SS 2034 shortfall calculator

[Jerry1]

Check out this SS calculator. It allows you to pick various options and see how they would impact the shortfall.

The Reformer: An Interactive Tool to Fix Social Security

What are your proposed fixes? For me, I think one thing to do, which does have significant impact, is to eliminate the cap on wages to be taxed.

 

[Dtail]

Check out this SS calculator. It allows you to pick various options and see how they would impact the shortfall.

The Reformer: An Interactive Tool to Fix Social Security

What are your proposed fixes? For me, I think one thing to do, which does have significant impact, is to eliminate the cap on wages to be taxed.

+1
Never really understood why it would not be unlimited and I was above the cap for most of my career.

 

[Rianne]

My plan.



n 2050, your plan would reduce total scheduled benefits by 7% and reduce payable benefits by 0%. Your plan would decrease taxes by 0%.

 

[pb4uski]

+1
Never really understood why it would not be unlimited and I was above the cap for most of my career.

IIRC the reason that the cap exists is because there are limits on the amount of SS that one can receive so really high earners would never get back anything close what they paid in.

 

[Jerry1]

IIRC the reason that the cap exists is because there are limits on the amount of SS that one can receive so really high earners would never get back anything close what they paid in.

That may be true, but I see that as a better alternative to means testing. At least you’re taking the hit while you’re working.

 

[pb4uski]

YOUR POLICY SELECTIONS....................% OF GAP CLOSED

Index Age to Longevity After it Reaches 67...................20%

Tighten SSDI Eligibility Criteria......................................8%

Increase Payroll Tax by 0.1%.........................................4%

Raise and Re-Index the Taxable Maximum.....................22%

Cover Newly-Hired State & Local Workers........................9%

Apply the Payroll Tax to "Cafeteria Plans".......................10%

Increase Taxation of Benefits.........................................7%

Diversify the Trust Fund to Increase Returns..................22%

TOTAL.....................................................................101%

In 2050, your plan would reduce total scheduled benefits by 3% and increase payable benefits by 21%. Your plan would increase taxes by 17%.

Some notes: Increase in payroll tax would be from 12.4% to 12.5% a nice even number. Increase in taxation of benefits.. info not said it would be changed to conform to the way private pensions are taxed (I resume that they mean contributory private pensions). My thought is that any stock investments would be index style... I would not want the trust fund to try to pick winners and losers.

 

[pb4uski]

That may be true, but I see that as a better alternative to means testing. At least you’re taking the hit while you’re working.

I wasn't opining on anything, just explaining why there was a cap.

 

[Jerry1]

YOUR POLICY SELECTIONS....................% OF GAP CLOSED

Index Age to Longevity After it Reaches 67...................20%

I get the logic of increasing the age. I’m not sure of the number, but I’m sure longevity has increased much more than the SS retirement age since SS’s inception. As I mentioned in another thread, however, I think some consideration needs to be given to the type of work being done. It’s hard to believe that it’s good policy to have people over our current SS retirement ages doing heavy manual labor (construction trades for example). However, as a person who did desk work and in a world where more and more people do desk/computer/thinking jobs, I do think we could increase the age in those fields. I mean seriously, when the president and two or three potential presidential want to be’s are over 70, it’s certainly possible to hold down a demanding job later in life. (Please, no politics. My point is that the job is VERY demanding and quite a few people over 70 appear to want it and could handle working that late it life.)

 

[Dtail]

IIRC the reason that the cap exists is because there are limits on the amount of SS that one can receive so really high earners would never get back anything close what they paid in.

Agree. Thought about that later. How much SS would Gates and Buffet and other 1%ers receive?

 

[braumeister]

When Social Security was first implemented, only about 3% earned more than the cap. Today it's about 6% so not a big difference.

 

[gerntz]

+1
Never really understood why it would not be unlimited and I was above the cap for most of my career.

