by | BLOG, BUSINESS, CONSTITUTION, GOVERNMENT, RETIREMENT
There’s another issue with regard to the crushing liabilities of public sector pensions. Several states, such as California and New York, have a constitutional amendment that grants pension entitlement to public sector workers. In other words, once a person is working for the government and they have a defined benefit plan, they are entitled to keep it and transfer it, even if the contract runs out.
This kind of constitutional amendment says it’s a constitutional requirement to pay employees for their pensions. Now, what it should mean legally is that any pension any employee is earned, it is a constitutional obligation. But that’s not the problem. It has been redefined by the leftest political structure and judiciary to mean something else, which from an economic literacy point of view, that something is incompetent. They have defined it to pay the pension not only for what they’ve earned but also include an obligation to continue that level of funding into new contracts, even those that aren’t signed on yet. So even if a contract is over, it’s not really over. And their employer can’t renegotiate it.
In contrast, in private industries, if an employer terminates a defined benefit plan by a negotiation with a person or whatever, they can’t reduce what they already promised, but there’s an amount that is calculable and then that’s it. Whatever you’ve earned in a contract is specific to that contract. When the contract is over, you have to negotiate a new contract. The terms can be the same. The terms can be different. You may suddenly get offered a contract with no medical benefits when you once had medical benefits. By and large, contracts tend to be the same but there is no obligation to have anything in a new contract that existed in a prior contract.
But in the government world in some places, you have to give the person the same pension benefits in a new contract. Therefore, that is a whole additional cost factored into what an employee earns. The fact that he is required to be given that benefit in the future is an additional cost that is never factored into the equation. As a result, we have enormous forced sums of liabilities that add to the unreported sheets. Yet the municipalities say they are entitled to keep that same level of funding, which is economically illogical and illiterate. The crux of the problem is that the amendment is interpreted in a way that interferes with the ability for two parties to contract by giving one party extra benefits. This is both unjust and financially negligent.
by | ARTICLES, BLOG, BUSINESS, CONSTITUTION, HYPOCRISY, RETIREMENT
Over the years, I have written numerous articles on the looming problem of funding public pensions. Many states are facing severe shortfalls and it isn’t due to the economy or the recent recession or the pandemic. The main problem is accounting gimmicks that cities and states regularly do which results in underreporting their pensions. In the private sector, if someone were to underreport a pension, they go to jail for it, but the public sector gets away with it, and the taxpayer is left holding the bag.
Here’s what’s going on. A principle of normal (accrual) accounting is that if you have incurred current expenses, they have to be reported currently. You cannot delay reporting it until a future year, even if it is not paid until a future year. You have to count their costs today. So when you accrue an expense — for instance, a legal fee — you owe that money. Even if the bill arrives after the new year and you pay it that next year, you still owe it for the current year when incurred. It is a payable – that is, a liability – as of the end of the year incurred.. This is accrual basis accounting, and it’s how pensions must be accounted for in the public sector — but they’re not. And therein lies the problem.
When an employee works for a government (or any organization) in a given year, all costs associated with that employment must be recorded as an expense for that year. Naturally, the regular pay iis an expense incurred. That’s an easy enough concept to understand. But there are other things to consider — for instance, a bonus. If you have a bonus that is not paid until the next year, it still has to be recorded in the year it was earned. Now, pensions are not paid out in the year worked or the year after, but they will be years in the future and actuaries can calculate that amount. That amount is not what is booked as an expense. What is booked as an expense is what’s paid. There’s a disconnect between the funding requirement for pensions, and those funding requirements are usually less than the cost incurred.
If that amount is two billion dollars (one billion earned now and one billion in future pension benefits) you are supposed to record two billion dollars. In other words, that liability should be factored in on the balance sheet. But what’s happening instead is that they’re merely recording the one billion earned by the employee as an expense and not accounting for future payouts. There is no measure of a pension’s accrued actuarial liabilities (the current value of earned benefits in the future). The accountants are merely recording the present expenses while underreporting the future ones.
In a given year, you might incur $100 million in future payments for employees who work. So that $100 million is the true cost. Remember that even though the money is not paid for many years, you still need to know what that cost is today, and include that amount in the budget. You cannot say you’ll ignore it and not include it because you won’t pay it for twenty years. But that is what has been happening. Suffice it to say, in the private sector, it’s very onerous. You have to pay in an amount very close to what the cost is so that the company doesn’t go bankrupt and then leave the pensions hanging. That is both right and responsible. But the morons in the public sector think that because the municipality is so powerful, it doesn’t have to do the funding requirement — and therein lies the reason why they are in trouble. They only put the amount that they pay as an expense; they don’t put the whole thing. That is fraud. So now they’re falling further behind. Even if they don’t have to fund it all, they are required to keep a balanced budget, but they don’t.
