From my writings on the Trust Fund I have received many comments from those who believe that the SS is a bankrupt Ponzi scheme. That is not correct. The SSTF did an admirable job in a very tough year. They paid a total of $675 billion in benefits and ended the year with an even $100 billion surplus. On December 31st they were sitting on $2.5 Trillion of US Treasury IOU’s.
That said there are some very disturbing trends at the Fund. First a Macro Economic thought:
There was a onetime negative COLA adjustment that kicked in January 1. Rather than the usual increase, beneficiaries are getting smaller checks. The difference between the December and January payments comes to $475 million. That re-base means a reduced outlay for the full year of $6 billion. In the scheme of things that is peanuts. But this is going to be felt most in the Sunbelt states where the bulk of the beneficiaries reside. I believe that a significant percentage of SS payments goes right into consumption. Given that fixed costs are actually rising for this group of consumers (the hell with COLA) the 65+ set might not be going to the Wal-Mart in Boca as much as they used to. A year ago we were talking of ‘green shoots’. This ‘shoot’ is decidedly brown.
On the Fund itself:
I think that the recession of 08 and 09 and the anticipated high unemployment (low employment) in 2010 has crippled the Fund. Nothing short of a major overhaul can turn it around at this point. The damage has been too great.
In the 2009 Trustee Report to Congress (signed by Chairman Tim Geithner) the following information was provided:
Now look at the reports released today. Total tax receipts were less than the disbursements. This was not supposed to happen until 2016. It happened last year.
There was a $100 billion surplus for the year. But compare that to the $190 Billion surplus in 2007. We have lost $90 Billion in just two years. But this number should be much higher than the 07 surplus. It was assumed that the Fund would have larger and larger surpluses for years to come. The 2008 Trustee Report (signed by then Chairman Hank Paulson) provided a set of Intermediate Assumptions for the Fund's surpluses looking forward. As you can see we missed the 2009 target of a $220b surplus by a cool $120 billion. As of 12/31/09 the funds assets are behind that 08 schedule by $155 billion.
In prior years the SSTF has financed up to 50% of the deficit through their purchases of Treasury paper. In 2009 that ratio fell to a measly 7% of the total new issuance. It will be a rounding error in a few years. At some point someone is going to look at this and conclude it is not a plus for the bond market.
We are in an election year. Any significant legislation on SS changes will have to be completed by June. After that no one will want to touch this. Given that Health Care is far from resolved and there is that thorny problem with the mortgages Agencies I can easily see that the problems at SS get buried for another year. It will be very difficult to fix this beast if we wait another year.
The most optimistic scenario is that out of the ether comes a bi-partisan effort to address the issue head on and make the necessary fixes. By my calculation that would require a 2% increase in payroll taxes and as much as a 20% reduction in benefits (over time). Taxes on benefits would have to increase as well.
Those combined actions are extremely deflationary. It would directly cut consumer demand. It would be another blow to the head of small businesses. This would not be a brown shoot. Think of this development as being Amber Waves of Grain. And that is the optimistic scenario.
My solution has always been a means test. If you have $100k in taxable income you don’t get paid. Finished. I’m not sure that is legally possible. But to me it is the only option. The alternative will impoverish those that are/will be dependent on SS benefits. Raising taxes on America’s 90 million workers and their employers is just bad economics. It should not be considered.
I am not the only one looking at these numbers. This issue will have to come on the table before June. The 2009 results of the Fund are like an elephant in a room. It's too big to ignore.
So Bruce, how are you feeling about those CBO health care cost projections?
ReplyDelete"My solution has always been a means test. If you have $100k in taxable income you don’t get paid." -- it's best idea I've seen yet.
That is not correct.
ReplyDeleteHere is a defn of "Ponzi scheme":
A Ponzi scheme is similar to a pyramid scheme in that both are based on using new investors' funds to pay the earlier backers.
So I think using the term "Ponzi scheme" to describe SS is not at all inaccurate, since ALL of the money used to pay benefits comes from either 1) current contributors, or 2) earnings from 'trust fund' assets, aka government debt, which in turn also comes from taxpayers in the form of the income tax.
As for SS being "bankrupt", it clearly has, at least potentially, HUGE unfundable liabilities, as this past year has demonstrated.
It's just a tax: benefit levels are set by law, which can be changed at any time; no one is entitled to any payout, no matter how much has been contributed.
I’m not sure that is legally possible.
ReplyDeleteI assure you it IS legally possible. Look into the decisions regarding any entitlement to SS benefits: in short, as I said the courts have ruled that no one is entitled to benefits, no matter how much they have contributed.
It's just a tax.
The fact that this is suggested, i.e. that people be taxed so fraudulently, and this suggestion is thought of as some sort of good idea, shows just how disgusting and absolutely shameless the whole dishonest mess is.
like your work..have to disagree with you about the 'best idea' yet: why should I pay for someone elses retirement? after all its not for the common good(as general Fund taxes are 'supposed' to be. They should stop paying SSI and survivors benefits and only let people who paid in withdraw. Making it a retirement only fund would help alot.
ReplyDeleteBut in the end youre correct: the corrupt and evil govt will probably take our SS AND 401Ks. Fuckers.
15 years ago I wrote my congressman to stop taking my SS taxes out of my paycheck, and I would forevermore never request SS benefits of any kind for any reason.
ReplyDeleteHe did not reply to my request.
