by | ARTICLES, BLOG, ECONOMY, ELECTIONS, FREEDOM, GOVERNMENT, OBAMA, POLITICS, RETIREMENT, SOCIAL SECURITY, TAXES
I recently read a letter to the editor about Social Security in the Wall Street Journal that irritated me. Not the letter writer per se, but more by the Wall Street Journal choosing to print a letter that perpetuates a widely perceived myth about Social Security.
The letter was simply this: “Oh, please don’t blame older Americans for “eating up the budget” through payments of Social Security and Medicare benefits. It is the federal government that raided the Social Security Trust Fund. Older Americans have contributed to this for years. Where is the money now?”
The problem with this letter writer is that they really just don’t understand the truth that people who have paid into Social Security are getting many, many more times the actuarial value than what they put into it. It’s not a simple misunderstanding on this. It really, truly is just a flat-out lie that people who put 30-40 years worth of payments are merely getting back just what they put in.
The politicians need this lie to survive because they risk alienating a large voting bloc of older Americans if they merely even suggest that Social Security needs reform. But it does; the egregious state that Social Security is hidden by the way the federal government accounts for it. They even have a special name for it. Social Security is repeatedly described as a pay-as-you-go (“PAYGO”) system, which gives credence to something that is terribly incorrect. PAYGO is not a system at all; rather it is a method of reporting that hides earned realities, making it totally unacceptable to accounting professions, the SEC, and virtually everybody outside the government.
Calling it PAYGO helps to perpetuate the fallacy that beneficiaries are merely receiving what they paid into to. I don’t want to pick on the poor letter writer, as she doesn’t seem to really know how Social Security works (or hasn’t worked). But the Wall Street Journal should know better.
I suppose it is fitting that the 1936 Bulletin announcing Social Security ends like this: “What you get from the Government plan will always be more than you have paid in taxes and usually more than you can get for yourself by putting away the same amount of money each week in some other way.”
This is why we have accrued trillions in unfunded liabilities such as Social Security. If it sounds too good to be true, it probably is.
by | ARTICLES, BLOG, BUSINESS, CONSTITUTION, ECONOMY, GOVERNMENT, POLITICS, RETIREMENT, TAXES
Many states continue to bamboozle their citizens by obfuscating the true depth of their debt that is occurring in the form of unfunded liabilities. Those liabilities are mainly state public pension plans, and they continue to routinely promise pie-in-the-sky returns, even after years of bleak economic growth and investment.
A group called State Budget Solutions analyzes the problem of underfunding each year. Its annual report “reveals that state public pension plans are underfunded by $4.7 trillion, up from $4.1 trillion in 2013. Overall, the combined plans’ funded status has dipped three percentage points to 36%. Split among all Americans, the unfunded liability is over $15,000 per person.”
Many people might think, “I don’t work for my state government, so it doesn’t affect me”. It most certainly does. We are facing a generation of Baby Boomers who are getting ready to retire, and expect to have the pension that has been promised to them. Those promises are the unfunded liabilities which must be paid out. Pension costs come from state budgets — you and me — and in order to cover the costs, adjustments must be made. Expect tax increases and/or reduced government services in the coming years because a greater portion of the state budget will need to be dedicated to meeting these obligations.
How did we get here? The most damning factor is that of generous promises.
Ultimately, negotiators — be it union heads, lawmakers, or other bureaucrats — have had a fiduciary responsibility not to pay more than fair compensation, thereby restricting compensation and benefits to amounts no greater than what those skills would command in the private sector. Unfortunately, there are really no such competitive inhibitions in the public sector and therefore the negotiation routine lacks the incentive for restraint. In most cases, the self-interest of the public sector negotiator is more directly aligned with the leader that can get him elected rather than the taxpayer whom he is representing.
Lofty and mythical promises have been made for years now without a care about how it will be paid for — because the negotiator will likely be long gone when obligations come due. This is a true case of the fox in charge of the hen house. Thus runaway financial promises have deeply accumulated in state governments for which it cannot properly budget, while binding future governments not yet in office.
The Great Recession has made the problem more acute in recent years. “As the economy struggles to get back on track, states’ fiscal health also suffers, making it more difficult for state officials to make up for the shortfalls with greater contributions. As bond yields have suffered due to interest rates being held at historic lows, the fair market valuation of public pension liabilities also took a hit.”
