It's the Secure Retirement, Stupid!
Some Republicans are taking the Democrat bait on Social Security solvency hook, line and sinker! (Put Social Security solvency first, Grassley says) .
Stealing a page from James Carville’s play book, “It’s the Secure Retirement, Stupid!” Politicians like Grassley appear determined to lead Republicans back to the bleak wilderness of a minority party.
Porkopolis strongly endorses Michael Tanner’s 1996 argument for a total overhaul of the ponzi scheme structure of Social Security. Republican’s are losing their backbone and any claim to being the ‘Party of Ideas’.
A libertarian would simply say that individuals should be educated on setting aside savings in their productive years for an eventual retirement and leave it at that. Realists, would see that as too drastic an evolution; actually a revolution.
America requires a 12 Step program to kick the nanny-state habit. Though libertarian, Porkopolis supports a realists’ transitional approach with a strong dose of honesty:
Michael Tanner’s December 27, 1996 article “Social Security: Solvency isn’t the Only Issue” is included here in its entirety:
December 27, 1996
Social Security: Solvency Isn't the Only Issue
by Michael Tanner
Michael Tanner is director of health and welfare studies at the Cato Institute.
Most of the calls for reforming Social Security have highlighted the program's looming insolvency. There is certainly good reason to be concerned about Social Security's financial health. The system will be running a deficit as soon as 2012. But focusing too narrowly on solvency invites cures that are as bad as the disease.
Social Security's failing finances are one reason why we need to update this outmoded New Deal legacy. But there is another, equally important, problem with Social Security.
Quite simply, Social Security is a bad deal for most Americans, a situation that is growing steadily worse for today's young workers. Payroll taxes are already so high that even if today's young workers receive the promised benefits, such benefits will amount to a low, below-market return on those taxes. Indeed, as the attached figure shows, most Americans working today will actually receive a negative return--less than they paid in.
If keeping Social Security solvent were the only concern, that could be done by raising taxes or cutting benefits. In fact, labor unions and the seniors lobby are already beating the drums for a tax hike. Meanwhile, in Congress, several benefit cuts such as raising the retirement age are being tentatively broached. Recent proposals for recalculating the Consumer Price Index are also being hailed as a way to preserve Social Security.
But raising taxes or cutting benefits would only make the return on Social Security even worse. For example, reducing the CPI by 1 percent will lead to a benefit reduction of more than $5,000 over a recipient's lifetime. Certainly, the CPI should be adjusted to ensure its accuracy, but such a change should never be confused with saving Social Security.
The only way to simultaneously solve Social Security's financing problems and provide higher benefits is to privatize the system, allowing young workers to redirect their payroll taxes to individually owned, privately invested accounts, similar to 401(k) plans or Individual Retirement Accounts. At the same time, the government should cut current spending and sell assets to guarantee benefits to those currently receiving benefits.
Privatizing Social Security in this way will end the current pyramid scheme and guarantee the system's future solvency. At the same time, by allowing workers to earn the high returns available from private investment, privatization will allow people to retire with much higher benefits. A 1995 study by William Shipman of State Street Global Advisors concluded that even if the financial markets’ performance is slightly worse than their historical average, today's young workers could expect to receive benefits three to six times greater if they were allowed to privately invest their Social Security taxes.
The poor return from Social Security leaves tomorrow's seniors at severe financial risk. Social Security accounts for nearly half of all retirement benefits. More than half of the elderly receive no private pension, and more than one-third have no income from assets. Clearly, millions of elderly people rely on Social Security to provide for their retirement. Therefore, the increasingly poor return from Social Security means that many elderly Americans will find their financial security at risk. In contrast, privatization would allow today's young workers to retire with the same financial dignity as their parents.
As we set out to fix Social security's financial problems, we should keep that in mind.
Stealing a page from James Carville’s play book, “It’s the Secure Retirement, Stupid!” Politicians like Grassley appear determined to lead Republicans back to the bleak wilderness of a minority party.
Porkopolis strongly endorses Michael Tanner’s 1996 argument for a total overhaul of the ponzi scheme structure of Social Security. Republican’s are losing their backbone and any claim to being the ‘Party of Ideas’.