What’s even more difficult, a lot of municipalities also promised other things like future medical expenses, and those aren’t even booked. They’ll just list it as an expense when it is paid. That’s not right. You can’t promise someone a benefit and have a legal obligation for the future and then not book it on your books. And what’s worst of all is a constitutional amendment in several states that grants pension entitlement to public sector workers. In other words, once a person is working for the government and they have a defined benefit plan, they are entitled to keep it and transfer it, even if the contract runs out. They have defined it to pay the pension — not only for what they’ve earned but also include an obligation to continue that level of funding into new contracts, even those that aren’t signed on yet.
These non-standard, non-accrual forms of accounting for public pensions over the past few decades have resulted in reckless — and dare I say criminal — budgets resulting in billions and trillions of unfunded liabilities that in some places are financially insurmountable. Those that have engaged in such practices should be sued criminally for intentionally filing false sheets on their pensions.
by | BLOG, FREEDOM, RETIREMENT, SOCIAL SECURITY, TAXES
Everyone thinks he can retire at age 65. It’s an American ideal born in the last century with the rise of unions, the defined benefit plan, and generous pension systems. In reality — especially due to advances in health, medicine, and nutrition — many people have great capability to continue to work and contribute to society and themselves until 70-80. And they should, because they need to.
There is a crisis of affordability looming. Besides the enormously wealthy, for the most part no average person can afford to retire at 65. It is simply not possible, living a normal lifestyle, for anyone to put enough toward retirement by age 65 that will enable him to be supported for another 20-30 years. A life span of 85-95 is swiftly becoming the new norm. The only workers today who are the exception to this reality, and have any hope of a lengthy retirement with comfort, are public service employees. (That point is addressed in a subsequent piece entitled, “Abuse to the Taxpayer by Public Service Employees.”)
With the lifespan of Americans growing longer, retiring at 65 is no longer viable; the systems are badly strained. And it is certainly not rational for the longevity of Social Security and Medicare either. Yet the steadfast refusal of most of government to overhaul retirement systems or make age and formula adjustments to entitlement programs — in order to maintain this retirement facade — only compounds the problem.
Another one of the biggest detriments of being able to retire at 65 is investment return. Interest rates have been historically low for the last six years and there is a strong likelihood of them staying low for some time. As a result, people’s retirement portfolios have lagged in their anticipated growth and goals. The low rates mean less money overall for retirement time, a problem which can be offset by continuing to work and contribute to a retirement fund past the basic age.
Likewise, inflation is not the issue that everyone thinks it is. The true problem is the cost of living — but really, it’s the cost of modern living, the “keeping up with the Jones’s”. The cost of aspirin, color TV’s, computers, and long distance calls are NOT going up. But people now can have Celebrex instead of aspirin, surround-sound with flat screens instead of color TV, and smart phones instead of computers and standard phones. Newer models of everything due to technology is constantly changing — upgrading quality of life, but at an increased cost.
In sum, with living longer, low rates of return, and the “cost of Jones’s increase”, people must begin to realize that the time span between 65 – 75 can be, and should be, a healthy and productive time of life. Working, staying active, and continuing to save will be beneficial in the long run. The mindset of older citizens needs to change and they need to understand that they can should aim to be productive until they are 75. At 65 they can certainly slow down, but the concept of retiring and not working anymore at that age is unrealistic and unaffordable.
by | ARTICLES, BLOG, ECONOMY, FREEDOM, LAW, RETIREMENT, SOCIAL SECURITY
Entitlement reform is necessary for the fiscal health of this country, but it is something that no one wants to talk about, much less tackle. How can we begin? How can we open up the conversation and the possibility to reform and improve our social security system?
One step in the right direction would be to treat Social Security as a true retirement plan, and not as a wealth transfer system that it currently is. This could begin with reclassifying the payroll tax. The majority (6.2% out of 7.65%) of the payroll tax covers Social Security retirement benefits. If we actually used it (or at least most of it) for that individual’s social security retirement, everyone’s perception would change. Instead of being viewed as a hated tax (just ask any young person who has received their first paycheck), it would be viewed as a desirable saving for their future!
