Share on Google Plus Share on Twitter 1 Share on Facebook Share on LinkedIn Share on PInterest Share on Fark! Share on Reddit Share on StumbleUpon Tell A Friend 6 (7 Shares)  
Printer Friendly Page Save As Favorite View Favorites View Stats   9 comments

General News

Budget Baloney (1): Why Social Security Isn't a Problem for 26 Years, and the Best Way to Fix It Permanently

By (about the author)     Permalink       (Page 1 of 2 pages)
Related Topic(s): ; ; , Add Tags Add to My Group(s)

Valuable 3   Must Read 2   Well Said 2  
View Ratings | Rate It

opednews.com Headlined to H2 2/16/11

Become a Fan
  (105 fans)
- Advertisement -

New Jersey Governor Chris Christie, a Republican presidential hopeful, says in order to "save" Social Security the retirement age should be raised. The media are congratulating him for his putative "courage." Deficit hawks are proclaiming Social Security one of the big entitlements that has to be cut in order to reduce the budget deficit.

This is all baloney.

In a former life I was a trustee of the Social Security trust fund. So let me set the record straight.

Social Security isn't responsible for the federal deficit. Just the opposite. Until last year Social Security took in more payroll taxes than it paid out in benefits. It lent the surpluses to the rest of the government.

Now that Social Security has started to pay out more than it takes in, Social Security can simply collect what the rest of the government owes it. This will keep it fully solvent for the next 26 years.  

But why should there even be a problem 26 years from now? Back in 1983, Alan Greenspan's Social Security commission was supposed to have fixed the system for good -- by gradually increasing payroll taxes and raising the retirement age. (Early boomers like me can start collecting full benefits at age 66; late boomers born after 1960 will have to wait until they're 67.)

Greenspan's commission must have failed to predict something. But what? It fairly accurately predicted how quickly the boomers would age. It had a pretty good idea of how fast the US economy would grow. While it underestimated how many immigrants would be coming into the United States, that's no problem. To the contrary, most new immigrants are young and their payroll-tax contributions will far exceed what they draw from Social Security for decades.

- Advertisement -

So what did Greenspan's commission fail to see coming?

Inequality.

Remember, the Social Security payroll tax applies only to earnings up to a certain ceiling. (That ceiling is now $106,800.) The ceiling rises every year according to a formula roughly matching inflation.

Back in 1983, the ceiling was set so the Social Security payroll tax would hit 90-percent of all wages covered by Social Security. That 90-percent figure was built into the Greenspan Commission's fixes. The Commission assumed that, as the ceiling rose with inflation, the Social Security payroll tax would continue to hit 90-percent of total income.

Today, though, the Social Security payroll tax hits only about 84-percent of total income.

- Advertisement -

It went from 90-percent to 84-percent because a larger and larger portion of total income has gone to the top. In 1983, the richest 1-percent of Americans got 11.6-percent of total income. Today the top 1-percent takes in more than 20-percent.

If we want to go back to 90-percent, the ceiling on income subject to the Social Security tax would need to be raised to $180,000.

Presto. Social Security's long-term (beyond 26 years from now) problem would be solved.

Next Page  1  |  2

 

http://robertreich.org/

Robert Reich, former U.S. Secretary of Labor and Professor of Public Policy at the University of California at Berkeley, has a new film, "Inequality for All," to be released September 27. He blogs at www.robertreich.org.

Share on Google Plus Submit to Twitter Add this Page to Facebook! Share on LinkedIn Pin It! Add this Page to Fark! Submit to Reddit Submit to Stumble Upon


Go To Commenting

The views expressed in this article are the sole responsibility of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of this website or its editors.

Writers Guidelines

Contact Author Contact Editor View Authors' Articles
- Advertisement -

Most Popular Articles by this Author:     (View All Most Popular Articles by this Author)

The Republican's Big Lies About Jobs (And Why Obama Must Repudiate Them)

Paul Ryan Still Doesn't Get It

What Mitt Romney Really Represents

The Minimum Wage, Guns, Healthcare, and the Meaning of a Decent Society

Why the Right-Wing Bullies Will Hold The Nation Hostage Again and Again

The Gas Wars

Comments

The time limit for entering new comments on this article has expired.

This limit can be removed. Our paid membership program is designed to give you many benefits, such as removing this time limit. To learn more, please click here.

Comments: Expand   Shrink   Hide  
7 people are discussing this page, with 9 comments
To view all comments:
Expand Comments
(Or you can set your preferences to show all comments, always)

I could see having a floor - no social security ta... by Nikk Katzman on Thursday, Feb 17, 2011 at 6:42:25 AM
but there should not be a floor either. Social Sec... by John Sanchez Jr. on Thursday, Feb 17, 2011 at 8:43:04 AM
If we eliminated the ceiling entirely, it would be... by Scott Baker on Thursday, Feb 17, 2011 at 9:41:23 AM
Even if we removed the ceiling, SS would not touch... by lvtfan on Thursday, Feb 17, 2011 at 10:24:10 AM
In addition to the obvious fairness of raising the... by Siegfried Othmer on Thursday, Feb 17, 2011 at 7:58:11 PM
Parts of Social Security need to be reformed. In ... by Doc McCoy on Thursday, Feb 17, 2011 at 10:05:34 PM
It is so due to the fact that those receiving bene... by John Sanchez Jr. on Friday, Feb 18, 2011 at 8:39:35 AM
There is a problem with social security but it is ... by liberalsrock on Friday, Feb 18, 2011 at 9:56:41 AM
has helped himself to the Social Security surplus.... by John Sanchez Jr. on Friday, Feb 18, 2011 at 3:33:57 PM