|
For release: March 2, 2005
St. Louis Fed Study Analyzes History of Social Security vs. Private
Retirement Accounts
St. Louis — With most indicators pointing to
the Social Security system becoming insolvent in the next several
decades, an analysis by the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis suggests
that a great majority of current retirees would have higher retirement
income with private accounts than the present system.
The analysis was undertaken by Thomas A. Garrett, a senior economist
at the St. Louis Fed, and Russell M. Rhine, an assistant professor
of economics at St. Mary's College of Maryland. Their research appears
in the March/April issue of the Review,
the Reserve Bank's bimonthly journal of economic and business topics.
The publication is also available on the Reserve
Bank’s web site.
Introduced in 1935, the Social Security Act is one of the largest
and most enduring mandates of the federal government. While the
system has grown to include other social welfare programs, Garrett
and Rhine focused specifically on the program's old-age retirement
benefits and disability benefits—or OASDI. More than 47 million
Americans, roughly 16 percent of the U.S. population, receive benefits
through OASDI.
The reasons for the rapid rise in Social Security expenditures include
increases in payroll taxes, an increase in coverage, the increasing
longevity of the U.S. population, and an increase in the share of
elderly people as a percentage of the overall population.
While the system is solvent at the moment, Social Security's "pay-as-you-go"
approach does not bode well for future recipients. Garrett and Rhine
emphasized that in 1950 there were 16.5 workers paying Social Security
taxes for every retired person receiving benefits. Today, the number
is 3.31 and by 2030, there will be 2.17 workers paying taxes for
every recipient and there will be 70 million Americans of retirement
age, compared with about 35 million today.
Social Security's board of trustees estimates that preserving the
current Social Security System for the next 75 years would require
an immediate increase in the payroll tax to 14.3 percent, vs. the
current level of 12.4 percent, or a 13 percent reduction in all
current and future benefits.
Proposals to reform Social Security have ranged from maintaining
the current system to allowing individuals to invest their payroll
tax contributions in private retirement accounts.
Garrett and Rhine argued that "a crucial factor of any Social
Security reform proposal is analysis of the actual benefits received
from Social Security compared with the benefits that would have
been gained with a system of private retirement accounts during
retirees' working years."
Garrett and Rhine made several assumptions to easily compare individuals
at a more aggregate level. The assumptions are: four average levels
of annual income (low earners, average earners, high earners and
maximum earners); the number of years of contributions to the Social
Security system; the opportunity cost of Social Security contributions;
and retirement age.
They also weighed two different private investments: the S&P
500 and 6-month CDs, the latter being a relatively safe investment,
which is assumed to roll over at maturity.
Garrett and Rhine compared the real monthly benefit paid by Social
Security and the real monthly benefit from the two amortized private
portfolios for three different retirement ages. Regarding taxes,
their analysis assumes that private investment accounts are tax
deferred—that is, taxes are paid only on distributions during
retirement years.
Their analysis suggests that, on average, less than 5 percent
of current retirees would receive a higher monthly benefit under
Social Security than if they had invested their payroll taxes in
private investments.
"Given the political nature of Social Security reform,"
Garrett and Rhine said, "it is unlikely that any initial reform
would allow individuals to invest all of their payroll tax contributions
in private investment accounts. Nevertheless, our findings suggest
that an initial Social Security reform plan could include at least
some investment in private retirement accounts."
They cautioned, however, that if some or all of payroll tax revenue
were diverted over time to private funds, the federal government
would have to increase debt issuance, raise taxes or reduce benefits
to continuing traditional Social Security for America's seniors.
"Higher payroll taxes may restore the solvency of the system,
but large increases in this tax are likely to have distortionary
effects on labor supply and productivity," they said.
While decreased benefits may also continue to keep the system
solvent, Garrett and Rhine observed this could be detrimental to
individuals who rely solely on Social Security for their income.
In addition, they noted that transferring revenues from the general
fund to the trust fund may require an increase in other taxes to
maintain the size of the general fund.
"In short," they said, "the general equilibrium
effects of any Social Security reform plan should be fully understood
when evaluating any change to the system."
While any of the proposals that have been put forth publicly would
have costs, Garrett and Rhine concluded that "both the public
and elected officials must decide whether the cost of doing nothing
to the current Social Security system is more than the cost of fixing
it."
With branches in Little Rock, Louisville and Memphis, the Federal
Reserve Bank of St. Louis serves the Eighth Federal Reserve District,
which includes all of Arkansas, eastern Missouri, southern Indiana,
southern Illinois, western Kentucky, western Tennessee and northern
Mississippi. The St. Louis Fed is one of 12 regional Reserve Banks
that, along with the Board of Governors in Washington, D.C., comprise
the Federal Reserve System. As the nation's central bank, the Federal
Reserve System formulates U.S. monetary policy, regulates state-chartered
member banks and bank holding companies, and provides payment services
to financial institutions and the U.S. government.
# # #
Back to top |