Let’s make another incremental change. The employer and employee contribute equally to the Social Security Tax. If the individual’s part went towards his personal retirement, the other part could go towards defraying the past obligations that are coming due. If we had done such a thing 20 years ago, the entire system would have been fixed. Unfortunately, the present situation would probably require some portion of the individual’s portion to also go towards paying the ever growing obligation for past unfunded promises. It’s that dire! And every year that we do not fix it, it gets worse.
We must stop treating Social Security like welfare or wealth transfers and start treating it like a retirement system. It’s our money anyway, even though the government wants to act like it is being generous when it gives us back our money. This would lessen the loose-and-fast accounting gimmicks that contribute to the fiscal mismanagement of Social Security anyway — and may move it away from its impending insolvency.
by | ARTICLES, BLOG, FREEDOM, IRS, LAW, RETIREMENT, SOCIAL SECURITY, TAXES
Whenever tax reform, tax packages, or tax changes get discussed and debated, the focus is always on “the middle class.” While this sounds noble, the reality is that the middle class already pays very little in taxes. The majority of the middle class “tax bill” is actually Social Security — which is not truly a tax.
For example, my son made about $35,000 last year. He paid $1,500 in income tax and $4,500 in Social Security. But contributions to the Social Security system should not be viewed as a tax — it is effectively a forced retirement payment. Pundits and lawmakers need to stop calling Social Security payments a tax, and need to stop including Social Security payments in their tax equations because it does not operate as a tax.
I strongly believe that with some tweaks to the Social Security system that make the benefits more tied to contributions and allow for some ownership of the underlying assets, we can get people to view those payments in a positive light – investing for their future. When you remove the Social Security line item from the amount of tax liability, you see that the lower and middle classes have a very low income tax liability.
by | ARTICLES, BLOG, ECONOMY, FREEDOM, RETIREMENT
Forbes has published a continuation of John Mauldin’s essay from September 16. He reiterates that “the coming pension and unfunded government liabilities storm is so big that many of us simply can’t get out of the way, at least not without great difficulty. This holds true not just for the U.S. but for almost all of the developed world.” Read his essay below:
Getting back to the topic, we’re all trapped on small, vulnerable islands. Multiple storms are coming, and evacuation is not an option. All we can do is prepare and then ride them out.
And we all have some very important choices to make.
It Will Be Every Man for Himself
Although I’m known far and wide as “the Muddle Through Guy,” the state and local pension crisis is one that we can’t just muddle through. It’s a solid wall that we’re going to run smack into.
Police officers, firefighters, teachers and other public workers who expect to receive the promised retirement benefits will be bitterly turned down. And the taxpayers will complain vigorously if their taxes are raised beyond all reason.
Pleasing both those groups is not going to be possible in this universe.
So what will happen?
It’s impossible to say, just as we don’t know in advance where a hurricane will make landfall: We just know enough to say the storm will be bad for whoever is caught in its path. But here’s the twist: This financial storm won’t just strike those who live on the economic margins; all of us supposedly well-protected “inland” folk are vulnerable, too.
The damage won’t be random, but neither will it be orderly or logical or just. It will be a mess.
Some who made terrible decisions will come out fine. Others who did everything right will sustain severe hits. The people we ought to blame will be long out of office. Lacking scapegoats, people will invent some.
Worse, it will be a local mess.
Imagine local elections that pit police officers and teachers against once-wealthy homeowners whose property values are plummeting. All will want maximum protection for themselves, at minimum risk and cost.
They can’t all win. Compromises will be the only solution—but reaching those unhappy compromises will be unbelievably ugly. In the next few paragraphs I will illustrate the enormity of the situation with a few more details, some of which were supplied this week by readers.
The Problem Is Reaching a Critical Point
Let’s look at a few more hard facts. Pension costs already consume more than 15% of some big-city budgets, and they will be a much larger percentage in the future. That liability crowds out development and infrastructure improvement, not to mention basic services. It forces city leaders to raise taxes and impose “fees.” Let me quote from the always informative 13d letter (their emphasis):
Consider the City of Los Angeles, which Paul Hatfield, writing for City Watch L.A., recently characterized as being in a state of “virtual bankruptcy.” After a period of stability going back to 2010, violent crime grew 38% over the two-year period ending in December 2016. Citywide robberies have increased 14% since 2015. One possible reason for this uptick: the city’s population has grown while its police department has shrunk. As Hatfield explains:
The LAPD ranks have fallen below the 10,000 achieved in 2013. But the city requires a force of 12,500 to perform effectively… A key factor which limits how much can be budgeted for police services is the city’s share of pensions costs. They consume 20% of the general fund budget, up from 5% in 2002… It is difficult to increase the level of service while lugging that much baggage.
