by | ARTICLES, BLOG, BUSINESS, RETIREMENT, SOCIAL SECURITY, TAXES
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!
A move in this direction could be helped by a characteristic of the present structure. 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 it gets worse every year.
Let’s 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, RETIREMENT, SOCIAL SECURITY
The Wall Street Journal recently published a discussion on the pros and cons of privatizing Social Security (“Should Social Security Be Privatized?”, March 27). Gus Sauter did a decent job outlining the positive aspects of this pathway showing that privatization is better for both retirees and taxpayers. On the other hand, Nancy Altman claimed that privatization would weaken people’s economic security, but filled her argument with erroneous information.
Nancy claims that Social Security is insurance and not a retirement savings plan — but that could not be farther from the truth. A retirement plan is exactly what it is, is how it was sold, and how it is even referred to on the government’s Social Security website. The problem is that the amounts paid in are not invested and therefore not sufficient to pay the promised benefits, which the federal government fraudulently hides by not recording the true cost of the program in the annual budget.
Therein lies the problem. By not doing that with their accounting, the federal government is able to simultaneously mischaracterize Social Security as a tax that is drafted from every wage earner’s paycheck. If wage-earners had been given the option to save and invest their own money instead, they could have easily earned a better return on it; if they wanted more fiscal security, they could buy an annuity.
Nancy goes on to describe Social Security more “universal, secure, fair and efficient — but at the same exact time, her article casually mentions “a projected shortfall.” In fact, the projected shortfall is some $30 Trillion – which in fact shows that it is not universal secure or fair (since it is in fact insolvent), nor it is efficient (it has lower costs because it does not invest the funds it collects). Her solution of making higher earners pay more is duplicitous – it simply has higher earners make pension contributions that inure solely to other people (this is known in the real world as embezzlement).
Nancy claims that a minimum-wage worker pays 6.2% of his income in Social Security taxes, but a person earning $1 million contributes “only eight-tenths of 1% of all their wages.” But this would only be a valid point if the retirement pension was based proportionately on income. And she certainly knows that it is not. As it is, social security is already a welfare system, with higher earners getting benefits much less than proportional to the amount they contribute.
Nancy’s entire rationale for supporting Social Security? “Government is permanent.” It’s too bad that the prior generation’s funding For Social Security has already been spent — the antithesis of permanent. It would be laughable if it wasn’t so tragic. If we privatize Social Security, it would give folks at least a fighting chance with their own money.
by | ARTICLES, ECONOMY, GOVERNMENT, NEW YORK, RETIREMENT, TAXES
The New York Post had an article recently regarding the continuous stream of New Yorkers leaving the state. An analysis found that “in 2014, 126,000 tax filers moved out of New York,” more than any other state in the nation. Also significantly, “The Empire State also lost the most “high earners,” who reported making more than $200,000 a year.”
This particular phenomenon has been going on for years, as I have written about in previous articles. But it seems like some people and groups want to downplay the exodus. The executive director of the Fiscal Policy Institute, Ron Deutsch, was sure to point out “that those who earn at least $1 million per year are more likely to stay put.”
It was a curious observation from the The Fiscal Policy Institute (FPI), which purports to be “an independent, nonpartisan, nonprofit research and education organization committed to improving public policies and private practices to better the economic and social conditions of all New Yorkers.” It is curious because their observation proves our point. Of course those who earn more than one million a year would be more likely to stay put. They are the ones who can afford to be abused by the NY government – its outrageously high taxes, nanny state rules, and public education and other cronyism that creates ridiculously high prices- that is borne disproportionately by NY’s well-off. The super-wealthy put up with it because they don’t want to give up their luxuries — the theater, the restaurants, museums and attractions – and they have the super-wealth to afford it. That $200,000 – $1 million threshold? It’s really New York’s well off upper middle class, the backbone of the City. They refuse to tolerate the burden of staying, and vote with their feet by leaving.
If Texas ever did to their oilmen, or Kansas ever did to their farmers, what New York does to its well off financial community, they’d be run out of town on a rail!
by | ARTICLES, BLOG, ECONOMY, ELECTIONS, FREEDOM, GOVERNMENT, OBAMA, POLITICS, RETIREMENT, SOCIAL SECURITY, TAXES
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 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!
A move in this direction could be helped by a characteristic of the present structure. 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 it gets worse every year.
Let’s 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, ECONOMY, FREEDOM, OBAMA, POLITICS, RETIREMENT, SOCIAL SECURITY, TAXES
Our Social Security System is bankrupt. In fact, there is not enough money in the entire world for the United States to make good on its entitlement promises to its present and future retirees. And one of the key reasons for this is that the government uses a fraudulent, incompetent accounting method to report its costs.
As a CPA, it is frustrating to hear Social Security repeatedly being described as a pay-as-you-go (“PAYGO”) system, which gives credence to something that is terribly incorrect. PAYGO operates by calling all social security payments received by the Government in a year as income, and all monies paid out as expenses. It does not account at all for the fact that millions of workers are earning billions of dollars of Social Security pension every year, but since it will only be paid to them in the future, PAYGO ignores it! It would be as if your local mom & pop store promised its employees a retirement pension, but never recorded it as an expense and never put aside any money to pay for it when it would come due. This is not only totally unacceptable to the accounting professions, the SEC, and the Department of Labor, but it would be a criminal violation with jail time for any corporate officer allowing it.