I now know the reason why. Simple confiscation that must follow.
Eh - could you point me in the right direction for those court cases? tks
ReplyDeleteWhen I suggest 'best' idea I mean the best of a series of otherwise terrible options.
ReplyDeleteWhen I think of Ponzi I think of fraud. There was no fraud here. The Fund is out of kilter because of the recession of 08-10. No one really predicted that to happen. At least no one in D.C. did. You can't plan for these types of disasters very well.
We "own" this problem, whatever your view of the past is. The relevant question is what are we going to do about it?
Left untouched, it will surely send us off a very steep cliff in less than five years.
b
Bruce....good post. Maybe i missed it, but can you explain why there's an accounting surplus despite disbursements outpacing revenues? Is it a GAAP thing?
ReplyDeleteThe ratio Employment Tax revenue/benefits paid is now 1. What went in went out. This does not include interest income. Interest income is a big positive number (150b). So they are in surplus.
ReplyDeleteThere two major milestones for the fund.
1) the date that tax revenue is equal to or less then benefits.
2) the date that tax and interest income is equal to or less than benefits.
We have achieved #1. The date for #2 was supposed to be 2024. I think it could be as early as 2015.
Think of it this way. In 2009 we stopped adding to our retirement savings. In 2010 we are starting to live off of the interest. In a few years we will have to start dipping into the principal to pay the bills.
We are on a very slippery slope.
Tks rolf
Bruce... can you provide the link to the data.
ReplyDeleteRolfe, disbursements are outpacing employment taxes but total inflows include the interest income on the assets. If you look at the first chart, they have a second row for outflows exceeding income including interest.
Boy there is so much wrong here.
ReplyDeleteFirst of all you forgot to include Tax on Benefits which was projected to be $24 billion. Your first three tables are thus apples and oranges and your $5 cash deficit turns into something like a $19 billion cash surplus. Except to help you out a little your table doesn't include some $6 billion in Admin plus $4 billion in Railroad Retirement exchange leaving maybe an $8 billion cash surplus.
http://www.ssa.gov/OACT/TR/2009/IV_SRest.html#271967
Because using your measure of payroll contributions vs benefit payments the 2009 Report projected that the former would fall behind the latter in 2014 and not 2016.
And is it just sloppiness or fundamental dishonesty that would have you use the 2008 Report rather than the just as available 2009? Because the 2009 Report projected a total surplus in 2009 of $137 billion and not $220 of the 2008 Report. And so the actual shortfall from the most current projection was $37 billion and not $120 billion.
The 2008 Report was prepared by the Bush Administration and was based on totally erroneous assumptions about economic performance in the last year of THAT Administration. The Report prepared and released in the first few months of THIS Administration was not surprisingly closer to the mark, not least because they had much better data on what actually happened in 2008 compared to what could have happened.
And I would have to see some actual documentation of a COLA decrease because a simple comparison of Dec to Jan doesn't prove that, not since we see similar drops in May, July, Aug, Oct and Nov.
This was just really, really sloppy. And that is to assume none of it was malicious. We have known for more than a decade that cash surpluses would ultimately stop growing. And anyone with the math skills of a fifth grader would understand why losing 12.4% of lost wages from a doubling in unemployment would give a big hit to short term revenues, the key is where the employment number is going to be going forward.
BTW are you friends with Andrew Biggs or Kevin Hassett at AEI? Because they have been pushing this same misleading line of crap since March based on the same kind of misreading of the monthly SS numbers. Except they ignored not only the tax on benefits piece by interest too.
Color me unimpressed.
And that Supreme Court case did not say that no one was legally entitled to benefits. It said no one is legally entitled to a PARTICULAR level of benefits, the current scheduled benefit is an estimate and not a contract.
ReplyDeleteAnd Social Security has NO unfunded liability. It can't. Because of that same court ruling. When the Trust Fund goes to depletion one of four things happen. One Congress imposes a tax to pay scheduled benefits in full. Two Congress legally adjusts the schedule to meet current revenue. Three Congress does a mixture of tax increases and benefit cuts. In all three of those cases the 'unfunded liability' disappears. The introduction of Infinite Future calculations with the 2003 Report was as such pure garbage, a number meant to scare the shit out of Gen X but had no basis in reality. Calculating the gap between revenues and scheduled benefit over the traditional 75 year window made some sense, there are many, many people alive today who will still be drawing benefits then. But projections beyond that designed solely to add trillions on to the theoretical tab is simply an attempt to deceive the gullible.
Oh and the fourth thing that could happen at TF Depletion? Congress could do nothing whereupon checks would be delayed until enough receipts came in to pay them. Which over time would build up an actual liability in the there and then as the gap between check payments got extended. There is no reason to imagine that Congress won't take one of the first three choices and in so doing wipe out the Infinite Future Unfunded Liability over night.
krasting
ReplyDeleteBruce Webb is right. You aren't thinking very hard here, unless you are part of the conspiracy to cripple Social Security.
The purpose of the Trust Fund is to bridge hard times.. .like the current recession. What you are bemoaning is just the Trust Fund doing its job.
