Ask the Scholar
Document scope · 1 page
Scholar
Ask about this object, its catalog metadata, its source description, or the page inventory.
For page-specific OCR and visual context, open one of the page chats.
Scholar Source Context
Document identity
localId
24493318
label
Social Security Briefing Book for Mrs. Clinton [Binder]
core
doc
dtoType
document
citationUrl
pageCount
1
Source metadata
id
24493318
sourceUrl
contentType
document
title
Social Security Briefing Book for Mrs. Clinton [Binder]
citationUrl
collections
Records of the First Lady's Office (Clinton Administration)
Shirley Sagawa's Files
imageCount
1
hasImages
yes
source
import
hasTranscription
no
Source extras
naId
24493318
levelOfDescription
fileUnit
otherTitles
42-t-7763274-20130124S-053-004-2015
recordType
description
ocrSource
nara-archive
Single page context
seq
1
pageIndex
0
type
document
mediaId
2351f049f5aac498
ocrText
SOCIAL SECURITY
BRIEFING BOOK
FOR
MRS. CLINTON
PREPARED BY THE NATIONAL ECONOMIC COUNCIL
NOVEMBER 25, 1998
SOCIAL SECURITY BRIEFING BOOK
for
MRS. CLINTON
Part I:
General Strategic Overview
Tab 1:
Background on Social Security
Tab 2:
President's 5 Principles for Social Security Reform
Tab 3:
Goals for Social Security Reform
Tab 4:
Background on Demographic Causes of Problem
Tab 5:
Outlook for Social Security Financing and the Unified Budget
Part II:
Background on Social Security
Tab 6:
Social Security Taxes
Tab 7:
Social Security Benefits
Tab 8:
Survivors and Disability Benefits
Tab 9:
The Retirement Age
Tab 10:
The Earnings Limit
Tab 11:
Coverage of the Workforce
Tab 12:
Cost of Living Adjustments
Tab 13:
Administrative Costs of Social Security
Tab 14:
Social Security and Women
Tab 15:
Social Security and Minorities
Tab 16:
Retirement Income and Pensions
Part III:
Key Reform Issues
Tab 17:
Individual Accounts
Tab 18:
Investing the Trust Fund in Equities
Tab 19:
Risk
Tab 20:
Administrative Costs
Tab 21:
Corporate Governance
Part IV:
Talking Points and Q&As on Other Issues
Tab 22:
Raising the Retirement Age
Tab 23:
Raiding the Trust Fund
Tab 24:
Taxes
Tab 25:
Means Testing
Tab 26:
Covering State and Local Workers
Tab 27:
Reducing Cost of Living Adjustments
Tab 28:
Rates of Return
Tab 29:
Earnings Test
Part V:
International Experience with Social Security Reform
Tab 30:
Chile, UK, and Canada
Clinton Presidential Records
Digital Records Marker
This is not a presidential record. This is used as an administrative
marker by the William J. Clinton Presidential Library Staff.
This marker identifies the place of a tabbed divider. Given our
digitization capabilities, we are sometimes unable to adequately
scan such dividers. The title from the original document is
indicated below.
1
Divider Title:
BACKGROUND ON SOCIAL SECURITY
Social Security is more than just a retirement program. It also provides disability
insurance (in case an individual becomes disabled and can't work) and survivors' insurance.
Each is equivalent, for the average young family with two children, to an insurance policy
of about $300,000 ($600,000 in total).
Nearly one-third of Social Security's 44 million beneficiaries are either disabled or
survivors (or their dependents).
3.8 million children receive benefits: 1.9 million as survivors of deceased parents;
1.4 million as children of disabled workers; and 0.4 million as children of retired
workers.
Social Security Is More Than A Retirement Program
Percentage of Social Security Beneficiaries By Program
Retirement Program
70.0%
Survivors Program
16.0%
Disability Program
14.0%
Social Security provides a benefit you can count on. A Social Security benefit is
both guaranteed for life after retirement and indexed to inflation.
Social Security is a crucial source of income for the elderly. Social Security benefits
represent the majority of income for two-thirds of elderly beneficiaries, and are the only
source of income for 18 percent of its elderly beneficiaries.
Social Security Is Crucial
Source of Income for the Elderly
Percent of Elderly Beneficiaries
80%
66%
60%
40%
18%
20%
0%
Social Security is
Social Security is
principal isource of income
only source of income
(over 50 percent of income)
Social Security has dramatically reduced the rate of poverty among the elderly.
The elderly poverty rate has fallen from more than 35 percent in 1959 to 10.8
percent in 1996.
Even today, with our strong economy, the elderly poverty rate without Social
Security would be 48 percent. Social Security benefits lift roughly 15 million
elderly Americans out of poverty (and another 1 million non-elderly Americans
out of poverty).
Social Security Has Helped Cut The Elderly
Poverty Rate by Two-Thirds
Percent of Elderly in Poverty
40%
35.2%
30%
20%
15.2%
10.8%
10%
0%
1959
1979
1996
Social Security is especially important to women. For single, divorced, or widowed
elderly women, the poverty rate would be 60 percent without Social Security (relative to 20
percent with Social Security). Because women live longer, they are more likely to outlive
savings and other non-Social Security sources of retirement income.
Average Benefits. The average monthly benefit for a retired worker is $760. The average
monthly benefit for a retired worker with an aged spouse is $1280.
Share of US Budget. Social Security outlays are expected to be $378 billion in FY 1998,
23 percent of the total U.S. budget of $1.67 trillion, and 4.5 percent of GDP.
Clinton Presidential Records
Digital Records Marker
This is not a presidential record. This is used as an administrative
marker by the William J. Clinton Presidential Library Staff.
This marker identifies the place of a tabbed divider. Given our
digitization capabilities, we are sometimes unable to adequately
scan such dividers. The title from the original document is
indicated below.
2
Divider Title:
FIVE PRINCIPLES FOR SOCIAL SECURITY REFORM
At the Kansas City conference, the President enumerated five general principles to
guide Social Security reform. The principles are:
1.
Strengthen and Protect Social Security for the 21st Century. This
principle provides our overall goal in reforming Social Security and warns
against proposals that are not comprehensive solutions to the solvency
problem.
2.
Maintain Universality and Fairness. This principle is designed to ensure
progressivity, and preclude an opt-out option (which would unduly benefit
upper-income Americans).
3.
Provide a Benefit People Can Count on. This principle precludes radical
privatization, which would undermine Social Security as a foundation of
retirement income security.
4.
Preserve Financial Security for Low-income and Disabled Beneficiaries.
This principle highlights disability and survivors' insurance, as well as
protection for low-income widows and other beneficiaries -- which are often
overlooked in reform discussions.
5.
Maintain Fiscal Discipline. This principle is intended to ensure that the
surpluses are not drained before addressing Social Security reform, and that
we maintain our fiscal discipline in order to prepare for the retirement of the
baby boomers.
Clinton Presidential Records
Digital Records Marker
This is not a presidential record. This is used as an administrative
marker by the William J. Clinton Presidential Library Staff.
This marker identifies the place of a tabbed divider. Given our
digitization capabilities, we are sometimes unable to adequately
scan such dividers. The title from the original document is
indicated below.
3
Divider Title:
WHY DO SOCIAL SECURITY REFORM NOW?
Perceived and real insolvency of Social Security system threatens confidence in crown-
jewel of progressive government -- particularly among younger Americans.
Acting now will prevent the budget surplus from being dissipated on tax cuts which
would leave fewer resources to fix Social Security later without resorting to significant
benefit cuts or revenue increases.
Waiting longer will make reforms within more traditional Social Security structure more
painful and more difficult because the actuarial imbalance will be greater and surpluses
will be smaller or even unavailable, which could erode confidence in the system and lead
to more radical and painful reform down the road.
Reform is necessary to keep spending on the elderly from crowding out other desirable
spending in the middle of the next century.
Acting now will help build confidence in the system among younger Americans, who
may not have as solid a commitment to the New Deal social compacts as older
Americans.
1
ENSURING SOCIAL SECURITY REMAINS PROGRESSIVE
MAINTAIN AND STRENGTHEN SOCIAL SECURITY'S PROGRESSIVITY
The current Social Security benefit structure is highly progressive.
REPLACEMENT RATES
(Annual Social Security Benefits/Average earnings during working years)
Low Earner ($12,000)
57 percent
Average Earner ($27,000)
43 percent
Maximum Earner ($68,400)
25 percent
Social Security reform must protect this structure and make progress toward achieving
other progressive goals.
REDUCE ELDERLY POVERTY
Social Security has played a large role in reducing elderly poverty from 35.2 percent in
1959 to 10.5 percent today.
Social Security reform could help further reduce poverty rates among the elderly,
particularly among widows and elderly people of color.
PERCENT IN POVERTY, PEOPLE AGES 65 AND ABOVE
Married
Widowed
Divorced
Never Married
Women
4.6%
18.0%
22.2%
20.0%
Men
4.6
11.4
15.0
22.8
PERCENT IN POVERTY, PEOPLE AGES 65 AND ABOVE
White
Black
Hispanic
Women
11.7%
28.9%
28.1%
Men
6.0
22.2
23.6
2
FOUR OFTEN-MENTIONED WAYS TO SOLVE
SOCIAL SECURITY'S FUNDING PROBLEM
Use Budget Surpluses.
Reduce Benefits.
Increase Traditional Revenues.
Invest in Equities.
3
Clinton Presidential Records
Digital Records Marker
This is not a presidential record. This is used as an administrative
marker by the William J. Clinton Presidential Library Staff.
This marker identifies the place of a tabbed divider. Given our
digitization capabilities, we are sometimes unable to adequately
scan such dividers. The title from the original document is
indicated below.
4
Divider Title:
BACKGROUND ON DEMOGRAPHIC TRENDS
AMERICANS ARE LIVING LONGER THAN IN THE PAST:
The challenge of financing the retirement of the baby boomers and of future generations of
retirees is largely the result of good news -- people are living longer.
LIFE EXPECTANCY AT AGE 65
Year turning age 65
Male
Female
Total
1940
12.0
13.7
12.9
1998
16.2
19.8
18.1
2030
17.7
21.1
19.4
FERTILITY RATES REMAIN Low
During the coming century, fertility rates are expected to fall below 2 births per woman.
Fertility Rates
4
35
3
25
2
15
1920
1930
1940
1950
1960
1970
1980
1990
2000
2010
2020
2030
The figure above shows the high fertility rates of the babyboom years and the lower
subsequent rates.
While the retirement of the baby boom generation will intensify these trends, increasing
longevity and declining fertility would have produced a financing problem for Social
Security even if there had not been a post-war baby boom.
1940
1950
1960
1970
1980
1990
2000
2020
2040
2060
Total fertility rates
2.23
3.03
3.61
2.43
1.85
2.07
2.01
1.91
1.90
1.90
(births per woman)
2
AMERICANS ARE RETIRING EARLIER THAN IN THE PAST:
In 1950, nearly half (46 percent) of men 65 and older were in the labor force. Today only
16 percent of men 65 and older are in the labor force. In 1950, 10 percent of women 65
and over were in the labor force, while 8 percent participate today.
Over the past 3 decades, the percentage of Americans who receive Social Security
retirement benefits before age 65 has increased dramatically.
PERCENTAGE OF FIRST RECEIPT OF RETIREMENT BENEFITS BY AGE
Year/Age
62
63-64
65+
TOTAL
1962
18
19
63
100
1996
60.1
18.3
21.6
100
EXPLANATIONS FOR WHY PEOPLE ARE RETIRING EARLIER THAN IN THE PAST:
Social Security has made it possible for more elderly to afford to retire. In particular, the
introduction of the early retirement age in 1961 (1956 for women) has enabled people to
retire before age 65.