Furthermore, most, if not all states, have hidden the vast problem by using accounting tricks — probably hoping the economy or investment will bounce back, or else just passing the buck year after year so it becomes someone else’s problem.
For instance, “state pension funds use a high discount rate. Discounting liabilities is a necessary part of fund management. Fund managers must assume that the current assets will be worth more in the future due to a number of factors, notably the return on investing those current assets. The problem arises because the discount rate is not based on the nature of the assets held by the pension plan, but is rather based on the assumed rate of return.”
The assumed rate of return — herein lies the problem. By continuing to perpetuate and promise rates of return of 5-8% for pensions, state governments show on paper that their liabilities are much smaller than they are. However, for years now, returns have been much closer to 2-3%. Yet state governments fail to make those realistic adjustments because it sounds neither glamorous nor generous to the employee.
What’s more, some states are facing such enormous financial pressures and shortfalls in all sectors of the state budget that they have reduced or skipped the yearly contribution to the pension funds altogether — thereby making the gulf that much wider. New Jersey balanced its budget (again) this year by reducing (again) the payment by $2.4 billion; Virginia skipped its payment back altogether in 2010 — although it did implement a repayment plan over subsequent 5 years to make up for that choice.
In fact, a cursory glance back at these practices reveal that the games have been ongoing for several years now. A Wall Street Journal article on this subject from Spring of 2010 — nearly 5 years ago — discusses how states were reducing and skipping payments and delaying the “day of reckoning”. New Jersey, California, and Illinois were some of the worse offenders then.
Is it any wonder that these three states are in the top ten for the amount of unfunded liabilities? California has the worst, $754 billion. In terms of funding ratios, Illinois leads the list with only 22% of its obligations funded. You can look at the full and various lists here.
The crisis will only continue to worsen unless changes are made. The outlook is gloomy for state governments and, based on past performance, is not likely to get better anytime soon. For most states, the “kick the can” approach allows them to coast while the liabilities fester, letting it become the problem of other future governments at some undefined point in the future. That is reprehensible.
by | ARTICLES, BLOG, FREEDOM, OBAMA, TAXES
In another class-warfare move, The Hill reports on the latest Obama gimmick: Obama’s budget includes a cap on IRAs and other retirement accounts.
The White House apparently has a problem with how much money might be in your retirement account(s).
The senior administration official said that wealthy taxpayers can currently “accumulate many millions of dollars in these accounts, substantially more than is needed to fund reasonable levels of retirement saving.”
The administration official then proceeds to define their level of reasonable retirement: $205,000/year, or around $3 million. Tax-deferred retirement accounts — like IRAs — will be prohibited from containing more than that.
The government is just salivating over the thought of tax-deferred money just sitting around. By capping the amount allowed in such an account, it keeps money from being deferred (hint: taxed now) so it can go directly in the government coffers. “The proposal would save around $9 billion over a decade, a senior administration official said, while also bringing more fairness to the tax code”.
So, what’s really going on?
$9 billion over a decade. That’s $900 million in revenue a year for 10 years. When that amount is checked against the more than $1 trillion in deficit per year the last several years, the suggestion that capping retirement accounts is part of a grand plan to reduce the deficit is insulting.
It’s not about deficit reduction. It’s about class warfare and need. The White House cites this measure as a way to bring more “fairness” in the tax code. Fairness? Restricting any American taxpayer how much money they can save for retirement is not fair. Pre-determining for any American taxpayer what is “needed to fund reasonable levels of retirement saving” is not fair.
They use the word need to get what they want. William Pitt the Younger sagely put it, “Necessity is the plea for every infringement of human freedom. It is the argument of tyrants; it is the creed of slaves.”
So it’s not about deficit reduction and it’s not about any real fairness either. It is about a body politic with a rapacious appetite. First it determines your needs, and then goes after the wealthy because the wealthy have what it needs (money for more spending).
As I have written before, the question of additional taxes on the wealthy is really a liberty and equity issue, impinging on the very entrepreneurial environment that made our country great. At the heart of any monetary decisions should be free will, not free money (for the government).