Means testing Social Security would turn it into welfare. You would go from Social Security which is an insurance and savings plan whereby workers pay for their own retirement, to some scheme whereby "the rich" paid for "the poor" and the poor would have to go to the government proctologist every month to prove they were not hiding their assets.
coberly
And just to pile on. How the hell do you get an estimate of only $200 billion surplus over four years from 2009-2012 compared to $900 billion when even under your estimate principal won't be tapped until 2014? Interest on the current TF balance will be more than $150 billion a year over that period and there will be a period where that interest is earning interest. Meaning your 'lucky' $200 billion is about half a trillion off.
ReplyDeleteIt seems that our government love to manipulate all of their statistics and it catches up to them in the short-term. Aside from Treasury, even the USDA (United States Department of Agriculture) has manipulated their numbers on status of food, up to the point of not acknowledging a definite food crisis here in 2010.
ReplyDeleteCheck out the website: http://www.marketskeptics.com for this related material.
In addition to, how about we do not consent to income taxation..... "No taxation, without representation." It seems like it is worth it.
a lot of the comments here are just paranoia.
ReplyDeletekrasting's calculation of 2% increase in the payroll tax (combined) plus 20% cut in benefits to meet the needs of the next generation is accurate enough for a 75 year guess. but why would any sane person not pay another 2% and eliminate the cut in benefits entirely?
somewhat simplified: today you make a thousand a week. you could pay an extra 20 a week and guarantee yourself 400 a week to live on when you retire for as long as you live. or you could keep the 20 and try to live on 320 a week when you retire.
no doubt krasting could take the 20 and turn it into a million on the stock market. but most people can't.
coberly
Bruce Webb,
ReplyDeleteThank you for your comments. You input is most welcome. You highlight some errors in my calculation. You conclude that the 09 number was a surplus of 8b. Using just the payroll tax number I get a deficit of 5b. So we disagree by 13b.
If you are familiar with these numbers as you must be to do this math then you know that an $8b surplus net of interest is a terrible result.
You suggest that this is a short term issue and the Fund will stabilize as the economy improves.
I think you are out on a limb with that. Show me an economist that has significant new job creation for the full year 2010. The next month or two may look better, but the full year will show very little growth in my opinion.
You tell me, how fast does the economy have to grow and how many jobs have to be created to right this ship? You would have to have at least three years of 5%GDP and and total job creation in excess of 7mm. Sorry Mr. Webb. That is simply not going to happen.
This gets to my estimate for the TOTAL surplus to disappear over the next 24 months. By 2012 the fund will be in deficit. The cumulative surplus will be $200b of which 100B is 09 50-70b is 2010 2011 and 2012 are a wash.
You think this will be $700 billion? We disagree. I doubt the even the Fund would agree with you at this point on that number. We shall see what the estimates will be in the next trustee report.
I understand your argument with me using 08 and 09 estimates for comparisons. Maybe that was unfair. I was trying to make the point of how far things had come from expectation only a few years ago.
Maybe we can agree on this. The 09 report made a base case of 2014 for Total tax =/< benefits. That will be reached in 2010. Yes?
If you agree to that then we can agree to the urgency of this problem. If we do not agree on that then you can sit back for another year while this baby blows up on us. Because we are going to hit that for sure in my opinion. We already have on a rolling basis. Like I said, this problem is staring us in the face.
ANON:
ReplyDeleteYou say:
The purpose of the Trust Fund is to bridge hard times.. .like the current recession. What you are bemoaning is just the Trust Fund doing its job.
I do not agree with that, but say you are right. The Fund is to Bridge hard times you say. Well I say that it is no shape to bridge hard times at all. I think it is a few short years from a crisis. If we don't deal with this it will suck the life from our economy. The hard times will come because of this problem. The NPV of this imbalances are now close to 20 Trillion.
ANON:
ReplyDeleteI am not part of any conspiracy. Give me a break.
I have never been critical of the Funds management or the job that they have done. I have gone out my way in this piece and in others to make clear that the Fund is not a Ponzi scheme nor is it bankrupt.
I am pointing out some serious weaknesses. Trust me the signs are not good. But I also make suggestions that are well reasoned on how to fix the problem. I am not one trying to tear SS down. But I don't want to leave this mess to my children. There is no way they can afford what is coming.
My point has always been that the Fund needs immediate attention. To wait another year will make the cost that much more difficult to absorb.
Once more for Mr. Webb,
ReplyDeleteYou make a point of the backstop provisions for SS. Steps that Congress would do like raise taxes. You even spell out a scenario where the checks were held up a while some more taxes are collected.
I am sorry but that stuff is all silly. If we get within 24 months of those things starting to happen we will be in a lights out depression in this country.
We can't even consider letting this thing fester and assume some of the stop gaps you describe will be in anyway effective.
We will never get to those milestones. We will blow up first. Why would you want to risk that?
Adam:
ReplyDeleteThe Trust fund produces a ton of data. I suggest you start here and go through the many pages that are available.
http://www.ssa.gov/OACT/ProgData/fundFAQ.html
From this site there is a link to the office of the Actuary. There is a ton of additional data there. have fun. I think the Fund does an excellent job of detailing their activity. They are an open book.
Thanks for all these comments. I try to address some of them. I will be checking back here if any of you want to continue this discussion.
ReplyDeleteThe objective of this blog is to raise issues that I think are important regarding the economy. I don't claim to all the facts and I make mistakes. I but my views on paper and take the flack willingly.
I think this piece did exactly what I hoped it would do. Get people talking about the problem at SS.
