Private Accounts
My mentor and hero, Larry Kudlow is concerned that Senator Chuck Grassley is discussing a Social Security reform plan that would restore solvency, “with, or without, private accounts.”
Respectfully, I would suggest to Mr. Grassley, and to the White House, that you cannot solve the pending financial storm in social security without personal savings accounts.
The reason? The private account option would finance benefits through stock and bond market returns. Without private accounts, benefits will be funded only by higher tax payments from the government.
Higher taxes will stall the economy and benefits will suffer accordingly. But the thrift savings account model of benefits throws off a 6.7% yearly inflation-adjusted return, far superior to the 1.8% post-inflation estimate of future social security.
The market is more reliable over the long run than the government. As more and more people choose market benefits from private accounts, fewer and fewer will demand government benefits. Over 50 years, government benefits will shrink from lack of demand. And so will the unfunded future liabilities of the system.
Call it the substitution effect. Not until the White House or Congress moves to private accounts will social security insolvency ever be solved.
As usual with economic issues, Mr. Kudlow is spot on. Politically it has been pointed out that freedom is more desirable than solvency. Private accounts are part and parcel of the ownership society and the President should not proceed without them.
Second Bush Administration
Posted by jk at April 27, 2005 4:47 PM
Let's compare those two investments, shall we?
A twenty year-old invests $100 per month until he retires 45 years later. His total contributions are $100x12x45=$54,000. For purposes of comparision, figure his investment at half that, continuously invested over the entire period of 45 years. (Not quite the same, but it's just an example.)
In the Thrift Savings Plan at 6.7% per year, the principal will double in 72/6.7=10.7 years, or about 4 times in 45 years. In Social Security it doubles in 72/1.8=40 years or about, once.
Which would you rather retire on, $432,000 or $54,000?
Democrats and the AARP oppose reform on the grounds that "it's a guarantee that you've earned, don't let them turn it into a gamble." Fine. The plan is VOL-UHN-TARE-EEE. Don't like the "odds" then don't play. As for me, cash me in.
Let's compare those two investments, shall we?
A twenty year-old invests $100 per month until he retires 45 years later. His total contributions are $100x12x45=$54,000. For purposes of comparision, figure his investment at half that, continuously invested over the entire period of 45 years. (Not quite the same, but it's just an example.)
In the Thrift Savings Plan at 6.7% per year, the principal will double in 72/6.7=10.7 years, or about 4 times in 45 years. In Social Security it doubles in 72/1.8=40 years or about, once.
Which would you rather retire on, $432,000 or $54,000?
Democrats and the AARP oppose reform on the grounds that "it's a guarantee that you've earned, don't let them turn it into a gamble." Fine. The plan is VOL-UHN-TARE-EEE. Don't like the "odds" then don't play. As for me, cash me in.
Posted by: johngalt at April 28, 2005 2:02 PM | What do you think? [1]