BETA
This is a BETA experience. You may opt-out by clicking here

More From Forbes

Edit Story

Take Cover - It's Another Retirement Reform Proposal

Following
This article is more than 6 years old.

It will surely not surprise readers that, like seemingly everyone else these days, I've got a plan for a reform of our retirement system.  (Eyeroll.)  It's got a clunky title—the "purpose-based retirement plan"—and it's either far more visionary or far more delusional than everyone else's plans.  But hear me out.

Here's the background: As it happens, my first foray into the world of public discussions around retirement policy was round about eight years ago, in the form of a paper my husband and I submitted for the "Retirement 20/20" project sponsored by the Society of Actuaries, titled "A Purpose-Based Retirement Plan."  Since then, I've tinkered with it at my first blog, but, as you can tell by the fact that (but for the most loyal of readers) you've never heard of it, it didn't get much traction; in fact, in general, public discussions around retirement reform seemed to have died down.  But these discussions are emerging again.

Our basic idea was this: we re-imagined Social Security and the retirement system in general as a three-tranche/three-tier system, with three different types of benefits for three different purposes; hence the label "purpose-based."  The first tier is a flat, pay-as-you-go, general-revenue-funded poverty-level benefit to keep seniors out of poverty.  The second is a pre-funded account-based benefit, based on a mid-level income tranche, to replace lost income.  And third is a supplemental voluntary savings option similar to our existing 401(k) system.

What's the point of making such changes, and what do I mean by "different purposes"?

Fundamentally, Social Security tries to do two things, but does neither of them well:  it wants to be an anti-poverty program for the poor, and it wants to be an income-replacement program for the middle-class.  To meet the first objective, it provides 90% pay replacement up to the first "bend point," $10,740 in annual income.  And that's great -- but 9.3% of seniors (over 65s) still have income (counting Social Security as "income") below the poverty line, because of low wages over their working lifetime, and use a patchwork of programs such as SSI and SNAP to supplement their Social Security benefits.  Doesn't it make more sense to simply provide a flat benefit to all recipients?  And it makes more sense to fund such a benefit out of general revenues than to tax the poor, with FICA, from the first dollar of income earned, then effectively refund that income, to some extent, through the Earned Income Tax Credit.

The second objective of Social Security is (partial) middle-class pay replacement.  But the pay replacement above the first bend point is only 35%, up to $64,764, and 15% thereafter to the maximum pay level, hardly a princely sum.  What's more, the progressive nature of the formula, however well-intentioned it is in providing a disproportionately generous benefit level to lower-income recipients, makes it more difficult for middle-class recipients to really understand how Social Security fits into their retirement future, or identify how much they really need to save.  Back in the heyday of Defined Benefit pension plans, this was not an issue because the plan formulas typically had a "Social Security offset" or had two different accrual levels, but Social Security is much harder to integrate into Defined Contribution plans.  And don't get me started on the lack of meaningful pre-funding for the system!

Our proposal tried to remedy these issues.  The first tier is straightforward, though we didn't prescribe any specifics about what the benefit level or retirement age should be, except that the latter should be set at the age at which the average American can no longer reasonably be expected to work, with a wholly-separate (hopefully-)reformed disability benefit, as well as perhaps unemployment insurance more generous in duration for near-retirees, replacing reduced early retirement benefits.  The benefit is funded from general revenues, which can mean anything from an across-the-board income tax hike to the usual sort of tinkering with marginal tax rates at various income levels.

As to the second tier, the idea is this:  all American workers would be required to participate in retirement accounts, with contributions of 10% of pay.  I'm indifferent on whether this is all employer-paid, employee-paid, or a split, since, in principle, it doesn't matter.  The key, though, is that the contributions would only apply after a certain income threshold coordinated with the flat-dollar benefit, and would cut off at some higher income level.  Funds would accumulate over one's working lifetime like a 401(k) account but would be converted into a cost-of-living-adjusted annuity, which we estimated, back in the day, would produce a cost-of-living-adjusted pay replacement of 50% on that tranche of income, which produces a weighted-average pay replacement greater than 50% when the "100% of pay" the first-tranche benefit is taken into account.  Originally we envisioned that employers would administer the benefit, similar to a cash balance plan, and I suppose it's indicative of how much has changed in the pension world that we even considered this.  At this point, what makes more sense is some sort of pooled solution, in which there might be some sort of return smoothing mechanism and some protection from the risk of outliving assets.  And it goes without saying that, because the funds would be privately managed, this would be a true funded system.

Would these accounts be "owned" by individuals in the same way as other funds we own in bank accounts?  Would they simply be government benefits like any other?  It seems to me that we'd have to really conceptualize this as something in-between, to avoid battles over whether it's "fair" for the government to limit investment choices or require annuitization, or whether the government can require participation in the first place.  It also makes sense to transition to the new system by providing the old Social Security benefit as a minimum while participants' accounts build up, and one of the benefits of a complete redo of the whole system is that it reduces the risk of getting trapped in arguments about winners and losers.

Finally, our plan included a continued voluntary tax-favored supplemental savings component, not only to provide a lump-sum pot of money for other needs and wants in retirement, but, to some degree, to serve dual-duty as a rainy-day fund, since we are increasingly aware that many Americans lack the basic savings for emergencies that would keep them afloat in the case of medical expenses, home or car repairs, or the like.  We know that tax deferral or Roth-style untaxed earnings systems have come in for criticism because the benefits disproportionately accrue to higher earners, since they've got higher tax rates and are more likely to save in the first place, but it is in the nature of the tax code to deem some income as not subject to taxation, and the label "tax deduction" is a motivator of behavior even if the net impact on one's finances is small.

Is a complete revamp of Social Security impossible?  Are we stuck tweaking the margins?  I hope not.  However promising our specific plan may or may not be, it simply doesn't make sense to be so fatalistic as to believe that Social Security's benefit formula is fixed in perpetuity.

Have something to say?  Share your comments at janetheactuary.com.

Follow me on TwitterCheck out my website