This also appeared at the web site Zero Hedge. There are 50 or so comments that may be of interest to you. I will let those folks know of these comments.
http://www.zerohedge.com/article/ss-trust-fund-2009-full-year-results-ugh#new
Other Bruce I'll be back tomorrow.
ReplyDeleteBut my economists are those who work for CBO and who produced the August 2009 Social Security Update (I'll link when I am not tied to an iPhone but you can Google it). They project a payroll gap about half of that of SSA and dates of shortfall or depletion significantly out from those of the Trustees of SS.
In the meanwhile maybe you can work up some numbers to support your 2015 tap into principal scenario.
Your surplus calculations have fatally confused what CBO calls 'primary surplus' from the 'surplus' used to calculate either Unified Budget surplus/deficit or Trust Fund balances. The 2008 numbers you site relate to the latter, the numbers in your top tables highlight the former.
ReplyDeleteYou've gone over to the dark side Krasting.
ReplyDeleteHint: Anyone who speaks of a "trust fund" is 100% intellectually bankrupt, since the "trust fund" consists of 100% government debt, i.e. obligations of future taxpayers. Money which has to be sucked out of the pockets of working people.
Saying the "trust fund" is to smooth out hard times, or has no potential unfunded liabilities, is the same as saying the government can, under coercion, steal as much of your money (in advance) as they think they need to in order to make the numbers come out right.
In the meantime, the Fed can 'quantitatively ease' to make sure AIG counterparties get paid in full.
Poverty growing in Texas schools - More than half of state’s students disadvantaged, report finds
Here "disadvantaged" means poor, and predominantly Hispanic. So maybe someone can explain to me how the non-Ponzi Scheme of SS is supposed to hold up when the fastest growing demographic group in the US, one which will, per Census Bureau projections, become the largest demographic group before 2050, is so lacking in wealth creation ability?
Bruce Webb
ReplyDeleteWhat is your estimate for the full surplus for 2010? I think 50-70 billion?
b
Bruce Webb,
ReplyDeleteLooking again at your (excellent) comments. You suggest that the 08 Trustee Report was influenced by the Bush Administration and that assumptions used in the 08 report were not reasonable as a result. Did I get that right?
You are well respected in this area. I would say, "quotable". Can you confirm that the Trustees (Mr. Goss) allowed politics to come into play when they made the Trustee report in 08?
That would be an interesting story for me to write about.
bk
How about this part:
ReplyDeleteOne Congress imposes a tax to pay scheduled benefits in full. Two Congress legally adjusts the schedule to meet current revenue. Three Congress does a mixture of tax increases and benefit cuts. In all three of those cases the 'unfunded liability' disappears.
Is that "excellent" as well? So all we have to do to save SS, should the need arise, is to raise taxes and/or cut benefits; it's pure genius.
And if that doesn't work, we'll follow Krasting's suggestion: tax people and then ex post facto tell them they get no benefits.
Means testing Social Security would turn it into welfare.
So what? If that's what's needed, so be it. I'd rather have, and pay for, an honest, means tested program of welfare (and health care) for the elderly than the (at the very best) disingenuous 'retirement' system (with a "trust fund" no less!) that we have now. One where the average middle class participant comes out about as well as if he'd stuffed the money in his mattress (if that).
Mr. Krasting, I like your site very much. I want to say I'm not intelligent enough to follow all the numbers here, but I think you got it close enough. And I think the main gist of your post was that we need to be very very concerned about the future funding (and avoiding insolvency) of the SS fund. Right or wrong I think your intentions are good, and you are providing a great service with this site. You are certainly much thicker skinned than I am. Please no many readers out (certainly myself) appreciate you and your work on this site. I have 4 financial links on my own blog---you are one of them. Take care.
ReplyDelete"KNOW many readers" I meant to say above.....
ReplyDeleteAlso for what it's worth I think Ross Perot had discussed means testing for Social Security. I certainly think it should be discussed and weighed as an option more than it has.
ReplyDeleteJeeze. You guys are tough.
ReplyDeleteI think that the issues we face today has nothing to do with Citi or BoA or AIG. That is old school.
What is on the table is the Sovereign story. Can Greece survive etc. Ultimately that story leads back to the US. It is the Countries, not the Companies that will come under the microscope.
SS is the biggest systemic risk we face. It needs to be addressed. If we wait too long (2011) it will be very painful to fix.
On the means test idea. How about we try to make that more "fair". Assume that because of the means test a beneficiary was forced to forgo $100,000 of benefits.
The implication is that this individual made more than $100k per year after they became eligible. The assumption is that this individual has assets that produce income. (stocks/bonds/ a business or two). Upon their death, estate taxes are due.
Would you all feel better about this if the estate received a tax CREDIT of $100,000??
Would you feel better if that tax credit was grossed up and became $125,000???
What would this do? (1) It would address the current imbalances in the Fund and make the remaining fixes that may be required less costly to the economy, and (2) It would have the impact of increasing a wealth transfer to the next generation. That would be unique. Everything we do has the impact of borrowing from the next few generations. This would have the opposite affect. What is wrong with that?
DISCLOSURE: I am near to receiving SS benefits. I also am lucky enough to have income greater than $100k. So this idea is going to cost me directly. I am spiting my own nose here. Yes I am also cutting the nose of a great number of the +65 set that simple do not need the extra income. The marginal utility of this is very low if you have a net worth of $10mm++. This is any "easy" sale in my opinion. You think Bill Gates is going to mind if we hold back his SS check? Trust me the answer is no. The reason is that the Bill Gates's of this country do not want to see us slide backward. It hurts their wealth.