Rising incomes have made it possible for some people to afford to retire even before they
are eligible for Social Security.
Private pension plans can create incentives to retire early.
Society's attitude toward the appropriate age of retirement may have changed.
THE HEALTH OF THE ELDERLY Is IMPROVING, BUT SOME PEOPLE WORK IN PHYSICALLY
DEMANDING JOBS:
In a recent survey, one-quarter of retirees said that poor health was the most important
reason why they retired.
The percentage of workers approaching retirement who work in physically demanding
jobs has been declining and is expected to decline further in coming decades. However,
there remains a segment of the population, particularly the lower paid and African
Americans, who tend to work in these physically demanding jobs.
Estimates of the percentage of workers approaching retirement who are in physically
demanding jobs range from 11 percent to over 30 percent depending on the definition used.
Even jobs that do not involve heavy physical labor -- kindergarten teaching for example -
- can be difficult for older workers.
3
OVERALL IMPACT: DECLINING WORKERS PER BENEFICIARY
Increased longevity, reduced fertility, and early retirement imply a falling ratio of workers to
beneficiaries. The ratio of workers to beneficiaries was 5.1 in 1960 and is 3.4 today. It is
expected to fall below 2 in 2035 and reach 1.8 by 2065.
1950
1960
1970
1980
1990
2000
2020
2040
2060
2070
Workers per beneficiary
16.5
5.1
3.7
3.2
3.4
3.3
2.4
2.0
1.9
1.8
Similar trends are occurring around the world. As the chart below shows, many countries
are aging much more rapidly than the U.S.
RATIO OF PEOPLE AGE 65 AND OLDER TO PEOPLE AGES 20 TO 64
(In percent)
1990
2010
2030
2050
Japan
19.3
35.8
48.7
60.1
Germany
23.6
32.9
53.8
57.5
France
23.4
27.2
43.1
48.4
Italy
24.3
33.8
52.4
66.7
United Kingdom
26.7
28.6
42.8
45.8
Canada
18.6
22.9
43.6
46.5
United States
20.8
21.3
35.5
37.0
4
Clinton Presidential Records
Digital Records Marker
This is not a presidential record. This is used as an administrative
marker by the William J. Clinton Presidential Library Staff.
This marker identifies the place of a tabbed divider. Given our
digitization capabilities, we are sometimes unable to adequately
scan such dividers. The title from the original document is
indicated below.
5
Divider Title:
LONG-TERM FINANCING PROJECTIONS
The Social Security system is expected to face increasing strains as the nation's nearly 80
million baby boomers retire, as life expectancies continue to increase, and as the fertility rate
declines. There are currently 3.4 workers who contribute to the system for every Social Security
beneficiary. By 2030, there will be only 2 workers for every Social Security beneficiary.
According to the intermediate projections of the Trustees:
By 2013, payroll contributions (plus income taxes on benefits) will not be sufficient to pay
for benefits due under current law. In order to meet its benefit obligations, the system will
have to begin spending some of the interest it earns on the assets in the Trust Fund.
By 2021, taxes plus interest earnings will not be sufficient to pay for benefits, and the
Trust Funds will begin declining, gradually at first, and then more rapidly.
By 2032, the Trust Fund is expected to be depleted -- at which time income to the system
would still be sufficient to pay about 75 percent of current law benefits.
The Social Security Trust Fund
Trust Fund Assets in Trillions of Current Dollars
4
3
2
1
0
-1
2032
-2
-3
1998 2001 2004 2007 2010 2013 2016 2019 2022 2025 2028 2031 2034
OUTLOOK FOR SOCIAL SECURITY FINANCING
BEGINNING IN 2013, SOCIAL SECURITY SPENDING WILL EXCEED SOCIAL SECURITY TAXES
Since the 1983 reforms, Social Security has been taking in more revenue in payroll taxes and
from the taxation of benefits than it has been paying out in benefits and administrative costs. As the
demographic factors described above take effect, this situation will reverse itself and beginning in 2013
Social Security will begin paying out more than it receives in taxes.
1000
800
Outgo
Billions of 1998 dollars
600
Income excluding interest
400
200
1998
2002
2006
2010
2014
2018
2022
2026
2030
Social Security outgo and income are often expressed as a percentage of payroll. This measure
illustrates the amount payroll taxes would need to be increased to restore pay-as-you-go balance
if no other changes were made.
OASDI Income and Cost Rates, Calendar Years 2000-2070
(As percentage of taxable payroll)
Income rate
Cost rate
(Social Security
(Social Security outgo
Revenue as percentage
as percentage of
of taxable payroll)
taxable payroll)
Balance
2000
12.63
11.16
1.48
2010
12.74
12.19
0.54
2020
12.92
15.17
-2.26
2030
13.10
17.76
-4.66
2040
13.18
18.13
-4.95
2050
13.22
18.29
-5.07
2060
13.29
19.04
-5.75
2070
13.34
19.54
-6.20
5
MEASURING LONG-RUN ACTUARIAL BALANCE
Each year, the SSA Trustees' Report presents estimates of the financial status of the OASDI program
for the next 75 years. For the system to be in actuarial balance, the present value of income into the
system must exceed the present value of costs. These summarized income and costs measures are
presented as a percentage of the present value of taxable payroll over the 75 year period.
OASDI Income and Cost Rates for 75-year Period
Income rate
Cost rate
Actuarial balance
1998-2072
13.45
15.64
-2.19
In the 1998 Trustees' Report, OASDI was found to have an actuarial deficit of 2.19 percent of
payroll.
This 2.19 deficit can be interpreted as the increase in annual payroll taxes necessary to bring the
system into exact actuarial balance. For example, if the 75-year actuarial deficit of 2.19 percent
were addressed by raising scheduled tax rates by 2.2 percentage points (1.1 each for employers
and employees), then OASDI assets at the beginning of 1998, together with income from
payroll taxes, interest, and other sources, would be just sufficient to meet all expenditures for
the long-range period and leave the level of the trust fund at the end of the period equal to about
100 percent of the following year's expenditures.
Restoring 75-year actuarial balance is a common goal of reform plans.
6
DIFFERENT SOLVENCY GOALS
While achieving 75-year actuarial balance is the standard target for reform plans, some have argued
that this goal alone may not be sufficient.
For example, if actuarial balance were achieved by raising the payroll tax by 2.19 percentage points,
Social Security would run many years of surpluses in the beginning of the 75 year period followed by
many years of deficits at the end of the period. While the trust fund would have 1 year's worth of
benefits in the 75th year, the trust fund would be declining and the system would not be able to pay full
benefits on time soon after the 75th year. An important implication of reform plans that achieve
75-year balance with good years followed by bad years is that the passage of time alone will
bring the system out of balance in the future. In the worst case scenario, one year after reform,
the system would no longer be in 75-year balance.
Therefore, some proposals attempt to achieve actuarial balance over periods of more than 75 years.
Others aim to have a stable or growing trust fund at the end of the 75th year.
Nonetheless, it is worth noting that even if a reform plan achieved only 75 year solvency, it would be
making Social Security much stronger than it is today -- pushing back the exhaustion date of the trust
fund by 40 years.
7
OUT LOOK FOR THE UNIFIE ) BUDGET
FOR THE NEXT DECADE SOCIAL SECURITY IS RESPONSIBLE FOR MOST OF THE UB SURPLUSES
Both OMB and CBO are projecting large unified budget (UB) surpluses over the next decade.
Until 2002, the non-SS budget is in deficit, but Social Security surpluses lead to a unified budget
surplus. In later years the on-budget surplus is positive as well.
Budget Projections
CBO July 1998
OMB Mid-session Review 1998
(Billions of dollars)
(Billions of dollars)
Unified
Non-Social
Social
Unified
Non-Social
Social
Budget
Security
Security
Budget
Security
Security
1998
63
-41
104
39
-63
102
1999
80
-37
117
54
-59
113
2000
79
-46
125
61
-62
123
2001
86
-45
131
83
-48
131
2002
139
1
138
148
6
142
2003
136
-10
146
150
-2
152
2004
154
0
154
184
24
160
2005
170
5
165
213
36
177
2006
217
44
173
245
60
185
2007
236
55
181
300
103
197
2008
251
64
187
342
136
206
1999-
1548
31
1517
1780
194
1586
2008
Social Security is responsible for 89 percent of the 10-year unified budget surpluses under
OMB projections, and 98 percent of the 10-year UB surpluses under CBO projections.
8
ILLUSTRATIVE BUDGET PROJECTIONS
(Numbers for 2010 and beyond are
for illustrative purposes only.)
(Billions of dollars)
Unified
Non-Social
Social
Budget
Security
Security
2000
79
-46
125
2005
170
5
165
2010
About 280
About 250
About 30
2015-2020*
About 470
About 600
About 130
*
For illustrative purposes, annual average for time period
In 2013, Social Security outgo begins exceeding Social Security tax revenue. In order to
pay benefits, the Social Security Trust Fund begins redeeming its bonds and receiving
funds from the general fund. Nonetheless, current long-run projections have unified
budget surpluses persisting beyond 2020 because the non-Social Security budget
surpluses are larger than Social Security's shortfall.
7
SOCIAL SECURITY CASH-FLOW
OASDI INCOME AND COST PROJECTIONS FROM
TRUSTEES' REPORT
(Billions of Dollars)
Income
Outgo
Balance
excluding
interest
1998
435
383
52
1999
450
396
54
2000
468
413
55
2001
488
433
55
2002
509
455
54
2003
532
478
54
2004
557
504
53
2005
585
533
52
2006
614
565
50
2007
648
599
49
2008
682
637
45
2009
718
679
39
2010
756
724
32
2011
795
773
22
2012
835
826
10
2013
877
884
-7
2014
920
946
-26
2015
965
1014
-49
2016
1011
1087
-76
2017
1060
1165
-106
2018
1110
1249
-139
2019
1162
1337
-175
2020
1217
1430
-214
6
Clinton Presidential Records
Digital Records Marker
This is not a presidential record. This is used as an administrative
marker by the William J. Clinton Presidential Library Staff.
This marker identifies the place of a tabbed divider. Given our
digitization capabilities, we are sometimes unable to adequately
scan such dividers. The title from the original document is
indicated below.
6
Divider Title:
SOCIAL SECURITY TAXES
The Old-Age, Survivors, and Disability Insurance (OASDI) program is funded by a
tax of 12.4 percent of earnings, split equally between the worker and employer (self-
employed workers pay the entire 12.4 percent themselves). An additional 2.9 percent tax
is used to fund part of Medicare.
The OASDI tax is levied on the first $68,400 of earnings (this threshold is indexed to
average wages in the economy).
Unlike the federal income tax which has deductions and exemptions that imply
that very low-income people pay no tax, the OASDI tax begins on the very first
dollar of earnings.
Social Security's progressive benefit formula offsets its regressive tax structure.
The OASDI program receives additional revenue from the partial taxation of Social
Security benefits.
For those with income above $25,000 if single and $32,000 if married, up to 50
percent of Social Security benefits are taxable. The income taxes on these
benefits are credited to the Social Security Trust Funds.
For those with income above $34,000 if single and $44,000 if married, up to 85
percent of Social Security benefits are taxable. The additional revenue from
taxing benefits at 85 percent rather than 50 percent is credited to the Medicare
trust fund, not the OASDI trust funds.
In calendar year 1997, only 25 percent of beneficiaries were subject to taxes on
their Social Security benefits.
