12 Ways to Fix Social Security

May 18, 2010 RSS Feed Print

The Social Security program faces a long term financing shortfall. The trust fund’s reserves are currently projected to cover payments until the end of 2037. Then there will only be sufficient resources to pay about three quarters of scheduled benefits. For full checks to be issued after that date the program’s financing or benefit structure must be modified.

A U.S. Senate Special Committee on Aging report released today outlines the policies Congress could institute to eliminate Social Security’s projected deficit. Options include tax increases, benefit cuts, and program tweaks that could be implemented separately or in combination. “Many members of the Committee, including myself, do not support and actively oppose many of the options,” writes committee chairman Herb Kohl in the report. Here’s a look at the potential Social Security fixes.

Reduce benefits. If Social Security payouts were reduced by 3 percent for new beneficiaries beginning in 2010, about 18 percent of the funding shortfall would be eliminated. A 5 percent benefit cut would reduce the deficit by 30 percent. Alternatively, reductions could be more gradually phased in and exempt those with low lifetime earnings.

[See 6 Ways Couples Can Maximize Social Security Payouts.]

Raise the retirement age. The Social Security eligibility age for unreduced retirement benefits currently ranges from 65 to 67 depending on the worker’s year of birth. If benefits are claimed between age 62 and the full retirement age, payouts are reduced. Proposals to push back the retirement age include accelerating the increase currently underway to age 67, further increasing the full retirement age to 68 or even 70, and indexing the full retirement age to keep up with longevity. Each of these switches, however, eliminates less than a third of the deficit.

Increase worker and employer contributions. Workers and their employers currently pay 6.2 percent of earnings up to $106,800 into the Social Security system, or a maximum of $6,622 each per year. Self-employed workers are required to pay 12.4 percent of pay up to the same cap. If the contribution rate were increased by 1.1 percent to 7.3 percent of earnings, Social Security’s projected deficit would be eliminated. Using this fix, a worker making $43,451 in 2010 would face a tax increase of $478 a year, or $9.19 a week, and the employer would face an identical increase.

Boost future contributions. Taxes don’t need to be increased immediately because there is currently enough money in the Social Security trust fund to pay out scheduled benefits. For example, the Social Security tax bite could be increased from 6.2 percent to 7.2 percent for workers and employers in 2022, and to 8.2 percent in 2052, which would also completely eliminate the shortfall. Alternatively, taxes could be gradually ramped up by 1/20 percent annually for 20 years, which would decrease the Social Security deficit by about 69 percent.

Tax as needed. Social Security contribution rates could be designed to increase as funds are needed and reduced when there is a surplus. Additionally, efforts to collect unpaid Social Security payroll taxes could be enhanced.

[See The 10 Biggest Sources of Retirement Income.]

Modify the Social Security tax cap. Workers pay into the Social Security system on earnings up to $106,800 in 2010. About 83 percent of worker earnings were subject to Social Security payroll taxes in 2008. If all earned income above $106,800 annually were subject to Social Security contributions but did not count toward benefits, Social Security’s projected deficit would be completely eliminated. If the higher income counted toward Social Security benefits, about 95 percent of the shortfall would be absolved. Other ideas: apply a new Social Security formula to earnings above the current cap or raise the amount of the income cap to apply to 90 percent of all worker earnings.

Average in more working years. Social Security checks are currently based on an average of a worker’s 35 highest paid years in the workforce. Those who haven’t worked 35 years have zeros averaged in. The averaging period could be increased to 38 or 40 years, which would reduce the deficit by 14 and 23 percent respectively.

Decrease the cost-of-living adjustment. Social Security benefits are currently automatically adjusted each year to keep up with inflation, as measured by the Consumer Price Index for Urban Wage Earners and Clerical Workers. Reducing the cost-of-living adjustment by 1 percent each year would eliminate 78 percent of the deficit. Even knocking half a percent off the annual adjustment would reduce the deficit by 40 percent. An alternative way of measuring the cost-of-living could also be used.

Lower spousal benefits. Social Security pays a benefit to nonworking and low earning spouses equal to up to 50 percent of the higher earning spouse’s check. One proposal would gradually lower the maximum spousal benefit to 33 percent by 2026. This change would reduce about 6 percent of the long term deficit. However, this provision may have less of an impact over time as more women become entitled to Social Security benefits based on their own work records.

[See How Divorce Affects Retirement Benefits.]

Include more workers. Most Americans are already covered by the Social Security system. About 94 percent of workers pay employment or self-employment Social Security taxes. But some Americans are currently exempt from Social Security taxes including state and local government workers participating in alternative retirement systems, federal workers hired before 1984, college students working at academic institutions, and ministers who choose not to be covered. However, this fix would need to be applied in conjunction with others. Extending coverage to workers who previously didn’t participate would only reduce the Social Security shortfall by about 9 percent.