The fallacy of calling it PAYGO is that it reports employees contributions as income, but the purpose of these payments is to pay for their ultimate retirement pension – yet none of this obligation to pay future benefits is recorded.
We need to be including in our current budget the amounts we are promising to pay in the future! The promises that we’ve made in the past — what we are paying out today — are not a part of this year’s costs – these are old liabilities and are part of our already existing debt. The US debt is currently being reported as just over $19 Trillion. When the real social security debt is added, the true National Debt becomes almost $60 trillion. (As an aside, Medicare payments and benefits are treated the same as Social Security – if the unrecorded Medicare existing debt were also properly included, the National Debt would be over $100 Trillion – way more money than exists in the entire world!)
It is clear that these promised benefits have ZERO chance of ever actually being paid. And the longer our legislators allow this fraud to continue, the worse it will be for ourselves, our children, and our grandchildren.
by | ARTICLES, BLOG, BUSINESS, ECONOMY, FREEDOM, GOVERNMENT, OBAMA, POLITICS, RETIREMENT, TAXES
The Financial Times reviewed data recently that suggested that the US public pension system is in dire straits; the funding shortage is likely 3 times as large as what is being reported. The estimated deficit is $3.4 trillion.
The solutions for the funding shortfalls are grim: either raise taxes or cut spending; unfortunately the “cut spending” approach always goes to the essential services first, so that taxpayers feel the heat and will consider a tax hike instead.
US Congressman Devin Nunes recently noted that, “It has been clear for years that many cities and states are critically underfunding their pension programmes and hiding the fiscal holes with accounting tricks.” Nunes has “put forward a bill to the House of Representatives last month to overhaul how public pension plans report their figures.” He added: “When these pension funds go insolvent, they will create problems so disastrous that the fund officials assume the federal government will have to bail them out.”
Insolvency has already been observed in San Bernardino, California and Detroit, Michigan, largely due to mismanagement of pension funding and budget shortfalls. The Financial Times noted that “Chicago, Dallas, Houston and El Paso have the largest pension holes compared with their own revenues”, as well as the states of Illinois, Arizona, Ohio, and Nevada.
Research done by Stanford paints a difficult future: “Currently, states and local governments contribute 7.3 per cent of revenues to public pension plans, but this would need to increase to an average of 17.5 per cent of revenues to stop any further rises in the funding gap.”
And more: “Several cities and states, including California, Illinois, New Jersey, Chicago and Austin, would need to put at least 20 per cent of their revenues into their pension plans to prevent a rise in their deficits, while Nevada would have to contribute almost 40 per cent.”
Much of the problem lies in the fact that retirement costs and liabilities have consistently been calculated on a 7%-8% return , which is not particularly realistic, as has been demonstrated in recent years during the economic downturn.
There is no way this silent funding crisis will get any better — and until localities recognize and admit their crisis and make ardent changes to their pension systems, it will only continue to worsen egregiously.
by | ARTICLES, BLOG, BUSINESS, ECONOMY, GOVERNMENT, OBAMA, POLITICS, RETIREMENT, TAXES
Bloomberg did a feature this week on the long-term outlook on pension funds for several major cities, and found that it is swiftly becoming a fiscal tsunami in several places. Part of this stems from severe under-funding of pension plans over many years, while the other part is accounting tricks.
As Bloomberg notes, “Moody’s, which in 2013 began using a lower rate than governments do to calculate future liabilities, has estimated that the 25 largest U.S. public pensions alone have $2 trillion less than they need.” This rate gimmick ultimately hides the true cost of retirement liabilities in municipalities. Additionally, “officials have been able to lower the size of the liability by counting on investment earnings of more than 7 percent a year, even after they expect to run out of cash. New rules from the Governmental Accounting Standards Board require a lower rate to be used after retirement plans go broke. Many reported shortfalls will grow as a result.”
Already, many U.S. cities each face billions in costs, resulting in trillions of dollars in municipal-bond market deficit. By now, many places have been downgraded — even down to junk — and thus face higher yield demands from investors.
For example:
Cincinnati and Minneapolis have already been lowered. Chicago was already downgraded to junk this past May as a result of a $20 billion pension deficit, and “was forced to pay yields of almost 8 percent on taxable bonds maturing in 2042, about twice what some homeowners can get on a 30-year mortgage.”
Houston was put on notice in early July by Moody’s that their bond rating was lowered to “negative” due to unfunded pensions costs. Houston’s revenue faces limitations from property tax caps, and thus funding the pension promises properly for three pension systems at this point has become increasingly difficult. It faces an unfunded liability of about $3.4 billion.
Likewise, in Dallas, the firefighters and police pension system deficit is poised to triple its shortfall “to $4.7 billion because of the accounting-rule shift.”