Yes, you don't understand. A 6% hit on income & a +6% addition to the cost of employing someone is a meaningful reason to me. I.e., it's not like there wouldn't me consequences to the the economy. By your reasoning, why not tax any income above X amount at 100%? Those people clearly don't need it.

 

[gerntz]

That may be true, but I see that as a better alternative to means testing. At least you’re taking the hit while you’re working.

Why means testing? Just slice everyone the same %. The less you receive, the more you're benefiting from skewed payments to those on the low side.

 

[gerntz]

I get the logic of increasing the age. I’m not sure of the number, but I’m sure longevity has increased much more than the SS retirement age since SS’s inception. As I mentioned in another thread, however, I think some consideration needs to be given to the type of work being done. It’s hard to believe that it’s good policy to have people over our current SS retirement ages doing heavy manual labor (construction trades for example). However, as a person who did desk work and in a world where more and more people do desk/computer/thinking jobs, I do think we could increase the age in those fields. I mean seriously, when the president and two or three potential presidential want to be’s are over 70, it’s certainly possible to hold down a demanding job later in life. (Please, no politics. My point is that the job is VERY demanding and quite a few people over 70 appear to want it and could handle working that late it life.)

Excellent.

 

[pb4uski]

I get the logic of increasing the age. I’m not sure of the number, but I’m sure longevity has increased much more than the SS retirement age since SS’s inception. As I mentioned in another thread, however, I think some consideration needs to be given to the type of work being done. It’s hard to believe that it’s good policy to have people over our current SS retirement ages doing heavy manual labor (construction trades for example). However, as a person who did desk work and in a world where more and more people do desk/computer/thinking jobs, I do think we could increase the age in those fields. I mean seriously, when the president and two or three potential presidential want to be’s are over 70, it’s certainly possible to hold down a demanding job later in life. (Please, no politics. My point is that the job is VERY demanding and quite a few people over 70 appear to want it and could handle working that late it life.)

I think you have an interesting point but I think it would be hard to administer and lots of gray area in between... thousome might argue that there is a lot of emotional stress with office jobs that are less prevalent in more physical jobs. The fact that one can take SS as early as 62 may be a sufficient mitigating factor. For people who do physical work it isn't a dark secret that it becomes much more difficult with age.

 

[scrabbler1]

My list of policy choices, spread out among many options.

Your Policy Selections...…………….…………... % of gap closed

Reduce Initial Benefits by 0.2%...………………….....1%

Slow Benefit Growth for Top 20% Of Earners....12%

Raise Age from 67 to 68...........................…...14%

Index COLAs to "Chained CPI".........……...……...22%

Tighten SSDI Eligibility Criteria............………......8%

Limit Spousal Benefits for High Earners.........…..4%

Increase Payroll Tax by 0.4%.........………………….14%

Cover Newly-Hired State & Local Workers......…...9%

Apply the Payroll Tax to "Cafeteria Plans"...……...10%

Increase Taxation of Benefits...............…………….7%

Total ......................................................….100%

In 2050, your plan would reduce total scheduled benefits by 9% and increase payable benefits by 13%. Your plan would increase taxes by 11%.

Help me out here, please......if I chose only options to reduce benefits, why do I see a 13% increase in what is called "payable benefits"? What's the difference between that and "scheduled benefits"?

I don't touch the payroll tax cap because that cap also keeps a lid on the benefits. Those excess dollars earned over the cap pay no payroll taxes (other than Medicare) because they do not increase at all the amount of benefits payable. If payroll taxes are paid on those excess dollars but no benefits paid out, we are basically telling those earners, "All those extra payroll tax dollars you earned won't get you a bigger SS benefit, unlike the FICA tax dollars you paid below the cap, but thanks for letting us steal your dollars with zilch in return!"

 

[GravitySucks]

Two unmentioned items in this tool I'd like to see the affects of:

1. Us Boomers didn't have enough children. Think it was barely at replacement level. The current generation birthrate is even lower. What happens if we increased immigration drastically?