A legacy tax. The first retirees who received Social Security payments from the system didn’t pay Social Security taxes throughout their entire working life, which contributes to Social Security’s fiscal problems. Several ideas have been raised to counteract this legacy cost including a 3 percent legacy tax on earnings above the current tax cap of $106,800 or on adjusted gross income over $125,000 for individuals and $250,000 for couples. This legacy tax would eliminate close to a third of Social Security’s shortfall. Another proposed idea is directing estate tax revenue into the Social Security trust fund, which would eliminate 20 percent of the fund’s deficit.

[Use our Mutual Fund Score to find the best investments for you.]

Diversify investments. Part of the Social Security trust fund could be invested in equities to try to earn returns that would help to sustain the Social Security program. Investing 15 percent of trust fund assets in equities would reduce the deficit by 14 percent if a 9.4 percent rate of return was achieved. If 40 percent of the trust fund were shifted into the stock market and earned 9.4 percent annually the deficit could be reduced by a third. Of course, this also exposes the trust fund to increased liabilities in times of economic downturn.

Tags:
retirement

Reader Comments Read all comments (450)

Add Your Thoughts
Your comment will be posted immediately, unless it is spam or contains profanity. For more information, please see our Comments FAQ.

Address the explosion in disability payments that are burdening a system that was not designed to be a source of funds for every faker with a bad back. The Democrats seem to believe that whenever someone can be added to the public support roles, they have gained a ballot for life. Encouraging this sense of entitlement is not only detrimental to a program meant for retirees, who have paid into it, but undermines our American way of life and leads to elimination of our freedoms.

Tom of CT 1:48PM May 23, 2012

Trust fund liabilities? Utter nonsense!

Contrary to popular belief, FICA does not pay for SS. The U.S., as a Monetarily Sovereign nation, which has the unlimited ability to create its sovereign dollars, neither needs nor uses dollars received from anyone.

The federal government, being Monetarily Sovereign, has the unlimited ability to send instructions crediting SS beneficiaries' checking accounts. Even if FICA were $0, and SS benefits were tripled, the federal government still would not run short of instructions to increase checking accounts and pay SS benefits.

The federal government can pay any bill of any size at any time. It never can go bankrupt. Because the federal government can’t go bankrupt, none of its agencies can go bankrupt, and none ever has. No federal check ever has bounced.

bambi of FL 4:47AM May 13, 2012

They should have just stopped at the point "MODIFY the existing SS tax cap", except change the first word to "ELIMINATE." This is just one more example of the biggest welfare cheat system in this country, the "Welfare for the Wealthy" clause. Many years ago, I "topped out" on the cap when it was around $60,000 with several months left in the year, giving me a 6.2 percent (or whatever the rate was at that time) pay raise on all my income for the rest of the year. Then, like now, congress was always having to come up with funding for Social Security. I thought at the time,"I don't really need this income cap, and felt somewhat guilty because people making almost nothing would pay the same SS contribution rate as I was paying, but had the deduction taken out for the full year. The top 400 individuarl wage earners made an AVERAGE of $273 Million income for the year, and yet paid only $6,622 into Social Security. It wouldn't hurt anyone making above $106,800 per year if they continued to pay into the system. This article states that 95 percent of the deficit could be wiped out by eliminating the cap. This is the ONE FLAT income tax we have in the tax code, and the people who clamor constantly for a FLAT tax should not object to paying the rate that even the poorest American wage earners pay. If they willingly contributed their "fair" FLAT share, I would be more apt to consider their proposal of a flat income tax. But when the top 2 percent are able to contribute unlimited amounts to Super PAC's which send Lobbyists loaded with billions in campaign contributions to wave in a congressman or candidate's face, they can't resist taking the money. If they don't take it, the lobbyists will find another WATER BOY who will work in THEIR BEHALF, which is usually going to be against the interests of 98 percent of Americans. Lobbying needs to be done 100 percent in public view on C Span, with no direct contact with any elected representataives behind closed doors. Equal time needs to be allocated on TV for opposing views. And no congressman should ever be allowed to go to work for a lobbying firm or any company which does business with the government. All Federal elections should be conducted with public campaign financing, over the broadcast airwaves of radio and TV which are by law the property of the people of the United States Of America. The stations are licensed every two years for the sold purpose TO SERVE THE PUBLIC INTEREST. This has always been true, ahead of the station owners "profit motive." They can profit from selling commercial airtime, but that does not fulfill thier mission. And anyone who says, as Newt Gingrich said about 15 years ago that there "Is not nearly enough money spent on political campaigns" is never going to understand the links between "contributions" and BRIBERY. The biggest problem is that the American people are stuck with the payback costs of these Bribes. $5.00 gasoline is a prime example.

mac gardner of OK 8:57PM May 12, 2012

Planning to Retire

Planning to Retire

Associate editor Emily Brandon tells you how to get ready financially for retirement and to make your golden years the best they can be.

advertisement

EASY RETIREMENT CALCULATOR

Our retirement readiness calculator will provide a rough idea of how long your retirement savings and income will last.


Latest Video

advertisement