February 22, 2005

Social Security

I have a new favorite magazine. A few years ago, it was "National Review." Then "The Weekly Standard" overtook it. Now, I gotta say I get pretty excited when a new "The American Enterprise" rolls in.

It only publishes eight times a year, so it lacks the news quality of the other two. Yet TAE takes one topic on per issue and brings a dozen great thinkers and writers together to really flesh it out. Then the "Bird's Eye" column contextualizes all of them.

The March 2005 issue, From Alms to Ownership, is a perfect example. Social Security reform is examined from a market perspective by James Glassman, historical perspective by Stephen Moore et al, and a philosophical perspective by William Tucker.

The "Bird's eye" overview is interesting as it describes the America of 1935, giving us perspective on when the plan was engineered. "What a year," it starts out:

The world's first full-color feature film has just been released. Now there are whispers of special-effects-laden Hollywood blockbusters to come over the next several years. Two projects thought to be gestating: an adaptation of a much-anticipated new book called Gone With the Wind, and some kind of musical based on the Wizard of Oz children's stories. More films are also expected from the sensationally popular new comedy team that debuted last year: The Three Stooges.

Meanwhile, the red-hot new entertainment medium of radio continues to boost its audience. Fully two thirds of all Americans now have a radio in their own home. That's almost as many as have electrical service (68 percent). Peeking over the horizon, futurists claim that within just a few years, companies may start broadcasting radio-like signals that can be picked up by boxes known as "televisions"--which not only reproduce sounds but also small pictures! It remains to be seen if there will be any consumer demand for such a novelty.

One gadget that has definitely proven its popularity is the telephone. The proportion of American homes equipped with a telephone stood at 32 percent this year--and saturation is even higher in offices. The absolute cutting edge in communication breakthroughs, though, arrived this summer--in the form of an electrified typewriter invented by International Business Machines.

Even if you can't put down the fabulous sums for an electrified typewriter, relief for achy writing hands and messy fountain pens may be on the horizon. Within ten years, experts believe, it may be possible for ordinary citizens to buy something called a "ballpoint pen" which can be used for months without refilling! Initially, though, you can expect to pay at least half a week's pay for one of these amazing conveniences.


And while America is wiring itself for majority telephone ownership, it is deeply into economic depression and as yet-undiscredited Stalinism holds sway as the wave of the future.
So: Do you want to base your security in old age on a program engineered at the same time as the Model A and the vacuum-tube radio? Has work changed much since the era when slopping pigs for Auntie Em was a typical job? Does the boundary between state and individual look different now that the USSR has gone from progressive polestar to oppressive flop? Has American finance advanced from the decades when the only choices for ordinary savers were the passbook, the mason jar, or the mattress? Are the retirement goals of Americans still the same as in the days when the Bambino retired? Or is it time for Social Security to enjoy a major-league update?

The answer, I think, is obvious. Nothing but a government welfare program could ever last this long in unimproved form. Our transportation networks, our medical services, our economy are all light-years better than they were in 1935. So why are we still stuck with a gramophone/Hupmobile/fountain pen system of public pensions?
[...]
The most important aspect of ownership is not that it makes you rich, but that it makes you free. Ownership gives you independence, choices, a measure of control over your own life. Possessing property can liberate you from capricious bosses and suffocating government alike. Opponents of the Ownership Society completely fail to understand that...


This is the big domestic political issue for this next Congress and this Presidential term. You can read a sampling of these articles online but I would encourage anybody to purchase and read this issue cover-to-cover. You will not see a better exegesis on the conservative position on Social Security reform anywhere.

Threesources regulars: holler and I'll buy it for you or take you out to lunch when you're finished so we can discuss it.

Second Bush Administration Posted by jk at February 22, 2005 4:55 PM

I might have to pick that issue up, and yes I would take you up on lunch as well. Just for fun I did a little Excel exercise. I assumed "Average Joe" started working next year at age 18 making $30,000. He starts socking away his allowed 4% of his SS tax in a personal savings account each year. He then got a 5% raise every year (way to go Joe!) and earned a 10% return on his money annually. Take this out 49 years till retirement at age 67 when Joe is now pulling down $312,038 a year. His retirement nest egg? $142,547. Bravo, Joe can live for about a year on his share of the ownership society. Sound far-fetched? Think about how many folks can't get a $30K starting salary, say a Wal-mart employee, service worker, even a teacher. A 5% raise every year? Yeah right. Lots of folks out there who are not going to be stuffing big bucks in an IRA or 401K. So under the current proposal they still get about 70% of today's SS benefit. That nest egg is still going to run out in a few years and Joe is going to be left on just a 70% SS payment. Sorry JK, but I see the odds of lower income workers using the plan to pay for their retirement years and leave a nice inheritance to their kids as laughable.

Posted by: Silence Dogood at February 22, 2005 6:28 PM

Fuzzy math! I see the principal alone at $233,316. (4% of the first 90K, my salary numbers match yours). Joe is a millionaire with less than 10% return, on one sixth of his Social Security -- and the rest of the benefits are still there for his less fortunate friends.

Before lunch, see what happens if you let Joe invest ALL of his Social Security.

My inheritance is not based on leftovers from a 30 year retirement. Just something for Joe's family if some non-union Wal*Mart forklift driver runs him down.

