The
problems facing the U.S. economy are daunting especially when it comes to
issues of Government spending and the current deficit. We recently wrote about
the dependency on Government programs which are currently making up as much
as 35% of personal incomes. Social Security, Medicaid and Medicare make up the
largest portions of the current spending requirements of the Federal Budget.
The current administration has promised that cuts will not be made to
government "entitlement" programs but is that a promise that
any administration can actually keep?
When
it comes to Social Security the facts are rather alarming. By 2017 the Social
Security Administration will pay out more in benefits than it takes in. This is
not surprising given that in the 1950's there were roughly 5 workers for every
retiree. Today, it is roughly half of that. With 78 Million "baby boomers" moving into retirement the demands on
social security are set to spiral higher in the coming years ahead. Is it
really any wonder then that with demographics heading in the wrong direction,
not to mention a much slower growth economy, that the Social Security
Administration has moved up its estimate that the Social Security Fund will be
exhausted entirely by 2033?
With
these rather stark points in mind it was much to my dismay that Smart Money published
an article by Alicia Munnell entitled "Social Security: The Cheapest Annuity In Town" which stated:
"The Center for Retirement Research at Boston College has just released a new study that shows that the best way for people to turn their 401(k) balances into a stream of income is to 'buy' an annuity from Social Security. Many people don't recognize that Social Security is in the annuity business, but it is and it has the cheapest product in town."
The
premise is that as individuals approach retirement they should use 401k and IRA
asset's first to live on and postpone drawing Social Security for as long as
possible. She states: "A much better alternative is
for the household to 'buy' an annuity from Social Security. They can make this
'purchase' by using their savings to pay current expenses and delaying claiming
to get a higher monthly benefit at an older age. The savings used is the
'price' and the increase in monthly benefits is the annuity it 'buys.'"
This
sounds great on the surface. She uses the following example:
"Consider a retiree who could claim $12,000 a year at age 65 and $12,860 at age 66 - $860 more. If he delays claiming for a year and uses $12,860 from savings to pay the bills that year, $12,860 is the price of the extra $860 annuity income. The annuity rate - the additional annuity income as a percent of the purchase price - would be 6.7 percent ($860/$12,860). Remember that Social Security benefits are indexed for inflation, so the retiree is buying a real annuity."
The
proverbial "fly in
the ointment" was
brought forth by Jim Horney at the Center on Budget Priorities where in an USA Today article he exposed the lie
that is Social Security: "It's
not easy, but it can be done. Retirement programs are not legal
obligations." Read
that last sentence again. While we have all been led to believe that there is
some "lock box" in Washington that are safeguarding the semimonthly
payments that are drafted from our paychecks — the reality is that this is
simply not the case. This is why
Mr. Horney stated that Social Security should not count as part of the deficit
because, unlike businesses, the Government can change what it owes by lifting
taxes and cutting benefits.
Therein
lays the problem with Ms. Munnell's article. The "cheapest
annuity in town" may
also be the worst possible investment. Why? Because the
money you pay into Social Security is not yours. Politicians can confiscate
those dollars at their discretion such as when the Clinton Administration used
the dollars from Social Security to balance the budget. They can raise the
retirement age thereby shortening the number of dollars that must be paid out.
Moreover, as we have seen over the past decade, they can eviscerate their
obligations by debasing the dollar. In
other words, by spending your saved retirement dollars today, which could be
invested in assets that will produce an income stream in the future, in the
hopes of a better "annuity" stream in the future there could
likely be very negative ramifications. This is especially the case when you
consider that the average American is woefully under-saved for retirement and
two nasty bear markets during this century alone has all but insured that many
Americans will be working far longer than they originally planned.
Combine
those issues with the reality that eventually the government will have to take
steps to begin to deal with the problem that is Social Security. While
there has been much discussion of the issue of cutting the deficits, reducing
spending and raising revenue to return to a path of prosperity — the simple
fact is that nothing can be accomplished without attacking the 800-lb guerrilla
that is entitlement spending.
My friend Doug Short wrote an excellent commentary on this very issue which is
worth reviewing in the context of this article. The simple fact is that while "By law, the federal government can't tell the truth," according to Sheila Weinberg of the
Chicago-based Institute for Truth in Accounting, the "math" doesn't
lie. The entitlement programs alone consume more than the entire tax revenue
for the year which is why the current Federal Debt levels have now surpassed
100% of GDP.
The
trend is clearly unsustainable and something will have to ultimately give.
While Ms. Munnell believes that Social Security annuities are a better deal
than those in the private market the major difference is that the government
has no "legal" responsibility to pay what is
currently owed. In the coming years the currently under-saved and aging "boomer" population
may be faced with the tough decisions of working longer and reducing their
standard of living. For those that are currently working and paying into the
system — the best advice still remains to save more, spend less and be self
reliant for your retirement because the truth is that "social safety" net may just turn out to be a
big fat lie.
"By 2017 the Social Security Administration will pay out more in benefits than it takes in."
ReplyDeleteYou are failing to see beyond the smoke and mirrors of Social Security. The federal government does not report a Social Security liability on its books, because the federal government owes nobody any Social Security beyond the checks that are currently written. It is a myth that "Social Security" money is taken out of people's paychecks. The Social Security Administration does not collect Social Security taxes and then pay benefits.
The payroll taxes taken out of people paychecks are all just taxes. These taxes go into to the Treasury and are spent on government services and benefits, including Social Security benefits.
Therefore what is really going on is that young workers with a low standard of living are paying taxes and some of those taxes are going to pay benefits to people who have a higher standard of living than they do.
The trust funds and the myth that people are paying into a system that will run out of money in 2017 is just used to confuse people.
This miscommunication is working very well.
You are absolutely right and this is precisely one of the main points of the article.
ReplyDelete