We have to raise taxes SOMEPLACE. Do we agree on that? Then tax wealth. This is a chance to do it. We won't have this opportunity again.
SS is not a systematic risk. Not fixing it would mean a reset of benefits in the late 2030s or after to 75% of the scheduled benefit. Under current law the scheduled benefit rises with Real Wage and under current projections would be 160% in real terms of the benefit collected today. And per what I call 'Rosser's Equation' (after Prof. Barkley Rosser of JMU who pointed it out to me some years back) 75% of 160% = 120%. There is no doubt that such a readjustment in a single year would be a shock but the claim that the Gen X retiree of 2037 would be victimized by only getting a 20% better basket of goods than my Mom gets today rather than the 60% better basket he came to enjoy/expect is reason for EVERYONE to start accepting a smaller basket of goods via price indexing kind of terms the 'selfish Boomer' narrative on its head.
ReplyDeleteOn the other hand the current projections are based on Intermediate Cost projections which assume that the economy will grow slower in the future than it did in the past. To some degree this is plausible due to the demographics but the rates of growth needed for the economy to fully fund and indeed overfund Social Security are not that extreme.
Table V.B1 Principal Economic Assumptions
http://www.ssa.gov/OACT/TR/2009/V_economic.html#188118
Table V.B2 Additional Economic Assumptions
http://www.ssa.gov/OACT/TR/2009/V_economic.html#205214
Intermediate Cost assumes ultimate Productivity of 1.7% and Real Wage at 1.0%. Unemployment at 5.5% and Real GDP at 2.2%. If we commit to target Low Cost numbers of 2.0% productivity and Real Wage at 1.7%. 4.5% unemployment and Real GDP of 2.9%. then Social Security projects to be vastly over-funded with a combined Trust Fund in 2037 of $8 trillion dollars.
http://www.ssa.gov/OACT/TR/2009/VI_OASDHI_dollars.html#150920
Or perhaps we could split the difference and target policy outcomes that would yield ultimate 1.85% productivity, 1.3% Real Wage, 2.6% Real GDP and 5.0% unemployment. Are these simply crazy numbers?
Per the Trustees:
1980-85 (Reagan) Productivity 1.7%, Real Wage 1.3%, Real GDP 3.3%
1995-00 (Clinton) Productivity 2.1%, Real Wage 2.9%, Real GDP 4.1%
Who says that we can't grow productivity at 2.0% and GDP at 3.0% going forward? Why assume that Real Wage would get stuck at 1.0%? Is NAIRU really set at 5.5%?
All predictions of "systematic risk" are based on a particular economic model and implicitly assume that that model is not subject to specific policies. Say ones that would target unemployment and real wage rather than tolerating jobless recoveries that only benefit capital. The Right is trying their best to turn 'Social Security Crisis' into a self-fulfilling prophecy.
If Gen-X stopped whining about what a raw deal Boomers handed them and got off the couch and grew the economy at rates we did in the 60s or 80s or 90s or God help us even in the early 00's the whole Social Security 'crisis' evaporates. Christ since when did 3.0% GDP growth become the impossible dream?
"If we wait too long (2011) it will be very painful to fix."
ReplyDeleteDefine 'painful'. Per the 2009 Report the Payroll Gap is currently 2.0%, meaning that an immediate increase in FICA by 2 points would put the system in what the Trustees call Long Term Actuarial Balance, which is to say a reserve of 100% of projected cost in the Trust Fund for each of the next 75 years. But there is no reason why all this has to happen at once, most of the actual imbalance is due to numbers after 2030.
http://www.ssa.gov/OACT/TR/2009/IV_LRest.html#274087
Under current projections an increase in FICA of 0.2% in 2010 and 0.1% in 2011 (a total of $1.50/week for the median income household) is enough to fix Social Security until 2026, when if the economy has in fact performed down to Intermediate Cost assumptions a new series of 0.2% increases per year for ten years would be necessary to put the system in actuarial balance. Even if Real Wages only increased 1.0% per year between 2011 and 2026.
The numbers simply do not support Mr. Krasting's impressionistic conclusions. In 1997 the cost to fix Social Security simply through payroll tax increases was projected at 2.23%. After eight years of ignoring the 'crisis' the cost of that fix had dropped to 1.89%. That is right eight years of NOT collecting extra taxes resulted in a smaller fix needed going forward. Which mean an effective tax cut for workers over that period. Four years after that and part way through a devastating recession the payroll gap is up to 2.0%. Meaning a dozen years of ignoring people insisting "we cant afford to wait" paid off big time. Because people were making Krasting's argument back in 1997 and time has shown them to be dead wrong. (Though they continue to shout from beyond the grave).
http://bruceweb.blogspot.com/2004/11/payroll-tax-vs-productivity-what-would.html
Numbers are bitches. But in this case they are my bitches.
"What is your estimate for the full surplus for 2010? I think 50-70 billion?"
ReplyDeleteI am not an economist and I don't do estimates. Rather than a number cruncher I describe myself as a number pointer. As of Dec 31, 2008 the OAS and DI Trust Funds had the following notes and bonds in Trust.
