|
 |
 |

NEWS
INDEX
Archives
2005
May
Social Security not in peril
as President Bush suggests, expert says
Mark Reutter,
Law Editor
217-333-0568; mreutter@uiuc.edu
5/13/05
 |
| University
of Illinois Photo |
| Richard
Kaplan, an expert on federal taxes and retirement
benefits, says Social Security is not in crisis, as
characterized by President Bush. |
|
|
CHAMPAIGN, Ill.
— Social Security is not “in crisis,” “unsustainable,”
or even “bankrupt” – words that President George W.
Bush has used to rally support behind his campaign to alter the retirement
and insurance program – according to an article by a law
professor at the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign.
Factoring in the huge annual surpluses currently collected by Social
Security, general taxpayer revenues would not be needed to fund Social
Security benefits until 2052, or 47 years from now.
Given that decades-long time frame, “a flip answer to the description
of a Social Security ‘crisis’ would be, ‘Who cares?’
’’ Richard L. Kaplan, an expert on federal taxes and retirement
benefits, wrote in the April issue of ElderLaw Report, the leading monthly
publication for practicing elder law lawyers.
“The more serious answer,” Kaplan said, “is that Social
Security receipts would continue to come in after 2052, and even with
no surplus balance in the trust fund, the program could pay at least
81 percent of currently provided benefits as far as the eye can see.”
Even if a funds shortfall did take place a half century in the future,
Social Security benefits would not necessarily be cut by 19 percent
or the program’s payroll tax increased by the same percentage,
according to Kaplan.
“It simply means that the revenue stream that is associated with
Social Security would be 19 percent less than the program’s projected
benefits, requiring an allocation of funds from other uses of existing
government resources.”
President Bush’s proposal to permit employees to divert 4 percent
of their wages into individualized Social Security accounts would make
Social Security’s long-term situation “worse, not better,”
Kaplan wrote.
“Individual Social Security accounts do not address Social Security’s
projected shortfall. Indeed, that is why the administration anticipates
‘transition costs’ of anywhere from $750 billion to $2 trillion
to implement these accounts.”
A number of options exist to plug any projected Social Security shortfall
in the future. One option would be to lift the annual cap on Social
Security payroll tax (this year’s cap is $90,000), which would
raise taxes on only a small percentage of taxpayers.
Another approach would be to raise the age of full retirement. When
Social Security was adopted in 1935, the average life expectancy of
Americans was 61.5 years. Today it is closer to 77 years. Raising the
full retirement age beyond the present 67, Kaplan noted, could eliminate
almost all of the program’s projected shortfall.
Currently, Social Security collects significantly more money from the
workforce than it spends on benefits and program administration for
retirees. Last year’s surplus, for example, was almost $152 billion.
According to forecasts by the Congressional Budget Office, Social Security’s
annual revenues will dip below its annual expenditures beginning in
year 2020.
“Such long-range forecasts are notoriously inaccurate due to a
wide range of variables involved, including future earnings of workers,
wars, natural disasters, number of deaths and births, and even the level
of immigration, legal or otherwise,” Kaplan wrote.
But even if this forecast pans out, it does not account for the surpluses
accumulated by Social Security from previous years. As a result, the
forecasted shortfall of $16 billion in Social Security tax receipts
in year 2020 would be dwarfed by the same year’s Social Security
interest income of $206 billion, “to say nothing about the anticipated
balance in the trust fund at that point of $3.6 trillion,” Kaplan
noted.
In addition to raising many practical issues involving administration
and investment options, the individual investment accounts proposed
by President Bush would “only exacerbate” Social Security’s
potential financing difficulties.
What’s more, “those who are attracted to the personal control
and ‘ownership’ aspects of President Bush’s proposed
individual accounts have a more appealing alternative already available:
the traditional Individual Retirement Account, or IRA,” Kaplan
wrote.
His article is titled, “The Security of Social Security Benefits
and the President’s Proposal.”
|
 |
 |
|