defections could sink the budget resolution — assuming no absences or Democratic support.”