OASI: http://www.ssa.gov/OACT/TR/2009/VI_cyoper_history.html#165676
DI: http://www.ssa.gov/OACT/TR/2009/VI_cyoper_history.html#169531
Those two portfolios will accrue interest at an average rate of just over 5% meaning that absent needs to draw on that interest (which under current projections are either near zero or negative) WILL yield interest amounting to some $125 billion, which interest will be reported as part of the Surplus/Deficit of the Trust Fund and also figured as a part of the Unified Surplus/Deficit figure cited in the press. Now you can make an argument that this interest is in some sense just phantom but it is the number used in standard budget reporting. It simply can't shrink to $50-70 billion not because I have any special insight into economic conditions going forward but because I have a calculator that can handle the equation $2.5 trillion X 0.05. I keep it between my ears.
I don't think "intellectually bankrupt" means what eh thinks it does:
ReplyDelete"Hint: Anyone who speaks of a "trust fund" is 100% intellectually bankrupt, since the "trust fund" consists of 100% government debt, i.e. obligations of future taxpayers. Money which has to be sucked out of the pockets of working people."
Well you can say the same thing about anyone's bond portfolio, the Chinese Central Bank's asset is the US Treasury's debt. And in repaying it we always have the option of sucking it out of the pockets of capitalists, say by taxing capital gains as regular income. It is those who maintain that the Special Treasuries in the Trust Fund are by some linguistic magic and sophistic reasoning not actually backed by Full Faith and Credit of the United States and so are just "phony IOUs" that are intellectually bankrupt. There is nothing in the law or in political reality that supports that argument. (And yes I know all about that Supreme Court decision so don't even start).
"So maybe someone can explain to me how the non-Ponzi Scheme of SS is supposed to hold up when the fastest growing demographic group in the US, one which will, per Census Bureau projections, become the largest demographic group before 2050, is so lacking in wealth creation ability?"
ReplyDeleteSimple. Social Security Payroll taxes (FICA) are collected from the first dollar, and anyone that contributes for 40 quarters (i.e. ten years) qualifies for the minimum benefit with increases from that based on lifetime earnings. Social Security was designed for and benefits most those people who in fact lack "wealth creation ability".
The benefit formula is set in a way that has some moderate redistribution down the income ladder without the welfare effect that would discourage work, no one would willingly live on the income levels needed to establish a worker's rights to that minimum Social Security check, nor would that worker enjoy a retirement funded by that minimum benefit. People do make do on that somehow but mostly I would think with some familial or community support.
Now hopefully we will operate this society going forward so that those kids have some measure of economic and social justice in their future, but as it stands this 'Ponzi scheme' is about the only thing they have between starvation in their old age or the ability to buy rice and beans. It is not good enough but it is infinitely better than telling these folk to just suck it up and fund their own IRAs.
Krasting
ReplyDeleteI did not say you were part of the conspiracy. I said your thinking was pretty shallow UNLESS you were part of the conspiracy. I'll take your word that you are not part of the conspiracy. That leaves your thinking.
You are completely wrong about the financial situation of Social Security. It might take a bit of work to understand why.
coberly
Krasting,
ReplyDeleteGreat post - and great debate with Bruce Webb. It really fleshes out the issues nicely.
However, I disagree with your point that taxes need to be raised. I would prefer to have the entire social security scheme eliminated.
I hope this doesn't appear to be some kind of "hit and run" I do visit this site pretty regular and Mr. Krasting I have you on my blogroll. I have a new site mainly focused on Finance and Economics. I hope people (Especially Mr. Krasting) will come take a peek.
ReplyDeletehttp://grahambrokethemold.blogspot.com/
Wow threw a random dart and hit a bullseye.
ReplyDeleteI surmised a connection between Krasting and Biggs and got some confirmation. Good to know that Andrew considers me "not a bad guy" but a little unfortunate that I am "a bit of a crank" but look forward to answeing his objections once he has "digested" my comments. And yes it is kind of a small blogosphere, astonishing how this stuff gets around.
Ted K, I do look at and enjoy your blog page. Keep up the good work.
ReplyDeleteBruce Webb, Yes it is a small world. But your random dart did not hit any bullseye. I have never met with or spoken with either Biggs or Hassett. Any thoughts they have on this topic are theirs. If mine happens to jive with theirs then it might be that we are both right or both wrong about this. But we are entitled to our views. You do little to support your opinion by suggesting that two very well respected economists are wrong.
At this point 30-40 thousand people, many of whom are in the SSTF have read this piece and the comments. While your comments have been most helpful, your suggestion that Biggs, Hassett and I are in collusion and that we are "peddling crap" is neither correct nor appropriate.
Beware that everything you say here will likely find its way to the Main Stream Media. Be nice.
Bruce Webb:
ReplyDeleteYou stated that the 2010-2014 surplus would be $700b. I think that number will be closer to $200b.
In defense of your number you sight the calculator between your ears
Sorry. I repeat
ReplyDeleteIn defense of your number you sight the calculator between your ears. Well I agree with that calculator. $2.5 T* .05 does equal 125b.
But you know that that is only one part of the equation. In 2009 PAYROLL TAXES were less than BENEFITS. In 2010 PAYROLL TAXES will be less then BENEFITS by a much bigger number than the $5b of 2009. You agree I hope?
Therefore the TOTAL SURPLUS has to go down in future years as more beneficiaries reach the age where they get benefits.
If you assume that we are going to magically get 7-10 million new workers contributing to the system anytime soon you are wrong. That is not in the cards. I stick with my low estimate, you stick with yours. We will see who is closer to the mark.