During fiscal year 1997, income to the OASDI trust fund was composed of:
Payroll tax contributions
$398.5 billion
Income from taxation of benefits
$ 6.9 billion
Interest income
$ 41.2 billion
Total income
$446.5 billion
Clinton Presidential Records
Digital Records Marker
This is not a presidential record. This is used as an administrative
marker by the William J. Clinton Presidential Library Staff.
This marker identifies the place of a tabbed divider. Given our
digitization capabilities, we are sometimes unable to adequately
scan such dividers. The title from the original document is
indicated below.
7
Divider Title:
SOCIAL SECURITYBENEFITS
The Social Security benefits received by a worker are based on the average earnings
of the worker over his or her lifetime. Each year of earnings is indexed to the increase
in the average annual wage between the year of the earnings and the year the worker turns
60.
The benefit formula takes the highest 35 years of indexed earnings and averages
them. This average is divided by 12 to provide a worker's Averaged Indexed Monthly
Earnings (AIME).
A progressive benefit formula is applied to the AIME to produce a worker's
Primary Insurance Amount (PIA), which is the level of monthly benefits a worker is
entitled to based on his or her own work history if the worker retires at the normal
retirement age of 65.
For a worker becoming eligible in 1997, the PIA is calculated as:
AIME vs. PIA
1400 -
1200 -
1000 -:
90 percent of the first $455 of AIME
800 -
PIA
+ 32 percent of the next $2286 of AIME
600 -1
+ 15 percent of AIME above $2741
400 -
200 -
0
0
580
1180
1780
2360
2940
3540
Average Indexed Monthly Earnings
This formula implies that a worker with higher lifetime earnings receives a higher
Social Security benefit, but that the share of a worker's average earnings that is
replaced by Social Security falls with income.
Replacement rates
Low earner ($12,000)
57 percent
Avenge earner ($27,000)
43 percent
Maximum earner ($68,400)
25 percent
Benefits for Married and Previously Married Beneficiaries
Married couples receive 150 percent of the PIA of the higher earner in the couple or the sum
of the PIAs of the two spouses, whichever is larger.
Widows and widowers receive 100 percent of the PIA of the higher earner in the couple.
Divorcee benefits are available to people if their marriages lasted at least 10 years. A
divorced person receives the larger of the benefit he or she is entitled to from his or her own
work history and 50 percent of the ex-spouse's benefit if the ex-spouse is still alive and 100
percent of the ex-spouse's benefit if the spouse is deceased.
Clinton Presidential Records
Digital Records Marker
This is not a presidential record. This is used as an administrative
marker by the William J. Clinton Presidential Library Staff.
This marker identifies the place of a tabbed divider. Given our
digitization capabilities, we are sometimes unable to adequately
scan such dividers. The title from the original document is
indicated below.
8
Divider Title:
SURVIVORS BENEFITS
Disability Benefits
Eligibility. An insured worker who cannot engage in any kind of substantial gainful work
because of physical or mental impairment is eligible for disability benefits if the disability is
expected to last for at least 12 months or to result in death.
To be an insured worker, the worker must have received credit for half of the
calendar quarters during the previous 10 years and one-fourth of the calendar
quarters since the worker turned 21. Currently a worker receives a credit for
every $700 of earnings, up to $2800, earned during a year.
Substantial gainful work is defined as the ability to earn $500 a month.
Benefit calculation. For a worker who becomes disabled before age 56, fewer than 35 years
are used in calculating worker's average indexed earnings. The number of computation
years is the number of years elapsed since age 21 minus a number of drop out years that
depends on the worker's age. Then, the same PIA formula that applies to retired workers is
applied to the disabled worker's AIME.
Benefits are also payable to members of the disabled worker's family. In addition to the
benefit for the disabled worker, a benefit equal to 50 percent of the worker's benefit is
payable to the worker's spouse if he or she is at least 62 or is caring for one or more of the
worker's children (the children must be under 16 or disabled). Each dependent child (under
19) of the worker is also entitled to a benefit equal to 50 percent of the worker's benefit.
However, the total benefit received by the family is limited to the smaller of 150 percent of
the disabled worker's PIA and 85 percent of the worker's AIME.
Example
The family: A married couple with two young children in which both the husband and wife are 27
years old, the husband earns $28,000 (the average earnings in the economy), and the wife doesn't
work.
Disability Benefits: If the husband becomes disabled, this family will receive disability benefits of
$17,500 a year. This is equivalent to a payout of $300,000 from the disability insurance policy.
Survivors Benefits
Eligibility. Survivors' benefits are payable to the spouse and dependents of a covered
worker after the worker's death.
--
A widow(er) receives benefits if the widow(er) is age 60 or older or age 50-59 and
disabled. The widow(er) receives a benefit equal to 100 percent of the worker's PIA
if he/she is disabled or if he/she takes benefits at age 65 and receives reduced
benefits if he/she is not disabled and takes benefits earlier.
--
A mother's/father's benefit equal to 75 percent of the worker's PIA is payable to a
surviving spouse who is not married and is carrying for at least one child age 16 or
below of the deceased worker. Each child (under 19) of the deceased worker is
also entitled to a benefit equal to 75 percent of the worker's benefit. However, the
total benefit received by the family is limited to between 150 and 188 of the disabled
worker's PIA depending on the level of the worker's PIA.
Example
The Family: A married couple with two young children in which both the husband and wife are 27
years old, the husband earns $28,000 (the average earnings in the economy), and the wife doesn't
work.
Survivors' Benefits: This family will receive survivors' benefits of $20,400 a year. This is
equivalent to a payout of $330,000 from a life- insurance policy.
Clinton Presidential Records
Digital Records Marker
This is not a presidential record. This is used as an administrative
marker by the William J. Clinton Presidential Library Staff.
This marker identifies the place of a tabbed divider. Given our
digitization capabilities, we are sometimes unable to adequately
scan such dividers. The title from the original document is
indicated below.
9
Divider Title:
The Social Security Retirement Age
The normal retirement age is currently 65, but workers can retire as early as 62, with
reduced benefits. Beneficiaries receiving widow/er benefits can retire as early as age 60,
again with reduced benefits.
For retired workers, benefits are reduced by 6 2/3 percent for every year before 65
that a worker elects to receive benefits. Thus a worker retiring at age 62, receives a
monthly retirement benefit for the rest of his or her life that is 20 percent lower than
the benefit he or she would have received if he or she had waited until age 65 to
receive benefits.
Spouses and widow(er)s also have their benefits reduced for early retirement.
The 1983 reforms gradually raise the normal retirement age to 66 for workers who
reach age 62 in 2005. The retirement age begins increasing by 2 months per year starting in
2000, reaching 66 in 2005. Then the retirement age will remain at 66 until 2016, when it
will begin increasing gradually again until it reaches 67 in 2022. The earliest eligibility age
will remain 62.
The normal retirement age for someone who is 54 years old today is 66.
The normal retirement age for someone who is 37 years old today is 67.
Workers who delay retirement beyond age 65 receive credit for postponing the
benefits. The 1983 Social Security Amendments gradually increased the delayed retirement
credit. A worker reaching age 65 in 2007 will receive an 8 percent increase in benefits for
every year he or she delays receiving Social Security beyond age 65.
Clinton Presidential Records
Digital Records Marker
This is not a presidential record. This is used as an administrative
marker by the William J. Clinton Presidential Library Staff.
This marker identifies the place of a tabbed divider. Given our
digitization capabilities, we are sometimes unable to adequately
scan such dividers. The title from the original document is
indicated below.
10
Divider Title:
The Social Security Earnings Limit
Historically, Social Security has been a program for those who are retired. The 1935
report of the Committee on Economic Security appointed by President Roosevelt
recommended that no benefits be paid before a person had "retired from gainful
employment." Various forms of earnings limits have been part of the program as a way to
restrict benefits to retirees.
Currently, Social Security recipients who are between the ages of 62 and 69 have their
benefits reduced if their earnings exceed a certain amount. The benefits of recipients
who are aged 70 or above are not affected by the limit.
--
Recipients under 65 lose $1 of benefits for every $2 of earnings above $9,120.
Recipients between 65 and 69 lose $1 of benefits for every $3 of earnings above
$14,500.
On average, recipients get back these lost benefits through the delayed retirement
credit which provides them with increased benefits once they stop working. Nonetheless,
many elderly workers perceive the earnings test to be unfair and as an impediment to work.
In 1996, working with both Democrats and Republicans in Congress, President Clinton
signed into law annual increases in the earning limit for those between 65 and 70.
Between 1998 and 2002, the limit for workers in this age range will increase from $14,500
to $30,000.
Because benefits foregone are given back through the delayed retirement credit,
eliminating the earnings limit would have almost no effect on the long-run actuarial
balance of the OASDI program. Such a change would have significant short-run budget
effects, however. Removing the earnings limit for those aged 62 and above would raise
Social Security expenditures by roughly $12 billion in 2001.
Clinton Presidential Records
Digital Records Marker
This is not a presidential record. This is used as an administrative
marker by the William J. Clinton Presidential Library Staff.
This marker identifies the place of a tabbed divider. Given our
digitization capabilities, we are sometimes unable to adequately
scan such dividers. The title from the original document is
indicated below.
11
Divider Title:
COVERA OF THE WORKFORCE
96 percent of all jobs in the United States are covered by Social Security. Since the
Social Security Act of 1935, coverage has expanded from workers in business and industry
to include the self-employed, nonprofit groups, agricultural and household workers, the
Armed Services, Congress, and all other Federal employees hired after 1983. In 1998, 96
percent of all workers are covered under Social Security -- up from 55 percent in 1939.
25 percent of State and Local Government Workers are not covered by Social Security.
State and local government employees are the final sizable group of workers not universally
covered by Social Security. If such workers are mandatorily covered under a state or local
public pension system, they are not mandatorily covered under Social Security. Roughly 25
percent of state and local workers are not covered under Social Security (A total of 5.5
million workers). 75 percent of these are in 7 states: California, Ohio, Texas, Illinois,
Massachusetts, Louisiana, and Colorado.
The most common occupations of uncovered workers are teachers, firefighters, and
police.
Many workers who worked in non-covered jobs still receive Social Security benefits.
95 percent of noncovered state and local workers receive SS as workers, spouses, or
dependents. Some have their benefits reduced under the government pension offset and
windfall elimination provisions.
Almost every Social Security reform plan calls for including newly hired State and
Local Government workers in the system. All 3 Advisory Council plans included such a
provision, and do the Ball plan, the Moynihan-Kerrey plan, and the NCRP (Breaux-Gregg
Kolbe-Stenholm) plan.
Covering all new hires immediately solves about 11 percent of the 75-year actuarial
imbalance. Allowing a 10-year lead time, this provision would solve 8 percent of the
problem.
Those who favor this provision say it is only fair for the last sizeable group of
uncovered employees to be covered. Since most of our Social Security taxes go to
pay benefits for our parents and grandparents, all workers should share in this
burden.
Those who oppose this provision say that it is unfair to require state and local
governments to redesign their pension systems, and that either benefit levels for state
and local government workers will fall or costs to state and local governments will
rise if this provision is adopted.
Clinton Presidential Records
Digital Records Marker
This is not a presidential record. This is used as an administrative
marker by the William J. Clinton Presidential Library Staff.
This marker identifies the place of a tabbed divider. Given our
digitization capabilities, we are sometimes unable to adequately
scan such dividers. The title from the original document is
indicated below.
12
Divider Title:
01000 THE 1106
COLAs Affect Millions of Americans. The cost-of-living adjustment within Social
Security is set each year on the basis of the increase in the Consumer Price Index (CPI) over
the year ending in the third quarter of the previous year. Cost of living adjustments
(COLAs) affect 44 million Americans through the Social Security program, and millions
more through other programs (including the tax code). The CPI is calculated by the Bureau
of Labor Statistics (BLS).
