Saturday, October 23, 2010

New CBO Forecast – Age Warfare

I wrote a piece on a federal retirement program that elicited some interesting comments. It was clear to me that there is already a negative bias toward the baby boomers. There is an understanding out there that the boomers are going to be sucking up a great deal of resources in the next decade or so. Some comments:


We have witnessed the unprecedented lack of fiscal responsibility from the majority "Baby Boomer" voter base.

We've met the enemy, and it is the emerging 'ruling class' pensioners of the Baby Boomer generation.

...get ready for AGE WARFARE

As if on cue, the Congressional Budget Office has thrown out some numbers to fire up this emotive issue. The CBO report confirmed (to me) that age warfare is in our future.

CBO looked at all of the scenarios regarding Social Security. They ran a total of 500 simulations that reflect the different variables of the puzzle. The analysis assumed that there would be no changes in current law on SS. The objective of the exercise was to quantify the probabilities of which generation would most likely not get the benefits they were (A) paying for, (B) entitled to and (C) expecting.

The results of the CBO analysis is that there is societal/economic trouble in front of us on this issue. It should come as no surprise to readers that if you are young, you have a problem. The CBO report defines which generation(s) will be hurt and by how much. I found their conclusions to be very troubling.

If you were born in the 1940’s the probability that you will receive 100% of your scheduled benefits is nearly 100%. The people in this age group will die before SS is forced to make cuts in scheduled benefits.

If you were born in the Sixties things still do not look so bad. Depending on how long you will live the odds (76+%) are pretty good that you will get all of your scheduled benefits. However, if you were born in the Eighties you have a problem. The numbers fall off a cliff if you are between 30 and 40 years old today. In only 13% of the possible scenarios you will get what you are currently expecting from SS. If you were born after 1990 you simply have no statistical chance of getting what you are paying for. The full CBO report can be found here. This (hard to read) chart is from that report.


Sometime next year the issue of SS will have to come up. It will be central to the recommendations from the toothless and worthless Fiscal Commission. The results of that review and the recommendations that will be made are already know. Payroll taxes will have to rise for both employers and employees, the age for eligibility will raised for those under 55 and benefits for that same group will have to reduced. If those steps are taken the promised benefits to the baby boomers (60+) can be met.

That can’t possibly work. How can we convince a 30-40 year old that they should pay much more than any other generation and at the same time get less back than their predecessors did? The boomers have a big vote, but not that big. At some point it is inevitable that there will be a backlash. Laws and tax policy that favor one (minority) age group over all others have no chance of acceptance. The only question is when and how badly it will end.

France has been ripping itself apart over a subset of this issue for the past few weeks. America’s problems are much larger than France. We just have not confronted ours as yet. In France they are burning cars to vent their anger. I don’t think it will play out like that in America. We will not burn cars. We will just grow to hate old people. Cars can be replaced. The social consequences of age warfare will last a very long time.



8 comments:

  1. There has been "age warfare" against the Boomers for every age they have been. So, if you want to ramp the rhetoric to warfare then you should keep in mind that Boomers are battle hardened veterans of any level of warfare you care to try. This is your only warning.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Oh, please. You completely missed his point. "Warning," what the hell is that supposed to mean? "Battle hardened?"

    AA

    ReplyDelete
  3. Hey Bruce.. in regards to an article you had last week I believe.. I went to Wells Fargo today to make my mortgage payment. The branch manager asked me what my interest rate on my mortgage was; told her 5.5%. She then said that there is a "list".. she said a 1,2,3 list.. of people who were getting refi's at 3% even. She then said she was'nt sure if she was even supposed to tell me about this list, but that she's send a mortgage guy an e-mail to call me on this. I asked further about who they knew was on the list, and they could not come up with a rhyme or reason; she did say that people you would'nt expect were on it. Also, she went on to tell me about a friend who had applied for a MortgMod a year ago or so and nothing happened. Then last week, all of a sudden, they get a call saying that their mortgage-mod was approved and their principle went down by $70,000. Hmmm... will keep ya informed if the Wells guy calls; I'll do some quizzing.

    ReplyDelete
  4. People of my age bracket {mid 40's} have always known that SocSec will not be there for us.. and in a way, it's poetic justice.. it was my generation that introduced things like the no doc mortgage and credit default swaps. The Debt-GDP ratio went from 150% in 1980 to around 365% today; we have lived beyond our means for thirty years, and now the bill is due, and we're passing it onto my children. For that reason alone, there is a part of me that hopes the entire system comes crashing down and we rebuild a new one sans any form of margin anywhere (beginning with fractional reserve banking) so that my kids can have a future without our crushing debts and obligations. I'd wager there's a 50-50 chance I'll get my wish.

    ReplyDelete
  5. It is also an ethnic/demographic issue, as the vast majority of 'baby boomers' are white, whereas the fastest growing (by far) segments of the younger population are non-white.

    ReplyDelete
  6. I'm solid Gen X (34), and most people my age view SS as a tax, we don't count on it.

    Its just part of the marginal rate as far as I'm concerned.

    Retirement age HAS to go up. It just has to. Common sense should dictate this. Mathematical necessity as well.

    ReplyDelete
  7. U.S. Debt Is Child Abuse: Laurence Kotlikoff, Richard Munroe

    I agree with the general sentiment. But other parts of the article are laughable. Like this:

    The two increases are for Medicare. They were buried inside the 2,000-page health-care bill and take effect in 2013. Earn more than $250,000 ($200,000 if single) and you’ll face an extra 0.9 percentage-point FICA tax for Social Security. And once your income passes this level, you’ll pay a 3.4 percent tax on your asset income.

    These thresholds aren’t indexed for inflation, let alone growth in real incomes. So these taxes on “the rich” will eventually hit everyone as nominal incomes rise with inflation and productivity. Within 20 years most earners will be paying these new Medicare taxes.


    My definition of "most" is more than half. And I hardly think more than half of all US taxpayers will have incomes greater than $200k "within 20 years".

    ReplyDelete
  8. eh:

    suppose -- median income today is $50k or so right?

    assume:
    annual inflation is 5%
    that means a doubling time of about 14 years

    so in 28 years, median income will be $200k

    ReplyDelete