The Case for Social Security Personal Accounts

Posted by Daniel J. Mitchell

There are two crises facing Social Security. First the program has a gigantic unfunded liability, largely caused by demographics. Second, the program is a very bad deal for younger workers, making them pay record amounts of tax in exchange for comparatively meager benefits. This video explains how personal accounts can solve both problems, and also notes that nations as varied as Australia, Chile, Sweden, and Hong Kong have implemented this pro-growth reform.

Social Security reform received a good bit of attention in the past two decades. President Clinton openly flirted with the idea, and President Bush explicitly endorsed the concept. But it has faded from the public square in recent years. But this may be about to change. Personal accounts are part of Congressman Paul Ryan’s Roadmap proposal, and recent polls show continued strong support for letting younger workers shift some of their payroll taxes to individual accounts.

Equally important, the American people understand that Social Security’s finances are unsustainable. They may not know specific numbers, but they know politicians have created a house of cards, which is why jokes about the system are so easily understandable.

President Obama thinks the answer is higher taxes, which is hardly a surprise. But making people pay more is hardly an attractive option, unless you’re the type of person who thinks it’s okay to give people a hamburger and charge them for a steak.

Other nations have figured out the right approach. Australia began to implement personal accounts back in the mid-1980s, and the results have been remarkable. The government’s finances are stronger. National saving has increased. But most important, people now can look forward to a safer and more secure retirement. Another great example is Chile, which set up personal accounts in the early 1980s. This interview with Jose Pinera, who designed the Chilean system, is a great summary of why personal accounts are necessary. All told, about 30 nations around the world have set up some form of personal accounts. Even Sweden, which the left usually wants to mimic, has partially privatized its Social Security system.

It also should be noted that personal accounts would be good for growth and competitiveness. Reforming a tax-and-transfer entitlement scheme into a system of private savings will boost jobs by lowering the marginal tax rate on work. Personal accounts also will boost private savings. And Social Security reform will reduce the long-run burden of government spending, something that is desperately needed if we want to avoid the kind of fiscal crisis that is afflicting European welfare states such as Greece.

Last but not least, it is important to understand that personal retirement accounts are not a free lunch. Social Security is a pay-as-you-go system, so if we let younger workers shift their payroll taxes to individual accounts, that means the money won’t be there to pay benefits to current retirees. Fulfilling the government’s promise to those retirees, as well as to older workers who wouldn’t have time to benefit from the new system, will require a lot of money over the next couple of decades, probably more than $5 trillion.

That’s a shocking number, but it’s important to remember that it would be even more expensive to bail out the current system. As I explain at the conclusion of the video, we’re in a deep hole, but it will be easier to climb out if we implement real reform.

Did the author actually say that "borrowing now exceeds tax revenue"? How embarrassing!

I hate to be the one that tells you, Megan, but every nation DESIGNED their currency operations to work that way, when they went off of the gold std back in the 1920s & 1930s. The last vestige, pegging to the $US & thereby to gold, disappeared in 1973. That's been a long time. In 2010 there is simply no excuse for not knowing how simple monetary operations work. It's not rocket science.

In nearly every country in the world, currency creation & currency supply is now fairly directly linked only to public initiative and the general well being of the populous. If population or economic activity increases, OF COURSE currency supply must increase faster than taxes. What part of economic growth don't people understand? Currency operations are not so different from motherhood. You feed the fetus & baby first, often for years, keep accurate growth records, and your family, tribe or nation benefits only in the long run. There's no inherent value in the record keeping itself. Keep that in mind & everything else falls into place.

CURRENCY ISSUERS manage real goods budgets, and issue currency only for internal bookkeeping, to denominate real transactions. (& issuers tax ONLY to control inflation and/or to serve narrow political interests; usually to keep the poor poor & make the rich richer)

CURRENCY USERS typically use currency budgets as an accurate, short term proxy for a local real goods budget. But even currency users should never be confused enough to try to save "fiat" instead of building capabilities or at least hoarding more real assets.

Beardsley Ruml pointed out the obvious, in 1946, "Taxes for Revenue Are Obsolete" http://tinyurl.com/y3dkda3

If anyone has trouble understanding how monetary operations actually work, try these intro texts.

http://www.monetary.org/briefusmonetaryhistory.htm

http://www.cfeps.org/pubs/pn-pdf/PolicyNote2006-1.pdf

http://moslereconomics.com/2009/12/10/7-deadly-innocent-frauds/

http://bilbo.economicoutlook.net/blog/?p=2943

http://www.moslereconomics.com/2009/11/04/short-rate-thoughts-deflation-radical-thesis-turnaround/

http://www.eh.net/book_reviews/handbook-world-exchange-rates-1590-1914
bench craft company reviews bench craft company reviews

Monday, January 24, 2011

how to budget personal finances

The Case for Social Security Personal Accounts

No comments:

Post a Comment