Boskin Commission Concluded that the CPI overstates true change in cost of living.
Michael Boskin chaired the "Advisory Commission to Study the Consumer Price Index"
which reported to the Senate Finance Committee on December 4, 1996. The Commission
estimated that the CPI overstated the true rate of change in the cost of living by between 0.8
and 1.6 percentage points per year, with a best estimate of 1.1 percentage points per year.
While most economists agreed with the Boskin Commission that the CPI is biased upwards,
there is considerable uncertainty about the magnitude of the bias.
The commission concluded that the CPI is biased upwards for a number of reasons, the most
important of which are:
Substitution bias. As the prices of goods and services change, consumers tend to shift their
spending away from items that have become relatively more expensive. Such shifts are not
reflected in the CPI because it uses a fixed basket of goods and services.
Quality change bias. The quality of many goods and services changes over time. The BLS
attempts to correct for these quality changes as best it can, but many experts believe that
some quality improvement slips through nonetheless.
New product bias. New products often are not introduced into the market basket in a timely
manner, causing the index to miss the typical initial phase of price decline.
BLS is Making Improvements. The Bureau of Labor Statistics is continuing to make
improvements in the CPI, and many economists believe that they are making good
progress. Alan Greenspan recently testified that the "[BLS has] done really an excellent
job over the last couple of years." Recent technical changes will lower CPI inflation by an
estimated 0.3 percentage points per year going forward. These changes are already
incorporated in the forecasts of the Social Security Actuaries. Changes scheduled for
1998 and 1999 will likely have a relatively small impact on Social Security's finances.
Any major additional changes beyond these would likely require legislation instructing
Social Security to use a different index for its COLA adjustments.
COLA will be 1.3 Percent. Recent COLAs have been relatively small because inflation has
been low. The COLA payable in the January 1999 benefit check will be 1.3 percent for
OASDI benefits.
Impact on Social Security Reform. Reducing the COLA by 1 percentage point per year
reduces lifetime benefits for the average retiree by roughly 10 percent, and reduces the long-
run actuarial imbalance in the Social Security system by 1.4 percent of taxable payroll (out
of current gap of 2.19 percent).
Clinton Presidential Records
Digital Records Marker
This is not a presidential record. This is used as an administrative
marker by the William J. Clinton Presidential Library Staff.
This marker identifies the place of a tabbed divider. Given our
digitization capabilities, we are sometimes unable to adequately
scan such dividers. The title from the original document is
indicated below.
13
Divider Title:
SOCIALSE CURITY ADMINIS TRATION
The Social Security Administration (SSA) is one of the best run organizations within
government.
High on Customer Surveys. Surveys of SSA's customers have shown that the agency gets
consistently high marks from its customers for prompt, courteous, and accurate service
whether they are dealing with one of SSA's local offices or with the 800 Number Service.
SSA's 800 number has been rated better than almost any other public or private sector
toll-free number service, including such well-known services such as the L.L. Bean
catalog. (SSA's 800 number is 800-SSA-1213). In fiscal year 1997, the Social Security
Administration served over 55 million individuals who called the 800 number, making it one
of the largest toll-free service systems in the world. SSA's achievements in this area have
been recognized by Dalbar Associates, an independent auditing agency.
Very Efficient: Costs are Less than 1 Percent of Benefits. SSA is noted for its efficient
and effective service. SSA's administrative costs are less than 1 percent of benefit payments.
Clinton Presidential Records
Digital Records Marker
This is not a presidential record. This is used as an administrative
marker by the William J. Clinton Presidential Library Staff.
This marker identifies the place of a tabbed divider. Given our
digitization capabilities, we are sometimes unable to adequately
scan such dividers. The title from the original document is
indicated below.
14
Divider Title:
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
3-4
I. Basic Facts on Women and Retirement
5-6
II. Social Security and Women
7-11
III. Challenges for the Current System
12-14
IV. Women and Pensions
15-16
V. Conclusion
17
Endnotes
18-19
Women and Retirement Security
2
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Women Have Lower Income in Retirement than Men -- And Thus Higher Poverty
In 1997. median income for elderly unmarried women (widowed. divorced. separated.
and never married) was $11,161, compared with $14,769 for elderly unmarried men and
$29,278 for elderly married couples. Thus, the poverty rate for elderly women was
higher than that of men: in 1997. the poverty rate of elderly women was 13.1 percent.
compared to 7.0 percent among men. Among unmarried elderly women. the poverty rate
was significantly higher -- about 19 percent.
Social Security Is Particularly Important to Women. Elderly unmarried women --
including widows -- get 51 percent of their total income from Social Security. Unmarried
elderly men get 39 percent, while elderly married couples get 36 percent of their income
from Social Security. For 25 percent of unmarried women, Social Security is their only
source of income, compared to 9 percent of married couples and 20 percent of unmarried
men. Without Social Security benefits. the elderly poverty rate among women would
have been 52.2 percent and among widows would have been 60.6 percent.
Women Face Greater Economic Challenges in Retirement. First, women tend to live
longer: a woman who is 65 years old today can expect to live to 85, while a 65 year old
man can expect to live to 81. Second, women have lower lifetime earnings than men do.
And third, women reach retirement with smaller pensions and other assets than men do.
The Current Social Security System Has a Number of Features That Help Women
Meet These Challenges.
1.
Social Security provides an inflation-protected benefit that lasts as long as you live.
Since women tend to live longer than men, they are in greater danger of outliving
their other sources of retirement income; but it is impossible to outlive one's Social
Security benefit.
2.
The progressive benefit formula provides a higher replacement rate for workers with
lower earnings. For the median female retiree, Social Security replaces 54 percent of
average lifetime earnings, compared with 41 percent for the median male.
3.
Social Security provides extra benefits to spouses with low lifetime earnings. The
Social Security spousal benefit helps many women, even if they did not work at all
outside the home.
4.
Social Security provides benefits to elderly widows; 74 percent of elderly widows
receive benefits based on the earnings of their deceased spouse.
5.
Social Security provides benefits to spouses of any age who care for children under
16 if the worker (other spouse) is retired, becomes disabled, or dies; women
represent 98 percent of recipients receiving benefits as spouses with a child in their
care.
Women and Retirement Security
3
Social Security Will Continue to Be Important for Women in the Future. As the
labor force participation rates of women continue to rise, women in the future will reach
retirement with much more substantial earnings histories than in the past. Therefore. the
percentage of women receiving benefits based solely on their own earnings history is
expected to rise from 37 percent today to 60 percent in 2060. However. this means that
40 percent of women will continue to receive benefits based on their husband's earnings.
Poverty Rates Among Unmarried Elderly Women -- Especially Widows Who Make
up 45 Percent of All Elderly Women - Are High. Divorced women are a growing
share of the elderly population, and their poverty rate is higher than the overall elderly
poverty rate. And finally, poverty rates among elderly minority groups are unacceptably
high.
Among Current Retirees, Women Have Much Less Pension Coverage Than Men.
Only 30 percent of all women aged 65 or older were receiving a pension in 1994 (either
worker or survivor benefits), compared to 48 percent of men.
Pensions Received by Women Are Worth Less than Those Received by Men.
Among new private sector pension annuity recipients in 1993-94, the median annual
benefit for women was $4,800, or only half of the median benefit of $9,600 received by
men. And among women approaching retirement, pension wealth is much smaller: for
example, single women had average pension wealth that was 34 percent of the single
men's average.
Among Workers, Women's Pension Coverage Depends on Work Status. Overall,
fewer women workers have pensions through work, 40 percent of women compared to 44
percent of men. However, women in full-time jobs are equally likely to have pension
coverage as men; in 1997, 50 percent of women in full-time jobs had pensions compared
to 49 percent of men. It is important to note, though, that women are much more likely to
work part-time or be out of the labor force than men.
Women and Retirement Security
4
WOMEN AND RETIREMENT SECURITY
Over the course of this year, the Administration, Congress, and other interested parties
have engaged Americans in a national debate about ways to strengthen Social Security for the
21st Century. President Clinton and Vice President Gore attended three bipartisan Social
Security forums convened by the AARP and the Concord Coalition, and the President and Vice
President hosted a conference on private retirement savings in July. One issue that has arisen
repeatedly throughout this process is the relationship between Social Security and women's
retirement security. The purpose of this report is to inform the national debate by presenting
some of the key facts and issues about women and their Social Security benefits and pensions.
I. BASIC FACTS ON WOMEN AND RETIREMENT
Women Have Lower Income in Retirement than Men Do. In 1997, median income
for elderly unmarried women (widowed, divorced, separated, or never married) was
$11,161, compared with $14,769 for elderly unmarried men and $29,278 for elderly
married couples.¹
Poverty Rates Among Elderly Women Are Higher Than Rates Among Men. The
poverty rate among Americans age 65 and over has fallen from 35.2 percent in 1959 to
10.5 percent today. The poverty rate for all elderly women was 13.1 percent in 1997,
compared to a 7.0 percent rate for all elderly men.² And for unmarried elderly women,
the poverty rate is even higher -- around 19 percent.
POVERTY RATES OF THE FEMALE POPULATION 65 AND OVER
BY MARITAL STATUS, 1997³
All Elderly
Women
Married
Divorced
Widowed
Never Married
13.1%
4.6%
22.2%
18.0%
20.0%
Nearly 60 Percent of Elderly Women Are Unmarried. The poverty rate among
unmarried women is particularly important because 59 percent of elderly women are
either widowed (45 percent), divorced (7 percent), separated (2 percent), or never married
(5 percent). In contrast, only 27 percent of elderly men are unmarried.⁴
Social Security Is Particularly Important to Women. Elderly unmarried women --
including widows -- get 51 percent of their total income from Social Security.
Unmarried elderly men get 39 percent, while elderly married couples get 36 percent of
their income from Social Security.⁵
Women and Retirement Security
5
SOURCES OF INCOME FOR PERSONS 65 AND OVER, 1996
(PERCENT OF TOTAL INCOME)
Social
Income
Security
Pensions
from Assets
Earnings
Other
Unmarried
51%
15%
20%
10%
4%
women
Unmarried
39
22
16
19
4
men
Married
36
20
18
25
-
couples
All elderly
40
18
18
20
4
Social Security Is Particularly Important
For Elderly Women
Percentage of Income from Social Security
60%
51%
50%
39%
40%
36%
30%
20%
10%
0%
Married Couples
Unmarried Men
Unmarried Women
Source: Social Security Administration
Women and Retirement Security
6
II. SOCIAL SECURITY AND WOMEN
Most Social Security Recipients Are Women. Women represent 60 percent of all
elderly Social Security recipients (women are 18.9 million of the 31.7 million aged
beneficiaries).
Women Make Up Nearly Three Quarters -- 72 Percent - of the Increasing Number
of Americans Over 85 Years Old. Because women live longer, on average, than men.
women make up 72 percent of all beneficiaries age 85 and above.6
Most Social Security Beneficiaries Are Women
Among Oldest Beneficiaries Women Are An Even Larger Share
Women As A Percentage of Social Security Beneficianes
90
80
70
60
50
40
62
65
70
75
80
85
90
95+
Age
Source: Social Security Administration.