My spreadsheet is http://threesources.com/ss_payments.xls

Posted by: jk at February 22, 2005 6:55 PM

You will have to excuse me if I misunderestimated President Bush, but what I heard was that we would only take a small portion of SS - 4 percentage points to put into private accounts. After running these numbers I would have to assume that he meant that 4% of your salary would go into a private account. That would net Joe almost $2.3M at retirement. This is a great option I just don't see how we do the changeover - how to pay SS until some sunset date with 1/3 less money coming in (2004 SS tax is 12.4% including employer contribution). Not sure where your 1/6 number comes from. The real result I like is that this money is not available for the general budget like SS funds. The bad part comes when you figure how much it will cost Uncle Sam to cover the SS payments without 1/3 of the revenue and what that will do to Joe's net return. This says nothing of course about how Uncle Sam pays for defense and all the other budget items without the SS funds in the pot.

Posted by: Silence Dogood at February 22, 2005 7:40 PM

If one is onboard for personal accounts and just worried about transition costs, there are three ways I see to make the switch:

1) Borrow it. I know, I know, the deficit, Reubenomics, bla, bla... But if my house roof is going to fall in in a few years, I can refinance and hope that the value of the house and my income grows to cover it. Likewise, we can finance some payments (easier now before it gets worse). The new investment capital could light up the economy and we would pay off the d e b t as we always have -- through economic growth.

I know I am a broken record on this but, again, we are moving unfunded liabilities (promises on which we won't renege) to securitized d e b t. Only the paper d e b t is increasing.

2) If supply-side is not your thing, let's help it out with some reasonable adjustments to benefits: indexing to prices instead of wages and a transition to a later retirement age. 55-65 no change, 45-55 plus two years, 35-44 plus three years, everybody else plus four years. I would also point out that not everyone is going to immediately reduce his/her payments by 1/3. Older workers will not participate, and some younger workers might elect not to or choose a smaller amount.

3) In compromise for that, I'll risk Larry Kudlow's wrath and permit a rise in the cap from $90K to $115. A small increase for the six figure crowd should be a good trade for personal accounts.

Of course, I wouldn't advocate #3 -- I offer that as a spirit of compromise. But with those reasonable measures I have raised revenue and reduced payments. With this lowered pressure we could certainly finance the rest.

Posted by: jk at February 23, 2005 11:22 AM

OK now, who's math is fuzzy? From www.whitehouse.gov :

Personal retirement accounts would start gradually. Yearly contribution limits would be raised over time, eventually permitting all workers to set aside 4 percentage points of their payroll taxes in their accounts.


A young person who earns an average of $35,000 a year over his or her career would have nearly a quarter million dollars saved in his or her own account upon retirement.

First there is a huge difference between 4% of your income and 4% of your payroll tax, i.e. your SS withholding. Specifically, 4% of 6.2% is just under .25% or one quarter of one percent and that is the value I used for my original calculation. I came up a bit short of the quarter million the white house envisions, but where the heck did their number come from? An average of $35,000 over their career? Adjusted for inflation? $35K per year in 2050 is going to be living on the street eating dog food from the can.

Can someone clarify for me 4% of what is going into my personal retirement account?

Posted by: Silence Dogood at February 23, 2005 11:38 AM

I see the ambiguity. And there is, of course, no specific legislation to base calculations on. But if it's 4% of payroll taxes (phased in at that!) then it is not worth the effort. I have to think we are discussing 4% of payroll, coming out of payroll taxes.

President Bush doesn't like "smallball" and I don't see anyone grabbing the infamous third rail for less than a quarter of one percent.

The $35K example is not going to be retiring in a five star hotel in the Bahamas. But that is a quarter of a million that he owns and controls, instead of a gub'mint check that he has to worry about. Seems pretty good for a guy who did not light up the world with career success.

Posted by: jk at February 23, 2005 1:03 PM

I am afraid I don't get your accounting explanation about trading debt but not increasing it. If all these were long term debts then I think I would agree, but SS is based on cash flow. You have to mail out monthly checks with real dollars, dollars that we currently pay in. If we stop paying in part of that cash then the government will have to borrow to make up the difference.

Now back to "Average Joe" recalculated this time that he puts away 4% of his income annually with no cap at 90K (it's his money, no need for a cap). Now let's assume some more small details in the current Bush plan. (to the extent that those details exist) The official number I keep hearing for these low fee but conservatively managed accounts is 4.6% average annual return. Now the government can issue debt at a projected 3% rate to cover current SS obligations. If Joe elects to have a private account then when he retires he will be responsible for his portion of those SS obligations meaning that his net rate of return is 1.6%. He now retires at 67 with over $308K net in his fund which at first blush seems not bad as you say for someone who did not light up the world with career success. Except that to reach that figure he would have to get his 5% annual raise which is really not bad and thus would retire with a $312K annual salary. So his $308K really isn't going to go very far. The question then becomes what will the actual SS benefits be at that time and can he combine that with his nest egg to provide a livable retirement benefit.

An interesting historical note about your referenced article that was sort of glossed over with a reference to average lifespan is that in 1935 a lower income worker had no real expectation of any retirement. This concept that we all get to stop working and spend the last 15 years or so of our life without a job is a fairly recent one. Working your whole life was a reality for lower income workers and is becoming so again with the escalating cost of health care. This is a harsh reality that society may have to accept.

Posted by: Silence Dogood at February 23, 2005 3:10 PM | What do you think? [7]