2. What happens to SS if the minimum wage is increased to an level that a person can live on?

 

[Willers]

Help me out here, please......if I chose only options to reduce benefits, why do I see a 13% increase in what is called "payable benefits"? What's the difference between that and "scheduled benefits"?

Per the SSA program explainer page:

https://www.ssa.gov/retirementpolicy/program/scheduled-payable.html

* Scheduled benefits are benefits specified under current law without regard to the balances in the Social Security trust funds.

* Payable benefits are what can be paid to all beneficiaries after trust fund exhaustion, currently projected to occur in 2033.

 

[LiveBelowMeans]

Thanks Jerry1 great site. The site makes solving the current shortfall problem seem very doable. Two changes solve the problem. Increase the retirement age one year to 68 and go to CPI minus 1%. Most people would not notice the 1 % less increase. Problem solved. Now try to get any politician to touch the third rail......

 

[LiveBelowMeans]

Correction on above post. To solve the problem I also had to raise the taxable maximum to $204,000.

 

[Dtail]

Yes, you don't understand. A 6% hit on income & a +6% addition to the cost of employing someone is a meaningful reason to me. I.e., it's not like there wouldn't me consequences to the the economy. By your reasoning, why not tax any income above X amount at 100%? Those people clearly don't need it.

I already commented on my original comment, so relax.
You could also check your spelling/grammar first.

 

[Independent]

Yes, you don't understand. A 6% hit on income & a +6% addition to the cost of employing someone is a meaningful reason to me. I.e., it's not like there wouldn't me consequences to the the economy. By your reasoning, why not tax any income above X amount at 100%? Those people clearly don't need it.

AFAIK, anything that closes a big chunk of the SS gap is meaningful to some individuals, and to "the economy".

Why means testing? Just slice everyone the same %. The less you receive, the more you're benefiting from skewed payments to those on the low side.

That is exactly what happens if congress does nothing. Sometime around 2034, all beneficiaries will get a cut of about 21%.

 

[Independent]

Two unmentioned items in this tool I'd like to see the affects of:

1. Us Boomers didn't have enough children. Think it was barely at replacement level. The current generation birthrate is even lower. What happens if we increased immigration drastically?

2. What happens to SS if the minimum wage is increased to an level that a person can live on?

1. The "intermediate" SS projections assume net immigration of 1,272,000 in every year. This is enough to provide a slow increase in population. For example, the number of 20-64 year-olds is expected to be about 200 million in 2025 and 250 million in 2080.

If they assume 1,607,000 immigrants in every year, they project that the extra taxes less the extra benefits would close 8.5% of the average 75 year deficit.

See tables V.A3 and VI.D3 here: https://www.ssa.gov/oact/TR/2018/X1_trLOT.html

I don't see their assumption regarding immigrant's wages. Obviously, workers earning $100,000/yr have a much more favorable impact on SS than workers earning $20,000 (and also on other gov't programs). It may be in the detail that I didn't read carefully.

2. Very little, at least if by "a person" you mean "one adult". The poverty level is $12,000 per year. The federal minimum wage generates $14,500 for someone who works 50 x 40 = 2,000 hours per year. Most of the US population lives in states where the state minimum wage is higher than the federal minimum.

 

[bada bing]

YOUR POLICY SELECTIONS....................% OF GAP CLOSED
Reduce Initial Benefits by 17%.......................80%
Index Age to Longevity After it Reaches 67......20%
TOTAL.......................................................100%

This thread is an example of a huge flaw in SS (and other wealth redistribution schemes).
They provide a huge incentive for conflict between groups of citizens. The idea that
when a problem arises, that certain out-of-favor groups should be forced to shoulder
the entire burden, just because you have the votes to do it. SS has been "fine"
by the electorate since 1990 as far as the progressiveness of the benefit payout
formula. Now it is not, solely because cuts have to be made. There is remarkably
little discussion of shared sacrifice and an awful lot of "give me mine".

I vote for shared sacrifice. Pro-rata across the board cuts. Index FRA to longevity. Done.
Everyone contributes in proportion to what was agreeable for decades.