For Many Elderly Women, Social Security Is Their Only Source of Income. For 25
percent of unmarried women (widowed, divorced, separated, never married), Social
Security is their only source of income. Social Security is the only source of income for
9 percent of married couples and 20 percent of unmarried men.⁷
Excluding Social Security Benefits, the Poverty Rate among Elderly Women Would
Be More Than 50 Percent. In 1997, the poverty rate among elderly women was 13.1
percent. Without Social Security benefits it would have been 52.2 percent. For elderly
widows the poverty rate was 18.0 percent; without Social Security benefits it would have
been 60.6 percent. (For elderly men the rate is 7.0 percent, without Social Security it
would be 40.7 percent.)⁸
Women and Retirement Security
7
Without Social Security, More than Half
of Elderly Women Would Be in Poverty
Poverty Rate (for 1997)
60.0%
52.2%
50.0%
40.0%
30.0%
20.0%
13.1%
10.0%
0.0%
With Social Security
Without Social Security
Source Social Security Administration
Why Women Face Greater Economic Challenges in Retirement
Women Live Longer than Men. A woman who is 65 years old today can expect to live
to 85, while a 65 year old man can expect to live to 81.9 This gap is expected to persist
into the future. Because women live longer, they depend on Social Security for more
years, and become increasingly dependent on Social Security with age. Unmarried women
between 65 and 74 years old get 43 percent of their income from Social Security, while
unmarried women 75 and older get 55 percent of their income from Social Security.
EXPECTED TOTAL LIFETIME FOR PERSONS AGE 65
Year Turning Age 65
Male
Female
1940
77.0
78.7
1998
81.2
84.8
2030
82.7
86.1
Women Have Lower Lifetime Earnings than Men. Women have lower lifetime
earnings than men do for three reasons:
Women Who Work Are More Likely to Work Part-time. In the third quarter
of 1998, 25.8 percent of female workers worked part-time, compared with 10.6
percent of male workers. Women represented 67.5% of all part-time workers. 10
Full-time Female Workers Earn Less than Full-time Male Workers. The
median earnings of full-time year-round women workers in 1997 was $24,973,
compared to $33,674 for men -- that means that the median woman earns 74
percent of the median man's earnings.¹¹
Women and Retirement Security
8
Women Take More Years Out of the Labor Force than Men Do. Women are
more likely to take time out of the labor force for child raising or other care giving
responsibilities. Of workers retiring in 1996, the median woman had worked 27
years over her lifetime, while the median man had worked 39 years. 12
Women Reach Retirement with Smaller Pensions and Other Assets than Men Do.
Only 30 percent of women aged 65 or older were receiving their own pensions in 1994
(either as a retired worker or a survivor). compared with 48 percent of men. Section IV
describes issues related to women and pensions in more detail.
How the Current Social Security System Helps Women Meet Retirement Challenges
The current Social Security system has a number of features that are particularly important to
women.
Social Security Provides an Inflation-Protected Benefit That Lasts as Long as You
Live. Although women receive lower average Social Security benefits than men do,
women tend to live longer than men and to receive benefits for more years. In addition,
because women live longer, they are in greater danger of outliving their other sources of
retirement income; but it is impossible to outlive one's Social Security benefit.
Furthermore, the cost of living protection in Social Security is more valuable the longer a
person lives; therefore, this feature of the program is particularly valuable to women.
The Progressive Benefit Formula Provides a Higher Replacement Rate for Workers
with Lower Earnings. Since women tend to have lower earnings than men, they receive
worker benefits that are a higher fraction of their lifetime earnings. For the median
female retiree, Social Security replaces 54 percent of average lifetime earnings, compared
with 41 percent for the median male. 13
Social Security Provides Extra Benefits to Spouses with Low Lifetime Earnings.
Women are more likely than men to take time out of the labor force for child rearing, and,
on average, have lower earnings when they work than men do. This means that the
Social Security benefit they are entitled to based on their own earnings history can be
small. But Social Security provides a spousal benefit that helps many women, even if
they did not work at all outside the home. A spouse receives a benefit equal to the larger
of the benefit she is entitled to based on her own earnings or one-half of the benefit
received by her husband. Currently, 63 percent of female Social Security beneficiaries
age 65 and over receive benefits based on their husband's earnings record. (Only 1.2
percent of male Social Security beneficiaries receive benefits based on their wife's
earnings record). The result is women receive more than they would based only on their
own earnings histories. While the average full benefit a women is entitled to based on her
own earnings record is only 62 percent of that of men, the average benefit received by
women is 75 percent of that of men.¹⁴
Women and Retirement Security
9
Social Security Provides Benefits for Widows. Social Security pays an elderly widow
a benefit equal to either the benefit she receives as a worker or the benefit of her deceased
spouse, whichever is higher. Nearly three quarters -- 74 percent -- of elderly widows
receive benefits based on the earnings of their deceased spouse.
Social Security Provides Benefits to Spouses with Young Children. Social Security
provides benefits to spouses of any age who care for children under 16 if the worker
(other spouse) is retired, becomes disabled. or dies: women represent 98 percent of
recipients receiving benefits as spouses with a child in their care.
Nearly One-Third of Social Security Beneficiaries Are Either Disabled or
Survivors (or Their Dependents). Nearly one-third of Social Security's 44
million beneficiaries are either disabled or survivors (or their dependents). This
includes 3.8 million children who receive benefits, with 1.9 million as survivors
of deceased parents, 1.4 million as children of disabled workers, and 0.4 million
as children of retired workers. Disability insurance (in case an individual
becomes disabled and can't work) and survivors' insurance are each separately
equivalent, for the average young family with two children, to an insurance policy
of about $300,000.
Social Security Is More Than A Retirement Program
Percentage of Social Security Beneficiaries By Program
Retirement Program
70.0%
Survivors Program
16.0%
Disability Program
14.0%
10
Women and Retirement Security
Will Social Security Continue to Be as Important for Women in the Future?
As younger cohorts of women reach retirement. more and more female beneficiaries will receive
benefits based upon their own earnings records. Nonetheless, the average benefit received by
women is expected to remain below that of men, and a significant share of women will continue
to receive benefits based on their spouse's earnings record.
Labor Force Participation Rates among Women Have Risen Dramatically. In the
future, women will reach retirement with much more substantial earnings histories than in
the past. (Male labor force participation has been falling due largely to earlier
retirement).
Labor Force Participation Rates
1950-2075
Labor Force Participation Rate
100
Men
80
60
Women
40
20
1955
1965
1975
1985
1995
2005
2015
2025
2035
2045
2055
2065
2075
Source: Social Security Administration Data are age adjusted.
More Women Will Receive Benefits Based Solely On Their Own Earnings History.
The percentage of women receiving benefits based solely on their own earnings history is
expected to rise from 37 percent today to 60 percent in 2060. However, this means that 40
percent of women will continue to receive benefits based on their husband's earnings.¹⁵
Average Benefits Based On Own Earnings Record Will Rise Relative to Men. The
average full monthly benefit for retired female workers based on their own earnings record,
which is currently 62 percent of the average for men, will rise to 67 percent in 2050. 16
Projections Indicate That Women Will Continue to Live Longer than Men. The
difference in life expectancy at age 65 between men and women will fall only slightly
under Social Security Administration projections from a gap of 3.6 years today to 3.4
years in 2030. Thus, in the future, women will continue to depend on Social Security for
more years than men will. 17
Women and Retirement Security
11
III. CHALLENGES FOR THE CURRENT SYSTEM
Poverty Rates Remain High Among Elderly Women
Poverty Rates Among the Elderly Have Fallen Dramatically, Due Largely to Social
Security. The poverty rate among Americans age 65 and over has fallen from 35.2
percent in 1959 to 15.2 percent in 1979 and 10.5 percent today. This compares with an
overall poverty rate of 13.3 percent.
Poverty Rates among Widowed, Divorced, and Never Married Women Remain
High. The poverty rate for all elderly women was 13.1 percent in 1997. compared to a
7.0 percent rate for all elderly men. For both divorced and widowed women, poverty
rates are significantly higher than men: the poverty rate is 22.2 percent for divorced
women and 15.0 percent for divorced men and the poverty rate is 18.0 percent for
widowed women and 11.4 percent for widowed men. Married couples had a poverty rate
of only 4.6 percent.
Poverty Rates Are High
Among Unmarried Elderly Women
1997
Poverty Rate
30.0%
25.0%
22.2%
20.0%
20.0%
18.0%
15.0%
13:1%
10.0%
4.6%
5.0%
0.0%
All Elderly Women
Divorced Women
Never Married Women
Married Women
Widowed Women
Source: Social Security Administration, Based on Data from the Census Bureau.
Widows Make Up A Large Fraction of Elderly Women. Of women 65 and over, 45
percent of women are widowed, 43 percent are married, 7 percent are divorced, and 5
percent are never married. This means that the high poverty rate among widows and
other unmarried women affects a large share of elderly women.
There Are Also a Substantial Number of Relatively Young Widows, Though the
Number Is Falling. Of 60-year old women, 13 percent are widows. This percentage
rises to more than one-quarter of women aged 65 to 67. Because husbands in low-income
families tend to die at younger ages than husbands in higher-income families, these early
widows are often poor.
Women and Retirement Security
12
Divorced Women Are a Growing Share of the Elderly Population. In 199-. 7.1
percent of elderly women were divorced -- this compares with only 2.2 percent in 1969.
Among women approaching retirement (55-64 years old), 14.4 percent were divorced in
1997. Since divorced women have higher poverty rates than other women. this trend
could lead to higher poverty rates for women in the future.
Poverty Rates Are Higher among Elderly Blacks and Hispanics. The poverty rate for
black women aged 65 or above is 28.9 percent. compared with 28.1 percent for Hispanic
women, and 11.7 percent for white women. The poverty rate for black men aged 65 or
above is 22.2 percent, compared with 23.6 percent for Hispanic men. and 6.0 percent for
white men.
Poverty Rates Are Particularly High
Among Elderly Minority Groups
1997
Poverty Rate
35.0%
Men
30.0%
Women
28.9%
28.1%
25.0%
23.6%
22.2%
20.0%
15.0%
11.7%
10.0%
6.0%
5.0%
0.0%
White
Black
Hispanic
Source: Bureau of the Census
13
Women and Retirement Security
Reasons Why Poverty Rates Are Higher Among Widows than Among Married Women¹⁸
Declines in Social Security Benefits at Widowhood. Widow benefits vary from 50 to
67 percent of benefits for a married couple. The official poverty thresholds imply that a
widow needs 79 percent of a couple's income to maintain her pre-widowhood
consumption level. Thus, women who are in couples just above the poverty line, can fall
below the line when they become widowed. Empirical studies suggest that this factor can
explain as much as half of the excess in poverty among widows.
Pre-Widowhood Differences in Economic Status. Poorer husbands typically do not
live as long as richer husbands. Therefore, at a given age, women who are widowed are
more likely to have been poor throughout their lives than are the women whose husbands
have not yet died. Empirical studies conclude that this fact explains around one third of
the difference in poverty rates between married women and widows.¹ 19
Declines in Pension Income at Widowhood. Research using data from the 1970s
implies that roughly 15 percent of the gap in poverty between widows and married
women can be explained by the loss of the husband's pension income. However, these
data predate the Retirement Equity Act of 1984 which was designed to encourage the
choice of a pension with survivorship rights.
Declines in Income from Other Assets at Widowhood. Some assets may be
bequeathed to people other than the widow or used for medical or other expenses when
the widow's spouse dies. Empirical evidence suggests that the decline in other asset
income is responsible for about 10 percent of the difference in poverty rates between
widowed and married women.
Issues Concerning Benefits for Spouses who Work in the Home and Benefits Based on Paid
Employment
Spousal Benefit Ensures Adequate Retirement Income. A woman is eligible to
receive a Social Security benefit that is 50 percent of her husband's benefit while her
husband is alive, and a benefit that is 100 percent of her husband's benefit after he dies.