What about subway service in New York City? The system is fraying under record ridership, and trains are breaking down more frequently. There are now more than 70,000 delays every month, up from about 28,000 per month five years ago. The city’s soaring pension costs are a big factor here as well. According to a Manhattan Institute report by E.J. McMahon and Josh McGee issued in July, the city is spending over 11% of its budget on pensions. This means that since 2014, New York City has spent more on pensions that it has building and repairing schools, parks, bridges and subways, combined.
There are many large, older cities where there are more police and teachers on the pension payroll than are now working for the city. That problem is compounding, as those workers will live longer, and the pensioners typically have inflation and other escalation clauses to keep their benefits going up.
Further, most cities do not account for increases in healthcare costs (unfunded liabilities) that they will face in addition to the pensions. Candidly, this is just another “a trillion here, a trillion there” problem. Except for the fact that the trillion dollars must be dug out of state and local budgets that total only $2.5 trillion in aggregate.
Now, add in the near certainty of a recession within the next five years (and I really think sooner) and the ongoing gridlock in national politics, plus the assorted other challenges and crises we face. I won’t run down the full list—you know it well.
I just have to wonder, what are we going to do?
by | ARTICLES, BLOG, ECONOMY, FREEDOM, GOVERNMENT, RETIREMENT
John Maudlin writes a compelling piece this week on what he coins “the bubble in government promises.” He claims it “is arguably the biggest bubble in human history. Elected officials at all levels have promised workers they will receive pension benefits without taking the hard steps necessary to deliver on those promises. This situation will end badly and hurt many people. Unfortunately, massive snafus like this rarely hurt the politicians who made those overly optimistic promises, often years ago.”
This is a theme I have been focusing on for years. His essay below is a must-read in its entirety:
This time is different are the four most dangerous words any economist or money manager can utter. We learn new things and invent new technologies. Players come and go. But in the big picture, this time is usually not fundamentally different, because fallible humans are still in charge. (Ken Rogoff and Carmen Reinhart wrote an important book called This Time Is Different on the 260-odd times that governments have defaulted on their debts; and on each occasion, up until the moment of collapse, investors kept telling themselves “This time is different.” It never was.)
Nevertheless, I uttered those four words in last week’s letter. I stand by them, too. In the next 20 years, we’re going to see changes that humanity has never seen before, and in some cases never even imagined, and we’re going to have to change. I truly believe this. We have unleashed economic and technological forces we can observe but not entirely control.
I will defend this bold claim at greater length in my forthcoming book, The Age of Transformation.
Today we will zero in on one of those forces, which last week I called “the bubble in government promises,” which I think is arguably the biggest bubble in human history. Elected officials at all levels have promised workers they will receive pension benefits without taking the hard steps necessary to deliver on those promises. This situation will end badly and hurt many people. Unfortunately, massive snafus like this rarely hurt the politicians who made those overly optimistic promises, often years ago.
Earlier this year I called the pension mess “The Crisis We Can’t Muddle Through.” Reflecting since then, I think I was too optimistic. Simply waiting for the floodwaters to drop down to muddle-through depth won’t be enough. We face an entire new ocean, deeper and wider than we can ever cross unaided.
Storms from Nowhere?
This year marks the first time on record that two Category 4 hurricanes have struck the US mainland in the same year. Worse, Harvey and Irma landed directly on some of our most valuable and vulnerable coastal areas. So now, in addition to all the problems that existed a month ago, the US economy has to absorb cleanup and rebuilding costs for large parts of Texas and Florida, as well as our Puerto Rico and US Virgin Islands territories.
Now then, people who live in coastal areas know full well that hurricanes happen – they know the risk, just not which hurricane season might launch a devastating storm in their direction. In a note to me about Harvey, fellow Rice University graduate Gary Haubold (1980) noted just how flawed the city’s assumptions actually were regarding what constitutes adequate preparedness. He cited this excerpt from a recent Los Angeles Times article:
The storm was unprecedented, but the city has been deceiving itself for decades about its vulnerability to flooding, said Robert Bea, a member of the National Academy of Engineering and UC Berkeley emeritus civil engineering professor who has studied hurricane risks along the Gulf Coast.