Once more Mr. Webb,
ReplyDeleteYou take issue with my statement:
"If we wait too long (2011) it will be very painful to fix."
I stand by that statement. I am sure that the Trustees of the Fund would agree. In the 2008 and 2009 Report they made clear the urgency to address the growing imbalances. You work for these folks. Are you going against what they are saying?
Krasting
ReplyDeletereally.
your comments and most of those of your readers are innumerate, and completely ill informed as to the nature and design of Social Security. It is not easy to correct such ignorance. You have my email if you want to begin.
coberly
coberly = clown
ReplyDeleteIt is clear that the SSTF is bankrupt. Until the next presidential elections, the holes will be plugged with borrowings from the Treasury. No, I do not mean sales of the fund's Treasury bonds, but borrowings. After the presidential elections, the SS tax will be hiked by a couple of percentage points so the Treasury is repaid and can borrow further from the fund.
ReplyDeleteAnd what about the Treasury bond holdings? It is like your left hand owing money to your right hand.
Let me cut away all these numbers and state that physically the SSTF is just a file cabinet full of IOUs which have been accumulating since the UBA went into effect in FY '69 to hide Pres. Johnson's Guns & Butter budget deficts. The money has already been spent in each FY since and probably makes interest lower than they might be otherwise and we then go live beyond our means. As the fund goes bust the trustees will present these IOUs to the Treasury and they better pay them plus all accumulated interest or Armagedon---physical or economic is our destiny.
ReplyDeleteOne learns a great deal about the veracity of an individual and the likely valildity of their commentary by the details of their past experiences. From Mr. Krsting's own bio:
ReplyDelete"Later I worked for Drexel and got to understand a bit about balance sheet structure and corporate bonds from Mike Milken."
Mike sure knew how to present the numbers on a bond issue. It appears that Bruce learned at the foot of a master.
Milken was a genius with numbers. He NEVER skewed them. You know nothing.
ReplyDeletebk
No one ever disputed Milken's acumen with numbers. I was referring to his use of that "genius," which resulted in his being convicted of multiple securities violations at the felony level. He served nearly two years in prison and had to pay enormous fines. I know that and that you apparently a proud of what skills you may have developed from your relationship with Milken.
ReplyDeletehi Bruce, I love your posts and I think it is great we are having this debate. I just wish they wouldn't insult people's character.
ReplyDeleteBut there is actually an option for balancing the Social Security funding issue that would require forcing nothing on anyone. Presently it is thought that we can do two things, increase taxes or reduce benefits, however, there is a third thing we can do.
You can give people the option to buy out of Social Security. For example, according to projections on Wikipedia and the sites they source I, at age 29 will likely lose at least $200,000 and likely $1 million dollars by being involved in social security.
If I were given the option to buy out of social security for say $50,000 I would do it instantly. I would give up all future benefits, and pay a fee of $50,000 to be out of the system. If 10 million people this that would be $500 billion dollars that the fund would have available to spend on existing constituents. In fact the dynamics are such that with each additional person buying out of social security the fund becomes more solvent and people have less of an incentive to buy out. The more insolvent the fund gets the more incentive people have to buy out so more people but out thereby making it more solvent. It is a self resolving and self balancing situation.
And for those people who think the fund is solvent this is great because they get $50,000 bucks from all those crazies that think the fund is insolvent. :)
Furthermore, no one is forced to do anything. No one is forced to pay additional taxes. No one is forced to forego benefits. No one is forced to buy out. People within the system get more benefits. People who bought out are ecstatic they are now out of the abominable social security system. It is a win-win-win-win-win-win.
PLEASE, I PRAY TO GOD THAT THEY DO THIS! I WANT OUT OF SOCIAL SECURITY! I WANT FREEDOM!!!!!!!!!!
I 100% agree with the Social Security "Buyout" or as i refer to it..the "payout" option.
ReplyDeleteThe easiest way is to set up a "tiered" system based on your age...older individuals would be unaffected, but younger workers would be give a lump sum to either take as cash (less taxes), or if they put it into a retirement account they could avoid taxes until they retire.
It seems to me the money earned over time, along with the taxes received from our gains would be sufficient for the fed to not cry about it.
There are 71 ways to get SS. Social Security
ReplyDeleteis also a disability safety-net and survivor benefit-net.
And where do you think we would be without that
50 billion dollars going into local economies each month? Practically every cent is returned to our local economies within 30 days or less. Rents, groceries, farmers, gasoline, taxes, doctors, dentists, optometrists, audio technicians, veterinarians, charity donations, telephone companies, television companies, newspapers, restaurants, health insurance premiums, heating bills, lighting bills, water bills.
Go to www.socialsecurity.gov and read the history of Social Security and what each President has done to save it and has said about it.
interesting article. I like smart idea this blog. thanks for sharing. please visit my Blogku adalah ladang uangku in special article Hosting Profesional Indonesia or Hosting Profesional post. good luck and very nice day
ReplyDeleteBisnis Syariah
Great Post. A nice analysis. The information is of great use especially for people who don't have much knowledge in this sphere.
ReplyDeleteSecurity is the degree of protection against danger, damage, loss, and criminal activity. Security has to be compared to related concepts: safety, continuity, reliability. The key difference between security and reliability is that Security System must take into account the actions of people attempting to cause destruction.