These benefits reward women for work done in the home and ensure that all Americans
have an adequate retirement income, even those with little paid employment. However,
some people argue that spouse benefits are unfair because women with many years of
paid employment can end up with benefits that are no larger than stay-at-home moms,
and others point out that two families with identical total earnings can end up with
different Social Security benefits depending on the division of the earnings between the
two spouses.
Women and Retirement Security
14
IV. WOMEN AND PENSIONS
Social Security provides a key foundation for retirement security. Pensions and individual
savings provide important resources as well. For elderly married couples. these other sources of
income account for 64 percent of total income. For elderly unmarried females. these other
sources account for 49 percent of total income.
Among Current Retirees, Women Have Much Less Pension Coverage Than Men
Women Are Less Likely To Have A Pension. Only 30 percent of all women aged 65 or
older were receiving a pension in 1994 (either worker or survivor benefits). compared to
48 percent of men.²⁰
Lower Pension Coverage Among Private-Sector Workers. Only 31 percent of women
aged 65 or older (and 55 percent of men) who had worked in the private sector reported
pension benefits, compared to 66 percent (and 75 percent of men) of public sector
retirees.²¹
Pensions Received by Women Are Worth Less than Those Received by Men.
Among new private sector pension annuity recipients in 1993-94, the median annual
benefit for women was $4,800, or only half of the median benefit of $9,600 received by
men. The median pre-retirement wage replacement rate of annuity benefits was 20
percent for women, compared to 30 percent for men. Among lump sum pension
recipients in 1993-94 who were age 40 and over, the median lump sum distribution was
$5,000 for women and $14,475 for men.²²
Among Women Approaching Retirement, Pension Wealth Is Much Smaller. Single
women had average pension wealth that was 34 percent of the single men's average.
Among married people, the gender gap was even larger, with the women's average being
only 25 percent of men's. These estimates include both private and public sector workers
with and without pensions.²³
401(k) Plan Take-up Rates
Women Are Less Likely To Take Up 401(k) Option When Offered. Among private
wage and salary workers offered a 401(k) plan in 1993, the overall participation rate was
62 percent for women and 70 percent for men.²⁴
Lower Take Up Is Largely Explained By Lower Earnings. The take-up rate is highly
correlated with earnings. For example, while only 39 percent of workers earning less
than $15,000 per year participate in a 401(k) plan when offered, 90 percent of workers
earning $75,000 or more do so. Because men, on average, earn more than women, their
overall take-up rates in 401(k) plans are higher. However, when wages are held constant
the take-up rate for women is generally equal to or greater than that of men. Among
workers earning less than $15,000 in 1993 the take-up rate was 41 percent for women
compared to 35 percent for men. For workers earning from $30,000 to $40,000 the take-
up rate was 75 percent for women and 72 percent for men.²⁵
Women and Retirement Security
15
Among Workers, Women's Pension Coverage Depends on Work Status
Overall, Fewer Women Have Pensions Through Work. For all female workers -- both
full time and part time 27 million (40 percent) had a pension plan through work in
1997. For all male workers. 34 million (44 percent) had an employment based pension.
In Full-time Jobs, Women Are Equally Likely To Have Pension Coverage. Twenty
five years ago, pension coverage for women in full-time jobs was only 70 percent of the
rate for men. Today, the coverage rates are nearly identical. In 1997, 50 percent of
women in full-time jobs had pension coverage, compared with 49 percent of men.
Coverage Is Significantly Lower for Part-time Workers. Coverage is significantly
lower for women who work part time. In 1997, 15 percent of women working part time
were covered by pensions versus 50 percent working full time.
Women Are More Likely to Work Part-time or Be Out of the Labor Force than
Men. In 1997, 75 percent of men were in the labor force, versus 60 percent of women.
In addition, over one fourth of working women were part-time, compared with one tenth
of men.
Women Who Work Part time Are Less Likely To Work For Firms With Pension
Plans. In 1997, of the 48 million women workers employed full time, 30 million (63
percent) worked for a firm with a plan. Among the 20 million women employed part
time in 1997, only 7 million (36 percent) worked for a firm sponsoring a pension plan.
Women Who Work Part time Are Less Likely to Participate in Pension Plans.
Among women employed by firms sponsoring pension plans, those employed on a part-
time basis are far less likely to participate in the plan, primarily because plans often
exclude employees working less than 1,000 hours per year. Of the 30 million full-time
women workers in 1997 employed with firms with plans, 24 million (80 percent)
participated in the plan. Of the 7 million part-time women workers employed by firms
with plans, only 3 million (41 percent) participated in the plan.
Vesting Rate is Higher for Women Who Work Full time. For women participating in
a pension plan the vesting rate is higher for those who work full time, particularly for
those with less than five years of service. In 1993, 64 percent of women with less than
five years of service who were employed full time in private sector jobs reported that they
were vested, compared to 56 percent of women employed part time. A total of 325,000
women with less than five-years of pension service in a part-time job reported that they
were not vested.²
Women Have Smaller Non-Pension Wealth as Well.
Median Net Worth Is Lower for Women. In 1993, the median female householder
aged 65 or older had $9,560 in financial net worth (not including equity in own home).
In comparison, the median male householder had $12,927, and the median married
couple had $44,410.2⁸
Women and Retirement Security
16
V. CONCLUSION
As discussions of Social Security reform continue, it will be important to study the
impacts of comprehensive reform proposals on women. The design of reforms must take into
account, not only the current characteristics of elderly women. but also the changes in their
needs that are likely to come about in the 21st century as more women with long work
histories reach retirement. In addition. reforms should consider the entire range of sources of
retirement income available to women and how Social Security can best fit into the overall
retirement security package.
Women and Retirement Security
17
ENDNOTES
1.
Social Security Administration. Office of Policy, October 1998.
2.
Bureau of the Census. Poverty in the United States: 1997, September 1998.
3.
Social Security Administration, Office of Policy. October 1998.
4.
Social Security Administration, Office of Policy. October 1998.
5.
Social Security Administration, Office of Policy. October 1998.
6.
Social Security Administration, Office of the Chief Actuary, October 1998.
7.
Social Security Administration, Office of Policy, October 1998.
8.
These calculations make the assumption that other income would not change if Social Security
were not available.
9.
Social Security Administration, Office of the Chief Actuary.
10.
Bureau of Labor Statistics, Current Population Survey, October 1998.
11.
Social Security Administration, Office of Policy, October 1998.
12.
Social Security Administration, Office of the Chief Actuary, October 1998.
13.
Social Security Administration, Office of the Chief Actuary.
14.
The average benefit based on women's own earnings is the average for only those women claiming
benefits as retired workers. Thus, it does not include the 37.5 percent of aged female beneficiaries
who receive benefits as wives or widows only. Including these additional beneficiaries with full
"worker" benefits of zero in the average would reduce the average full benefit for women as a share
of the average full benefit for men to 39 percent.
15.
Social Security Administration, Office of the Actuary.
16.
The average benefit for retired female workers based on their own earnings records IS calculated
using only those women claiming benefits as retired workers. In the future, increased labor market
experience will be divided between increased years of work for women who already have been
receiving retired worker benefits, and additional women becoming eligible for worker benefits. As
more women claim benefits as retired workers, many of the additional women will have earnings
below the average for women already claiming as retired workers. This expansion of the population
used in calculating the average explains in part why the average is forecast to rise only from 62 to
67 percent of the average for men even as cohorts of women retire with much greater labor market
experience.
17.
Social Security Administration, Office of the Actuary.
Women and Retirement Security
18
18.
The subsequent estimates are based on integrating evidence from a number of studies. including the
following: Hurd. Michael D. (1990). "Research on the Elderly: Economic Status. Retirement. and
Consumption Savings," Journal of Economic Literature. XXVIII(2): 565-637. Holden. Karen
(forthcoming). "Insuring Against the Consequences of Widowhood in a Reformed Social Security
System," In National Academy of Social Insurance. Framing the Social Security Debate: Values.
Politics, and Economics, Brookings Institute. Holden. Karen C., Richard V. Burkhauser. and Daniel
A. Myers (1986). "Income Transitions at Older Stages of Life: The Dynamics of Poverty." The
Gerontologist, 26(3): 292-297.
19.
Holden. Karen (forthcoming). "Insuring Against the Consequences of Widowhood in a Reformed
Social Security System," In National Academy of Social Insurance, Framing the Social Security
Debate: Values, Politics, and Economics, Brookings Institution. Holden. Karen C.. Richard V.
Burkhauser, and Daniel A. Myers (1986). "Income Transitions at Older Stages of Life: The
Dynamics of Poverty," The Gerontologist, 26(3): 292-297.
20.
Department of Labor, Current Population Survey, September 1994.
21.
Department of Labor, Current Population Survey, September 1994.
22.
Department of Labor, Current Population Survey, September 1994.
23.
Gustman, Alan, Olivia Mitchell, Andrew Samwick, and Tom Steinmeier. Forthcoming. "Pension
and Social Security Wealth in the Health and Retirement Study." Wealth. Work, and Health:
Innovations in Measurement in the Social Sciences, editors, James P. Smith and Robert Willis. Ann
Arbor, Michigan: University of Michigan Press.
24.
Department of Labor, Current Population Survey, April 1993.
25.
Department of Labor, Current Population Survey, April 1993.
26.
Unless otherwise noted, data in this section are from the Department of Labor, Current Population
Survey, March 1998.
27.
Department of Labor, Current Population Survey, April 1993.
28.
Bureau of the Census, Asset Ownership of Households: 1993, August 1995.
Women and Retirement Security
19
18.
The subsequent estimates are based on integrating evidence from a number of studies. including the
following: Hurd, Michael D. (1990). "Research on the Elderly: Economic Status. Retirement. and
Consumption Savings," Journal of Economic Literature. XXVIII(2): 565-637. Holden. Karen
(forthcoming). "Insuring Against the Consequences of Widowhood in a Reformed Social Security
System," In National Academy of Social Insurance. Framing the Social Security Debate: Values.
Politics, and Economics, Brookings Institute. Holden. Karen C., Richard V. Burkhauser. and Daniel
A. Myers (1986). "Income Transitions at Older Stages of Life: The Dynamics of Poverty." The
Gerontologist, 26(3): 292-297.
19.
Holden. Karen (forthcoming). "Insuring Against the Consequences of Widowhood in a Reformed
Social Security System," In National Academy of Social Insurance. Framing the Social Security
Debate: Values, Politics. and Economics, Brookings Institution. Holden. Karen C., Richard V.
Burkhauser, and Daniel A. Myers (1986). "Income Transitions at Older Stages of Life: The
Dynamics of Poverty," The Gerontologist, 26(3): 292-297.
20.
Department of Labor, Current Population Survey, September 1994.
21.
Department of Labor, Current Population Survey, September 1994.
22.
Department of Labor, Current Population Survey, September 1994.
23.
Gustman, Alan, Olivia Mitchell, Andrew Samwick, and Tom Steinmeier. Forthcoming. "Pension
and Social Security Wealth in the Health and Retirement Study." Wealth. Work, and Health:
Innovations in Measurement in the Social Sciences, editors, James P. Smith and Robert Willis. Ann
Arbor, Michigan: University of Michigan Press.
24.
Department of Labor, Current Population Survey, April 1993.
25.
Department of Labor, Current Population Survey, April 1993.
26.
Unless otherwise noted, data in this section are from the Department of Labor, Current Population
Survey, March 1998.
27.
Department of Labor, Current Population Survey, April 1993.
28.