A libertarian would simply say that individuals should be educated on setting aside savings in their productive years for an eventual retirement and leave it at that. Realists, would see that as too drastic an evolution; actually a revolution.
America requires a 12 Step program to kick the nanny-state habit. Though libertarian, Porkopolis supports a realists’ transitional approach with a strong dose of honesty:
- Though originally well intentioned, Social Security as it is currently structured, is a wealth transfer insurance program.
- If the government is going to be involved in its citizens’ retirement system, it should only do so to the point where it regulates against fraud. Eliminating risk should not be a stated goal. Prudent risk taking is the very mechanism that allows for long-term accumulation of wealth.
- Politicians should make a self-perpetuating, individual retirement system the goal of reform; NOT ‘Social Security Solvency’. Anything that keeps the current system and structure more solvent is just a ‘rearranging of the deck chairs on the Titanic’.
Michael Tanner’s December 27, 1996 article “Social Security: Solvency isn’t the Only Issue” is included here in its entirety:
(+)
December 27, 1996
Social Security: Solvency Isn't the Only Issue
by Michael Tanner
Michael Tanner is director of health and welfare studies at the Cato Institute.
Most of the calls for reforming Social Security have highlighted the program's looming insolvency. There is certainly good reason to be concerned about Social Security's financial health. The system will be running a deficit as soon as 2012. But focusing too narrowly on solvency invites cures that are as bad as the disease.
Social Security's failing finances are one reason why we need to update this outmoded New Deal legacy. But there is another, equally important, problem with Social Security.
Quite simply, Social Security is a bad deal for most Americans, a situation that is growing steadily worse for today's young workers. Payroll taxes are already so high that even if today's young workers receive the promised benefits, such benefits will amount to a low, below-market return on those taxes. Indeed, as the attached figure shows, most Americans working today will actually receive a negative return--less than they paid in.
If keeping Social Security solvent were the only concern, that could be done by raising taxes or cutting benefits. In fact, labor unions and the seniors lobby are already beating the drums for a tax hike. Meanwhile, in Congress, several benefit cuts such as raising the retirement age are being tentatively broached. Recent proposals for recalculating the Consumer Price Index are also being hailed as a way to preserve Social Security.
But raising taxes or cutting benefits would only make the return on Social Security even worse. For example, reducing the CPI by 1 percent will lead to a benefit reduction of more than $5,000 over a recipient's lifetime. Certainly, the CPI should be adjusted to ensure its accuracy, but such a change should never be confused with saving Social Security.
The only way to simultaneously solve Social Security's financing problems and provide higher benefits is to privatize the system, allowing young workers to redirect their payroll taxes to individually owned, privately invested accounts, similar to 401(k) plans or Individual Retirement Accounts. At the same time, the government should cut current spending and sell assets to guarantee benefits to those currently receiving benefits.
Privatizing Social Security in this way will end the current pyramid scheme and guarantee the system's future solvency. At the same time, by allowing workers to earn the high returns available from private investment, privatization will allow people to retire with much higher benefits. A 1995 study by William Shipman of State Street Global Advisors concluded that even if the financial markets’ performance is slightly worse than their historical average, today's young workers could expect to receive benefits three to six times greater if they were allowed to privately invest their Social Security taxes.
The poor return from Social Security leaves tomorrow's seniors at severe financial risk. Social Security accounts for nearly half of all retirement benefits. More than half of the elderly receive no private pension, and more than one-third have no income from assets. Clearly, millions of elderly people rely on Social Security to provide for their retirement. Therefore, the increasingly poor return from Social Security means that many elderly Americans will find their financial security at risk. In contrast, privatization would allow today's young workers to retire with the same financial dignity as their parents.
As we set out to fix Social security's financial problems, we should keep that in mind.
Posted by Porkopolis at 3/06/2005 12:16:00 PM
Permalink
2 Comments:
It is "their" backbone, not "there" backbone. OK, then. Otherwise, I agree.
Much appreciated!!! ...Corrected and duly noted. Please stop by again. You're more than welcome to correct any and all of my malformations of the English language.
Post a Comment
<< Home