The city’s flood system is supposed to protect the public from a 100-year storm, but Bea calls that “a 100-year lie” because it is based on a rainfall total of 13 inches in 24 hours.
“That has happened more than eight times in the last 27 years,” Bea said. “It is wrong on two counts. It isn’t accurate about the past risk and it doesn’t reflect what will happen in the next 100 years.”
Anybody who lives in Houston can tell you that 13 inches in 24 hours is not all that unusual. But how do Robert Bea’s points apply to today’s topic, public pensions? Both pension plan shortfalls and hurricanes are known risks for which state and local governments must prepare. And in both instances, too much optimism and too little preparation ultimately have devastating results.
Admittedly, public pension liabilities don’t come out of nowhere the way hurricanes seem to – we know exactly where they will strike. In many cases, we know approximately when they’ll strike, too. Yet we still let our elected officials make impossible-to-fulfill promises on our behalf. The rest of us are not so different from those who built beach homes and didn’t buy hurricane or storm surge insurance. We just face a different kind of storm.
Worse, we let our government officials use predictions about future returns that are every bit as unrealistic as calling a 13-inch rain in Houston a 100-year event. And while some of us have called pension officials out, they just keep telling lies – and probably will until we reach the breaking point.
Puerto Rico is a good example. The Commonwealth was already in deep debt before Irma blew in – $123 billion worth of it. There’s simply no way the island can repay such a massive debt. Creditors can fight in the courts, but in the end you can’t squeeze money out of plantains or pineapples. Not enough money, anyway. Now add Irma damages, and the creditors have even less hope of recovering their principal, let alone interest.
Puerto Rico is presently in a new form of bankruptcy that Congress authorized last year. Court proceedings will probably drag on for years, but the final outcome isn’t in doubt. Creditors will get some scraps – at best perhaps $0.30 on the dollar, my sources say – and then move on. We’re going to find out how strong those credit insurance guarantees really are.
“That’s just Puerto Rico,” you may say if you’re a US citizen in one of the 50 states. Be very careful. Your state is probably not so much better off. In 10 years, your state may well be in the same place where Puerto Rico is now. I’d say the odds are better than even.
Are your elected leaders doing anything about this huge issue, or even talking about it? Probably not.
by | ARTICLES, BLOG, ECONOMY, GOVERNMENT, HYPOCRISY, POLITICS, RETIREMENT, TAXES
Minnesota’s pension fund was recently revealed to be in crisis-mode after changing the accounting formula to more accurately reflect market realities:
“The jump caused the finances of Minnesota’s pensions to erode more than any other state’s last year as accounting standards seek to prevent governments from using overly optimistic assumptions to minimize what they owe public employees decades from now. Because of changes in actuarial math, Minnesota in 2016 reported having just 53 percent of what it needed to cover promised benefits, down from 80 percent a year earlier, transforming it from one of the best funded state systems to the seventh worst, according to data compiled by Bloomberg.”
During the most recent recession, the Governmental Accounting Standards Boards made accounting rules changes because it began to be more apparent that a majority of local and state pension systems were continuously understating the long-term obligations. It was common practice to depend on and project 8%-10% investment returns even when the reality was more along the lines of 2%.
When the public sector (and unions) signed off on lavish pension provisions for the employee, they hoped there would be enough growth and investment returns to cover it way down the road. There were no provisions made to handle the possibility of a low-interest rate society or a fledgling economy like we’ve experienced the last nine years; they took their chances and their fallback was always that they could suck money from the taxpayer by raising taxes to cover budgeting shortfalls. That is reckless and irresponsible.
Years of fiscal mismanagement in the public sector has resulted in this fiscal nightmare. Because the public sector does not have the economic forces of competition to keep compensation levels in check, as the public sector does, it was always incumbent upon public negotiators to manage contracts properly. Failing to properly negotiate, making cozy deals, and maintaining unsustainable defined-benefit plans has created the soaring budget and pension deficits we see across the country. Though the rules changes to actuarial math are a start, in some places, it’s too little, too late.
by | ARTICLES, BLOG, BUSINESS, ECONOMY, POLITICS, RETIREMENT, TAXES
Despite Connecticut’s status as one of the wealthiest states in the country, its fiscal health is in rapid decline. A hefty debt load has left the state without a budget for two months as lawmakers squabble how to best deal with the reality of “high taxes, outmigration, falling revenues and $50 billion of unfunded pension liabilities.”