Bureau of the Census, Asset Ownership of Households: 1993, August 1995.
Women and Retirement Security
19
Clinton Presidential Records
Digital Records Marker
This is not a presidential record. This is used as an administrative
marker by the William J. Clinton Presidential Library Staff.
This marker identifies the place of a tabbed divider. Given our
digitization capabilities, we are sometimes unable to adequately
scan such dividers. The title from the original document is
indicated below.
15
Divider Title:
SOCIAL SECURITY AND MINORITIES
Social Security is particularly important for minorities. Social Security is the only
source of income for 33 percent of elderly Hispanic Americans, 33 percent of elderly
African Americans, and 16 percent of elderly white Americans.
Social Security combats poverty among elderly minorities. Without Social Security
benefits, 61 percent of elderly Hispanic Americans and 62 percent of elderly African
Americans would be in poverty (compared with 49 percent of elderly white Americans).
The survivors insurance program is particularly significant for African Americans
because they are more likely to die before the retirement age. African-Americans make
up approximately 12 percent of the American population, but 23 percent of surviving
children being paid by Social Security.
African American families are more likely to receive benefits from the disability
program. In 1995, 12 percent of the population was African American, however, 18
percent of disabled workers award benefits were African American.
RATES OF RETURN FOR AFRICAN AMERICANS:
Average incomes for African Americans are lower than for whites. Thus African-Americans
receive a higher than average rate of return on Social Security (because the benefit formula
is progressive). This is somewhat offset by lower life-expectancies: life expectancy at age 65
is two years less for blacks than for whites.
However, a 1993 Treasury study shows that on net, African Americans have a slightly
higher rate of return on Social Security than whites. African Americans also fare
relatively better under the DI program than whites.
RATES OF RETURN FOR HISPANICS:
Hispanic Americans do better on average than other Americans within Social Security.
Hispanic Americans, on average, have higher life expectancies and lower incomes than other
Americans -- both of which boost their rate of return on Social Security.
Clinton Presidential Records
Digital Records Marker
This is not a presidential record. This is used as an administrative
marker by the William J. Clinton Presidential Library Staff.
This marker identifies the place of a tabbed divider. Given our
digitization capabilities, we are sometimes unable to adequately
scan such dividers. The title from the original document is
indicated below.
16
Divider Title:
BACKGROUND ON RETIREMENT INCOME
AND PENSIONS
RETIREMENT INCOME:
The vast majority of Americans depend on Social Security for much of their retirement
income.
Social Security benefits represent the majority of income for two-thirds of elderly
beneficiaries, and are the only source of income for 18 percent of its elderly
beneficiaries.
However, Social Security is only one leg of the "three-legged stool" of retirement income.
Private pensions and personal savings are a necessary components of a secure retirement
income.
Currently, Social Security replaces just one-half of pre-retirement income for an
individual who earned $15,000 a year. It replaces less than one-quarter of the
income of an individual who earned $68,000 a year.
Social Security is virtually the only source of income for individuals in the lowest
two income quartiles of Americans. Individuals in the highest income quartile rely
on other sources of income (pensions, savings, wages) as much as on Social Security
income to meet their financial needs in retirement.
SOURCES OF INCOME FOR PERSONS AGES 65 AND OLDER
Source of Income
Percentage of Total Income
Social Security
40.3
Earnings
20.0
Private and government employee pensions
18.0
Income from Assets (including savings)
18.0
Other
3.7
Less than half of all individual aged 65 and older received a private pension in 1994.
PENSIONS:
Despite the large increase in workers covered by defined contribution (DC) plans, half
of all American workers are not covered by a pension plan
--
The number of defined contribution (DC) plans more than tripled, from 208,000 in
1975 to an estimated 647,000 in 1997, and the number of participants almost
quadrupled, from 12 million to 46 million. (The number of workers in defined
benefit plans has remained constant, while the number of DB plans have fallen in
part because many small businesses have discontinued their plans.)
--
Nonetheless, half of all American workers, more than 50 million, are not covered by
a pension plan.
--
Only 21 percent of private sector workers earning under $15,000 per year have
pension coverage, as opposed to 81 percent of workers earning $50,000 or more per
year.
--
Only 24 percent of full-time workers in firms with fewer than 100 employees have
pension coverage, as opposed to 68 percent of full-time workers in firms with 100 or
more employees.
Clinton Presidential Records
Digital Records Marker
This is not a presidential record. This is used as an administrative
marker by the William J. Clinton Presidential Library Staff.
This marker identifies the place of a tabbed divider. Given our
digitization capabilities, we are sometimes unable to adequately
scan such dividers. The title from the original document is
indicated below.
17
Divider Title:
INDIVIDUAL ACCOUNTS
FRAMEWORK FOR ANSWERS:
The President Has Said That He Will Examine Any Proposal in the Context of a
Comprehensive Reform to See if it is Consistent With His Five Principles. As part
of an overall plan, many ideas are on the table. Ultimately, what we must consider is
whether a comprehensive reform package meets his principles. That's why we don't
want to judge any specific element now.
At the Kansas City Forum, the President Said That He Will Consider Whether
Some Form of Individual Accounts Can Be Part of a Comprehensive Reform That
Meets His Principles. We especially need to consider whether a Social Security system
including Individual Accounts continues to provide a benefit that can be counted on and
whether the system continues to be fair and progressive.
At This Stage in the Debate, We Want to Stay Open Minded and Give Every Option
a Fair Hearing.
KEY ADDITIONAL POINTS:
Higher Returns Come with Higher Risk. Most people have been discussing ways to get
higher returns for the Social Security system. Individual accounts could allow a higher rate
of return than Social Security currently offers. And individual accounts could also allow
every American more control over their retirement assets and give every American a greater
stake in the economy. But we must be straight with the American people and acknowledge
that with greater returns comes greater risk.
Administrative Costs and Government Involvement in the Stock Market Are Major
Issues. It's clear that if these costs are not kept low, they could take a significant chunk of
potential returns. On the other hand, those who point out that trust fund equity investments
can be done with lower costs need to recognize that some people have concerns about
government involvement in the stock market.
Cannot Forget about Transition Costs. Everyone is going to have to be clear about how
benefits for people entitled to benefits under the existing system are going to be paid for.
BACKGROUND:
Advantages of Individual Accounts:
Higher Returns. Individual accounts could allow a higher rate of return than
Social Security currently offers. The "equity premium" -- the difference between
the average annual rate of return earned by the S&P 500 and the rate earned by
bonds -- has averaged 3.84 percent over the past four decades. Many economists
are concerned, though, whether this gap will persist into the future.
Greater Sense of Control. Individual accounts also could allow a greater sense of
control over your retirement income.
Disadvantages of Individual Accounts:
-
Risk Borne By Individual. Individual accounts would force individuals to bear
more of the risk for their retirement income.
-
Administrative Costs. Individual accounts would involve high administrative
costs, especially compared to investing the Trust Fund in the stock market or the
current Social Security system (administrative costs equal only 0.8% of
contributions per year). Administrative costs can have a large impact on
retirement income: for example, annual administrative costs of 100 basis points
would mean 21% less retirement income for a retiree. Peter Diamond has found
that in the United Kingdom total administrative costs in the typical retirement
account reduce retirement income by more than 24%.
-
Transition Costs Could Be Significant. Some forms of individual accounts involve
significant transition costs because moving from a pay-as-you-go system to some
forms of individual accounts could force one generation to pay twice (once for their
parents, and once for their individual accounts), or many generations to share those
costs.
BACKGROUND ON INDIVIDUAL ACCOUNTS
KEY ISSUES WITH ADD-ON INDIVIDUAL ACCOUNTS FUNDED BY
THE SURPLUS:
KEY ISSUE #1: LONG-RUN BUDGET VIABILITY
Add-on Individual Accounts cannot be funded out of the surplus forever. For example,
$500 per worker can be afforded -- as part of a comprehensive reform -- until between
2012 and 2057 depending on which surplus forecast is used (and assuming that
surpluses not spent on Individual Accounts after 2008 are used to pay off debt).
During the next decade, an add-on Individual Account with contributions of $500 per
worker would require 37 percent of the surplus. Over the next 35 years, the funding of
these Individual Accounts would represent 0.7 percent of GDP.
Two percent of payroll Individual Accounts can be funded between 2011 and 2051
depending on which surplus forecast is used. During the next decade, they require 42
percent of the surplus.
Because these Individual Accounts are dependent on projected surpluses, they create
the following future budget scenarios: (1) the perputual commitment to $500 per
worker per year will create future fiscal deficits and put pressure to unduly cut back
government programs in the outyears -- which may hurt support for this proposal
today; (2) may need to seek trigger or other mechanism to ensure that Individual
Account funds do not lead to future budget deficits; and (3) could put pressure to use
remaining surplus in early years for debt reduction.
Individual Accounts could also create a "slippery slope" toward privatization if stock
market performance was particularly impressive in the near future.
Contribution to Individual Account does not have to be $500 per worker per year.
Lowering the contribution -- to say, $250 -- would mitigate some of these factors.
KEY ISSUE #2: PRESERVATION OF TRADITIONAL SOCIAL SECURITY BENEFIT
Protects the 12.4 percent payroll tax for the traditional Social Security system This
approach to individual accountshas the most potential to attract defenders of the
traditional system.
Because the approach brings additional revenue into the system, It reduces the need for
overall benefit cuts when both the retirement income from individual accounts and
traditional benefit are taken into account and will appeal to people who favor pre-
funding of Social Security's obligations.
These Individual Accounts could be described as a tax cut.
Because the benefits from an Individual Account are uncertain, some will argue that
the income from the Individual Account should not be counted which would show
significant benefit cuts.
KEY ISSUE #3: RISK
Risks of stock market variation and bad investment choices would fall on individuals
on the portion of benefits coming from Individual Accounts. Additional "appearance
risk" results when people expect the final account value will match its highest level
over its lifetime.
However, the risk in Individual Accounts depends to a certain extent on how they are
designed. For example, a "safe investment option" could be provided through
inflation-protected Treasury bonds. A minimum benefit or other guarantee could
minimize the downside risk of the overall system.
One possible goal for reform would be to try to design a package in which the
traditional benefit plus the individual account totaled as much as current law benefits,
if the individual invested in the safe investment option. This would be the default
option; those workers who wanted to take on more risk to seek a higher return would
be allowed to do so.
KEY ISSUE #4: PROGESSIVI ITY
Flat contributions lead to higher benefit levels cas a fraction of current law benefits) for
lower-income workers. On the other hand. percent of pa: roll individual accounts plans
do the most for high-income workers.
Social Security benefit plus annuity
Social Security benefit plus annuity
from $500/worker individual account
from 2 percent individual account
(as percentage of current law benefit)
(as percentage of current law benefit)
Low Earner
116.1
101 5
Average Earner
104.0
106.9
High Earner
99.4
111.5
KEY ISSUES WITHCARVE-OUTINDIVIDUAL ACCOUNTS:
KEY ISSUE #1: THE TRANSITION PROBLEM
When two percent IS carved out for Individual Accounts. that revenue can no longer
pay for benefits for current retirees. This approach would take $700-$900 billion from
the traditional Social Security system over the next 10 years.
This dilemma -- the "transition problem" in moving from a pay-as-you-go system to
a funded system is that if the contributions of current workers go into Individual
Accounts for their retirements, how do we pay for the retirement of current retirees?
The unified budget surplus could be transferred to the trust fund and used to pay for
benefits under the traditional Social Security system during the transition period.
Under the most optimistic long-run budget projections, transfering the entire surplus to
the trust fund would cover the entire 2.19 percent shortfall plus half of the lost revenue
from the carve-out.