In a free country such as ours, it is entirely my judgment as to whether or not I want to work hard and try to earn a lot of money (or not), and/or save my money (or not). It is unequivocally immoral that our government – or any government – should feel it has the place and authority to come along after I earned my success and basically declare that because I have done well for myself, I should have to now pay more to that government. This is legal plunder.
Why should I, who have proven myself to be successful (according to the government) have to give my success over to people who have proven to grossly mismanage our country’s finances?
This is a true and concerted effort to keep the wealthy less wealthy. It a disincentive against saving and a punishment for success. Why bother to work hard, to be self-sufficient, if the government can potentially decide, willy-nilly, that it needs more money than you?
by | HYPOCRISY, SOCIAL SECURITY, TAXES
One of the most common means by which politicians deceive their constitutents is by referring to Social Security as a either a tax or as a retirement system — but usually only as the politics or issues of the day suit them.
We have politicians who stand strongly behind the concept that Social Security must be maintained because it’s a retirement system that people pay for. I certainly believe, as FDR did when he started Social Security, that this is a forced retirement system. As such, it is critical that the entity managing it (the federal government) include Social Security’s actuarially calculated expenses in the current year. By not doing that with their accounting, they are able to simultaneously mischaracterize Social Security as a tax.
If Social Security is truly a retirement and disability plan, it is patently unfair to also consider Social Security collections as a tax that is paid. This is hypocrisy to the citizens contributing toward their retirement. Therefore, when you hear a politician calling Social Security a tax, understand that such a description qualifies it as an entitlement supported the general revenue fund. It can’t be both. The true Social Security Fund, as it is currently being collected and paid out, has been stolen from the taxpayers.
Social Security as a retirement plan has lost its meaning along the way. Yes, benefits promised to recipients have been much more than the amounts taken from pay. For that reason, and for the way by which Social Security is accounted by the government, the system is broken. Nevertheless, we must fundamentally maintain the view that Social Security is the way by which people pay for their own retirement — if we are to fix the imbalances.
The way to lead Social Security back to health is to convince people that the amounts taken from their pay is protected and truly going to their retirement by reclaiming the Social Security Fund so it reflects that reality. Often when it’s realized how little income tax many people pay, the focus typically goes on to how much people do pay toward Social Security. This is not altogether a bad thing. With citizens trying to retire at the age of 65 but often having life expectancies until 90, people need to contribute more money to their retirement.
We need to restore Social Security to a level of sustainability by moving it back to being a path to retirement, view it as a forced retirement system, and hold it accountable in that regard. By modifying the system to be more like present-day 401ks, people can better realize the amount that they are actually putting in. In doing that, more people will ultimately be happy with their Social Security accounts and will also make a mockery of such recent legislation as the payroll tax holiday.
If though, the powers that be continue to insist Social Security is a tax, then the fact becomes that people are really not paying for their own retirement. Therefore beneficiaries are not entitled to anything other that what Congress on a whim decides, because it is subject to the general revenue fund via tax revenue. This would be an outrageous outcome. It turns Social Security into a means by which the people are dependent on government to provide a modest stipend by extracting money from us.
by | ECONOMY, GOVERNMENT, SOCIAL SECURITY
There is a basic concept that when someone works for somebody, they get paid. If part of the pay is eligible for retirement benefits, then that becomes an immediate obligation of the payer. Even though the payments to the employee will not be made until after his retirement, expenses incurred – and funding for that payment originates – at the time it is earned.
Retirement plans are of two types: defined contribution and defined benefit. Both have the same goal; the difference is in the mechanics. Examples of a defined contribution plan are 401Ks and profit sharing. With these, you put the money aside and the money will grow and be there later. Defined benefit plans include Social Security, most state and local pensions, and union plans like GM. These are plans in which people get retirement from some formula related to their salary. But whether it is a defined contribution or defined benefit plan, in both cases, the obligation to pay those benefits originates at the time it is earned by the employee and it must be funded at that time. In the world of business, lack of appropriate funding of those promises of retirement benefits can land someone in jail.
What would you think about someone who promised to put retirement funds aside and didn’t? They would be crooks. And not only that, when they issued their financial reports, they hid the fact that they were obligated to make all of these payments in the future.
We need to hold these legislators that continue to perpetrate this fraud accountable.