Governor Malloy has an executive order ready to go into effect that will reduce or eliminate funds for localities and schools if the state government cannot come to a consensus. Lawmakers are staring down a multi-billion deficit for the next two years so austerity measures could be both drastic and necessary.
According to Reuters, “one major factor for the debt load is municipal spending. Some $23 billion of outstanding municipal debt has also constrained spending. Bondholders must be paid ahead of most other expenses like non-essential services and payments to vendors….Connecticut has borrowed for decades to fund school construction, whereas nearly all other states typically borrow at the local level for those projects.”
Other issues besides municipal projects have wreaked havoc. Skyrocketing pension costs have been a major contributor, although Connecticut has been staring down this problem for nearly a decade; Connecticut “piled on debt to bolster its public pensions, selling $2.3 billion of bonds in April 2008.” And budget deficits are not new; 18 months after the bond sale, “in December 2009, the state sold $916 million of economic recovery notes to close a budget deficit after depleting its rainy day fund during the Great Recession.”
So here we have a debt-ridden state — quite possibly the worst of all 50 states — suffering from financial woes for years now with only bandaid solutions. Sufficient tax revenue is not the problem; zealous overspending and fiscal mismanagement is. Unfortunately, Connecticut is one of several states facing the same issues; state insolvency is going to get worse in many places before it gets better.
by | ARTICLES, BLOG, FREEDOM, GOVERNMENT, POLITICS, RETIREMENT, SOCIAL SECURITY, TAXES
Last week, the Social Security Board of Trustees released their annual report on the long-term financial status of the Social Security Trust Funds. The news does not continue to bode will for the long-term survival of Social Security — but on the other hand, this is nothing that we haven’t heard before. Unfortunately, no one really wants to tackle the problem of reform.
Straight from their press release:
“The Social Security Board of Trustees today released its annual report on the long-term financial status of the Social Security Trust Funds. The combined asset reserves of the Old-Age and Survivors Insurance, and Disability Insurance (OASDI) Trust Funds are projected to become depleted in 2034, the same as projected last year, with 77 percent of benefits payable at that time. The DI Trust Fund will become depleted in 2028, extended from last year’s estimate of 2023, with 93 percent of benefits still payable.
In the 2017 Annual Report to Congress, the Trustees announced:
- The asset reserves of the combined OASDI Trust Funds increased by $35 billion in 2016 to a total of $2.85 trillion.
- The combined trust fund reserves are still growing and will continue to do so through 2021. Beginning in 2022, the total annual cost of the program is projected to exceed income. (emphasis added)
- The year when the combined trust fund reserves are projected to become depleted, if Congress does not act before then, is 2034 – the same as projected last year. At that time, there will be sufficient income coming in to pay 77 percent of scheduled benefits.
“It is time for the public to engage in the important national conversation about how to keep Social Security strong,” said Nancy A. Berryhill, Acting Commissioner of Social Security. “People understand the value of their earned Social Security benefits and the importance of keeping the program secure for the future.”
Other highlights of the Trustees Report include:
- Total income, including interest, to the combined OASDI Trust Funds amounted to $957 billion in 2016. ($836 billion in net contributions, $33 billion from taxation of benefits, and $88 billion in interest)
- Total expenditures from the combined OASDI Trust Funds amounted to $922 billion in 2016.
- Social Security paid benefits of $911 billion in calendar year 2016. There were about 61 million beneficiaries at the end of the calendar year.
- Non-interest income fell below program costs in 2010 for the first time since 1983. Program costs are projected to exceed non-interest income throughout the remainder of the 75-year period.
- The projected actuarial deficit over the 75-year long-range period is 2.83 percent of taxable payroll – 0.17 percentage point larger than in last year’s report.
- During 2016, an estimated 171 million people had earnings covered by Social Security and paid payroll taxes.
- The cost of $6.2 billion to administer the Social Security program in 2016 was a very low 0.7 percent of total expenditures.
- The combined Trust Fund asset reserves earned interest at an effective annual rate of 3.2 percent in 2016.
The Board of Trustees usually comprises six members. Four serve by virtue of their positions with the federal government: Steven T. Mnuchin, Secretary of the Treasury and Managing Trustee; Nancy A. Berryhill, Acting Commissioner of Social Security; Thomas E. Price, M.D., Secretary of Health and Human Services; and R. Alexander Acosta, Secretary of Labor. The two public trustee positions are currently vacant.”
View the 2017 Trustees Report at www.socialsecurity.gov/OACT/TR/2017/.