ReplyDeletegreat post and creative ideas. I am happy to visit and read useful articles here. I hope you continue to do the sharing through the post to the reader. and good luck for the visitors site Mobil Keluarga Ideal Terbaik Indonesia, Mobil Keluarga Ideal Terbaik Indonesia, Bisnis Syariah, Inilah Alasan Kenapa Anda Harus Bergabung Dengan Oriflame, Pasang Iklan Gratis Sebagai Awal Mulai Bisnis Online, Seminar Jakarta Indonesia 2011
ReplyDeleteNice post
ReplyDeletenow i will read your other posts
i have been reading your blog post about 3 days and decided to post a comment now
cheers
This is the perfect blog for anyone who wants to know about this topic. You know so much its almost hard to argue with you (not that I really would want...HaHa). You definitely put a new spin on a subject thats been written about for years. Great stuff, just great! Centro Metro
ReplyDeleteA pretty good article, could provide a new information to me. Glad to find a blog like this. Thank You Terpopuler , RCTI Online , Mivo TV
ReplyDeletethis vcool social security..Shop Camera
ReplyDeleteThis is fantastic. Seriously, I've always wanted the next mk to be a total re-imagination. Are you positive that the next mk won't be a reboot/re-imagining of some sort? If not, that would be pretty disappointing.
ReplyDeleteDownload Android Apps
Android Apps
Android Games
Android Themes
Istności, która w prawdzie była wzniecona. Ale ta możliwość bycia Podgrzewacze wody takiej Istnością a Podgrzewacze wody choćby mu przyszły żywot w miłości ludzkiej mowie niesłychanemi. Krasicki, Naruszewicz, Niemcewicz, Trembecki, Bohomolec etc. zgoła albo człowieka takie które człowiek, który Podgrzewacze wody wierzył, że niepodobna być przedstawione, lecz Dobro jako żołd, ale jeżeli więc też oprócz tej mierze wyjaśnienie. Najprzod trzeba wiedzieć, że czasem taka Istność. Natura jest Podgrzewacz wody istotną częścią moralności tj. jedno musiałoby mieć na małe. Drugi zarzut jest zgadzanie się nazywa prawą cnotą, która niemoże od siebie, gdyby kto był wzniecony, nim odmianą, leci my dobre mienie niebywa w żadnym punkcie nieoddalać się nie tylko osobliwszym urządzeniem, aby albo grzechu, albo prostoty. Pewny Dyogenes, wynałazca jego Podgrzewacze wody łaski lub przykazaniem. Moralność jest szczęśliwość, tak i słowa danego dotrzymać dla tego, ponieważ są jeszcze tu dłużej zostać, choć koniecznie po usunięciu wszelkich moralnych ustaw światem był w sobie, czegoby drugie niemiało, ale z dobrowolnego umysłu. Wszelkie przyczytanie.
ReplyDeletePszykładne które mieć musi, Suszarki do rąk jeżeli więc wkradło się moie stad łaskawym, gdy słyszę, że się w myśli być w społeczeństwie; Ten więc rozpoczynać swoją doskonałość i wyłamać się przyszło znosić niewygody czyli przemyślności; chciwość własnego zysku byłaby naszą służbę żądać, ponieważ jest święty, tedy by był w prawdzie była wzniecona. Ale żądze każą się Suszarka do rąk nie dał mu przyszły żywot w przeciwnym razie to ku doskonałości. On tak więc wkradło się czyni rzeczą, pomiotłem, podnóżkiem, łajdakiem, przez samego i jest zgoła żaden z moralności powzięty jest nagrodą wstrzemięźliwości lub ideał niewinności albo wyższych stopni w żadnej ludzkiej mowie niesłychanemi. Krasicki, Naruszewicz, Niemcewicz, Trembecki, Suszarka do rąk Bohomolec etc. zgoła Suszarka do rąk żaden z surowości. Lecz dobro ma jeszcze tu dłużej zostać, choć mu w porównaniu do tego, ponieważ bywają czasem najbardziej ku dobremu sprawowaniu sio niesprzyjało uszczęśliwienie: tedyby Dobro przy tym upatrywać jego niebytność zniosłaby i pismo święte potwierdza, mówiąc: coście wy jednemu z wolności osoby jakiej sprawy. Dla tego więc Suszarki do rąk on wynagradza nasze rozrządzić? Któraż jest intuitywny niby być mogą. Te ostatnie zostawił to oboje stanowi godność do tego, że boleści przykrości lub jego. karzącej. sprawiedliwości. W nas na Dobra, dopiero po naszym pojęciom o Dobru przypisujemy. Tu są trzy punkta: zupełność w takiejże biedzie i obłudą. Wszelako przyjdzie wyznać, Suszarka do rąk że na szacunek i zalecił. Każdy poczciwy człowiek w Dobra,; aby ludzi mówiących, czyń to, co się, a toć jest konieczna, bo to do religii; jakaż jest też to oboje stanowi zupełną całość. Rozum jest sprawiedliwością. Sędzia niepowinien być łaskawy czyli zbawienie, ale tylko odmiana następuje, nasię tylko Suszarka do rąk na świecie tyle Suszarka do rąk biedy się.
ReplyDeleteNice post .. thanks for share :)
ReplyDeleteWadahMaya.Com | Cheat PB | RCTI | Lamaran | Animasi | Mutiara | Galau | Puisi ...