Perhaps the most egregious example is the California Public Employees’ Retirement System, the biggest pension system in the United States. They reported this week that “it earned just 2.4 percent last fiscal year, one-third of the annual return it projects. The California State Teachers’ Retirement System, the second-biggest fund, gained 4.5 percent, compared with its 7.5 percent goal.” Years of over-generous promises have resulted in an enormous and unsustainable debt that ultimately taxpayer will have to foot the bill for.
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 six 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 are experiencing.
And its only going to get worse.
by | ARTICLES, BLOG, BUSINESS, ECONOMY, FREEDOM, GOVERNMENT, OBAMA, POLITICS, RETIREMENT, SOCIAL SECURITY, TAXES
Dear Governor Rauner,
You have an enormous task before you in trying to navigate pension reform. Through political duplicity, the state legislature in cahoots with the public service unions have fashioned for themselves retirement benefits far in excess of any reasonable amount. The Courts, appointed by the same players, have determined that it is not even legal to revisit the magnitude of these retirement benefits. It must be difficult to draw up a plan when your hands are legally tied from being able to make actual changes to the pension system in order to alleviate the $100 billion in debt. As such, I propose an alternative solution:
Since the courts refuse to allow you to negotiate with the workers for lower pension benefits, then take the negotiations to the worker’s base pay. Simply take the costs of the excessive retirement benefits for each employee and subtract it from the worker’s base pay in determining the new base pay under the new contract. The Courts may not allow a reduction in retirement benefits, but there is certainly no Constitutional provision preventing the negotiating of a lower base salary.
There is no rule that someone must be paid the same base pay amount as last year. If you are constrained from the pension end of the contract, then you ought to change their next offer and reduce their overall compensation from the base pay end, thereby restricting compensation and benefits to amounts no greater than what those skills would command and be realistically afforded in the private sector.
Overhauling the contract process from this end will provide an opportunity for fiscal reform. This will ensure that, going forward, no worker be paid more in any new contract then what can be actually afforded, without regard to what the prior contract provided. Once a current contract ends, there is nothing on the table; nothing prevents any new contract from offering less that the prior contract, especially where pay and benefits of the prior contract are out of line and hamstrung by ironclad guarantees.
The people of Illinois realized when they elected you, that decades of fiscal mismanagement needed to end in order to ensure that Illinois has a chance. Even though it may be politically difficult and unpalatable, anybody representing the taxpayers has an obligation to those taxpayers. Budget reform and deficit reduction will naturally follow once compensation levels have been stabilized and brought in line with realistic affordability. Contract negotiations must happen in order for long term sustainability to be achieved.
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, ECONOMY, FREEDOM, GOVERNMENT, OBAMA, POLITICS, RETIREMENT, SOCIAL SECURITY, TAXES
Chris Christie recently unveiled a plan to overhaul Social Security. This is his Hail Mary to get back in the game of running for President. Though I applaud his decision to make entitlement reform a major portion of his platform, his proposal is merely another veiled tax increase on the wealthy.
There are two portions to his reform plan. The first is to raise the retirement age from 67 to 69 over a phased in length of time. That is not such a bad idea. It is the second portion, related to reducing and even eliminating entirely the ability for a taxpayer to receive Social Security, into which he has paid during his working career, that is particularly heinous.
Chris Christie’s proposal to reduce and eliminate Social Security benefits for wealthier people is just a capitulation to the Left. He advocates reducing benefits for retired persons if they earn more than $80,000 and calls for eliminating outright Social Security benefits for retirees who earn $200,000 or more a year. This is basically another massive tax increase on the wealthy disguised as entitlement reform.
For many upper income earners, their income tax rates are already over 50%, especially when local and state taxes are factored in. Yet when one calculates that income tax rate, not included in that amount is Social Security (though Social Security is a separate tax). As reference, for those who are self-employed, one pays 15.3% to Social Security, but if someone is employed, the employer pays 7.65% while the employee pays the other 7.65%. The reason why this tax is not considered in the tax rate calculation is because it is considered to be “retirement pay”, something paid into “the system”, based upon the “promise” that it will be returned as benefits at a point in the future.
But now Christie proposes to change the game in a nearly fraudulent way. Social Security taxes would still be collected from taxpayers, but for upper income earners, you won’t get your benefits back in entirety or even at all after a certain income level when you are of retirement age. That’s practically criminal. It’s raising taxes on the wealthy yet again, because the Social Security tax would still be collected over the years, but you don’t receive the promised benefits anymore past certain income levels during your retirement years. Looked at it another way, if you are successful, if you do well and are able to retire with a decent income stream, you are now punished for that success and lose the funds you faithfully paid in over the years because the government now deems you to have too much money. It is wealth confiscation to cover decades of mismanaged funds that now need massive reform to be solvent.
I think Chris Christie’s heart is in the right place, but he really hasn’t thought his plan through. It plays directly to the Left playbook on class warfare, implying that the wealthy need to “pay their fair share” by now forfeiting their Social Security funds past a certain income threshold in order to help pay for government fiduciary malfeasance. That concept is repugnant and Social Security reform needs a better plan than what Chris Christie has to offer.