In 40 years, when workers will have contributed to Individual Accounts for their entire
working lives, traditional Social Security benefits can be reduced and still leave total
retirement income above current law benefits.
In the short run, though, benefits need to be cut to make up for the lost revenue and for
2.19 actuarial imbalance, but the Individual Account will not be large enough to offset
these cuts.
An important challenge in designing reform plans is to time the benefit cuts and the
build up of Individual Accounts so that the total benefits of retirees over the transition
do not fall too much.
KEY ISSUE #2: POLITICAL VIABILITY
A number of the reform plans proposed by moderate Members of Congress take the
approach of carve-out Individual Accounts.
Can be described as a promising new social compact: workers get a payroll tax cut so
long as they save it in their Individual Accounts.
Can use surplus to partially mitigate transition costs.
KEY Isst E #3:LONG-TERM STRUCTURE OF PROGRAM
For the average retiree in 2030. the income from an add-on Individual Accounts would
account for 18 percent of their retirement income. For a similar retiree, a carve-out
Individual Account would be 24 percent of their retirement income. These numbers
are even greater for beneficiaries eligible for Social Security in 2050: the add-on
Individual Account would be 29 percent and the carve-out would be 38 percent.
Individual Accounts could be accompanied by a guaranteed benefit or a guaranteed
return which would both reduce individual risk (but at a price).
Clinton Presidential Records
Digital Records Marker
This is not a presidential record. This is used as an administrative
marker by the William J. Clinton Presidential Library Staff.
This marker identifies the place of a tabbed divider. Given our
digitization capabilities, we are sometimes unable to adequately
scan such dividers. The title from the original document is
indicated below.
18
Divider Title:
NVESTING TRUS' FUND IN EQUI' 'IES
FRAMEWORK FOR ANSWERS:
We Know That Finding A Way To Raise The Rate of Return of Social Security Is A Key Issue
And Investing the Trust Fund in Equities Is One Proposal Advanced By Many Experts.
Those Who Favor this Option Say That it Is a Good Way to Get Higher Returns with Low
Administrative Costs. Proponents argue that by investing the trust fund in equities, Social
Security could receive the high stock market rate of return without the administrative expense of
setting up millions of individual accounts. In addition, investment risk would be pooled across
all Americans.
Others Are Concerned about the Government Owning Stock in Private Companies.
Opponents argue that at best this could lead to difficult corporate governance issues (such as how
stock proxies would be voted), and at worst, could lead to dangerous political interference
because of the temptation for the government to invest in certain industries, certain states, or not
to invest in politically unpopular companies.
KEY ADDITIONAL FACTS:
Experts Are Split on Investing in Equities. Experts such as Henry Aaron, Robert Ball, and
Robert Reischauer have advocated this approach. Alan Greenspan is opposed to this approach,
saying in Congressional testimony that he found it "very dangerous" and that it would have "very
far-reaching potential dangers for the free American economy and a free American society."
Administrative Costs Are an Important Issue for Social Security Reform. The current Social
Security system has low administrative costs, only 0.8 percent of benefits paid. There would
likely be additional administrative costs in a system that invested the trust fund, but not nearly as
much as in a system of individual accounts. However, some argue that an inexpensive individual
account system is possible -- modeled after the Federal Thrift Savings Plan (TSP) -- providing
lower administrative costs with fewer attractive services.
Even Ownership of a Small Fraction of the Market by the Trust Fund, Could Raise Issues
of the Government Owning Large Fractions of Individual Corporations. This approach
could potentially lead to the government as the "single largest shareholder in 200 of the 500
largest American companies."
Clinton Presidential Records
Digital Records Marker
This is not a presidential record. This is used as an administrative
marker by the William J. Clinton Presidential Library Staff.
This marker identifies the place of a tabbed divider. Given our
digitization capabilities, we are sometimes unable to adequately
scan such dividers. The title from the original document is
indicated below.
19
Divider Title:
BACKGROUND ON RISK
KEY POINT #1: THE CASE FOR EQUITIES
Stocks have out-performed bonds over nearly all long periods of time in the US during
the past century.
--
The "equity premium" is the difference between the average annual rate of
return earned by stocks and the rate earned by bonds. The table below shows
this difference in returns between the S&P 500 and the bonds held by the
Social Security trust fund for various time periods.
During the 20th century in the US, even large stock market declines have been more
than made up for in subsequent rebounds.
--
A portfolio of a worker who lived through the 1929 crash -- when the S&P 500
lost 85 percent of its value between September 1929 and June 1932 -- would
have fully recovered by the end of 1936.
Equity Premium
S&P 500 over Social Security Trust Fund Bonds
(percent per year)
End Year
1949
1959
1969
1979
1989
1996
1939
6.91
11.63
9.16
6.69
6.65
6.51
1949
16.56
10.30
6.61
6.58
6.42
1959
4.37
1.96
3.45
3.84
Start
Year
1969
-0.39
3.00
3.64
1979
6.50
6.09
1989
5.52
KEY POINT #2: CAUTIONS ABOUT EQUITIES
Markets fall. While 20th century US markets have always rebounded strongly from
large market declines, this need not be the case in the future.
On three occasions during the past 70 years, the S&P 500 index has declined over two
years by more than 35 percent (in nominal terms).
Japan's Nikkei index has fallen by 60 percent since 1989.
The S&P 500 (even including reinvested dividends) did not regain its 1968 value in
real terms until 1983.
Perceptions may be colored by recent stock market history. The tremendous recent
stock market performance has likely increased support for investing Social Security
funds in equities. If the stock market were performing badly, as it did in the 1970s, it
is unlikely that people would be as eager to invest Social Security funds in the market.
Indeed, in 1979, Business Week ran a cover story entitled "The Death of Equities."
Stocks may not retain their historic advantage relative to bonds. Simple economic
models have trouble explaining why the 20th century rate of return on stocks has been
so much higher than the return on bonds. Many economists think that the added risk
from stocks is not sufficient to justify such a large "equity premium." Given that it is
not well understood why stocks have out-performed bonds in the past, some
economists are concerned about whether this gap will persist into the future.
Shorter market exposure at beginning of new system. In the transition to a new
individual account system, older workers would participate in the system for only a
few years before they reached retirement. These workers would not have a full 40
years of market exposure. If a downturn occurred during their few years of
contributions, the older workers could end up doing worse than in safer investments.
Lack of individual or political patience after downturn. In a system of Individual
Accounts, individuals might shift out of equities after a market decline, missing the
recovery. If the trust fund were invested in equities, there might not be sufficient
political patience to stay with an equity-based system after a large market downturn. If
equity investments were abandoned after the first large downturn, such a system could
provide the worst of both systems, the low returns of bonds plus the risk of equities.
Perceptions of pre-retirement market declines. Individuals might feel that they had
fared poorly even if they had done better over their lifetime being invested in equities
than in government bonds. For example, if the market fell substantially just before a
worker retired and annuitized his/her account, he/she might feel that it was unfair that
workers who had retired one year earlier received higher retirement incomes.
Similarly, if a worker annuitized his/her account balance at a point when the stock
market is below a previous peak, the worker might feel like he/she lost even though
he/she did better over his/her lifetime.
Naïve investor risk. Some individuals might lack the investment know-how to make
wise investment decisions. This risk could be largely eliminated by constraining the
investment options available to individuals.
KEY POINT #3: RISK UNDER DIFFERENT REFORM PROPOSALS
Risk in the current Social Security system. The current system does not have market risk.
However, it has other forms of risk:
Political risk that tax or benefit rules will change. For example, Social Security taxes
and benefits have changed numerous times in the past 60 years.
Demographic risk that forecasts of mortality and fertility trends will turn out to be
incorrect. For example, if projected fertility rates dropped by 0.3 children per
woman, the actuarial imbalance would worsen by about 0.4 percent of payroll.
Economic risk that productivity growth will be higher or lower than
currently forecast. For example, if productivity growth fell by 0.5 percentage points,
the actuarial imbalance would worsen by about 0.55 percent of payroll.
In reforms, only a portion of benefits would be exposed to market risk. Even in 2070,
payroll tax revenue will be sufficient to provide two-thirds of current-law Social Security
benefits. If the full payroll tax continues to be dedicated to providing the traditional benefit,
then at most one-third of the total Social Security benefit would be at risk.
If only a limited portion of the trust fund -- for example, 25 percent -- were invested
in equities, less than 15 percent of benefits would be dependent on stock market
performance.
Individual accounts funded with contributions equal to $500 per capita or 2 percent of
payroll would typically provide less than 37 percent of total Social Security benefits
including IA account proceeds (assuming the accounts were invested half in bonds
and half in stocks). Thus, over 60 percent of benefits would be free of market risk.
By investing through the Social Security trust fund, some risks are reduced. With the
trust fund partially invested in equities, there would be no need to tie annual benefits to year
to year trust fund performance. Thus, market risk could be spread both across workers and
across generations. In addition, since individual workers would not be making investment
decisions, there would be no "naïve investor" risk.
KEY POINT #4: VARIATION IN RETIREMENT INCOME FROM MARKET EXPOSURE
Outcomes from market investments depend on when individual retires. Studies suggest
that individuals would have widely different outcomes from market investments solely
because of the market performance in the particular years in which they lived. For example,
average workers retiring in 1972 would have received a retirement annuity equal to more
than 60 percent of their current-law Social Security benefits. However, individuals retiring
two years later, in 1974, would have received an annuity that was only 20 percent of their
current law benefits.
In past century, Individual Accounts could have provided between 5 and 80 percent of
an average worker's current law Social Security benefits. If average workers had had a 2
percent Individual Account and retired a different times in the past century, their retirement
annuities would have varied greatly: from 5 percent to 80 percent of their current law Social
Security benefits.
In most years, Individual Accounts could have provided a large enough annuity to
ensure that current benefits were maintained. One constructive way to view this result is
that under the illustrative plans we discussed last week, the traditional Social Security
program would continue to provide an additional 66 to 85 percent of current-law benefits
(depending on whether the Individual Accounts were implemented as carve-outs or add-ons).
Thus, to maintain current benefits, the annuity from the Individual Account would have to be
at least 15 to 34 percent of current benefits, depending on whether it were an add-on or
carve-out Individual Account.
There are a number of limitations to this analysis. The chart assumes that the entire
individual account was invested in the S&P 500, and was annuitized at the Aaa corporate
bond rate in the year that the worker turned 65. If a portion of the accounts were invested in
bonds, or if annuitization happened in stages, the variation in experiences would be reduced.
Fraction of Social Security benefits replaced by 2% Individual Accounts
0.8
0.7
Fraction of Social Security
0.6
0.5
Benefits
0.4
0.3
0.2
0.1
0
1915
1917
1921
19.5
1929
1933
1937
1941
1945
1944
1953
1957
1961
1965
1969
1973
1977
1861
Retirement Year
KEY POINT #5: WEALTH CREATION
Supporters of Individual Accounts make strong arguments about how such accounts help to create
wealth and give lower-income workers a stake in the economy. Advocates base their argument on
four ideas:
1.
Access to Higher Rates of Return. Because nearly half of all Americans have little or no
financial assets, Individual Accounts would give lower-income workers access to the higher
rates of return offered by the stock market, and allow them to build wealth for their
retirement.
2.
Allows Individuals To Use Income However They Want. Many Individual Account
proposals would require retirees who have accumulated a large nest-egg to annuitize enough
of the account to provide a basic retirement income, while allowing the retiree to take the
remaining money in a lump-sum to be spent as they wish. In other words, retirees would
have to set aside a minimum amount of money, but the rest could be used for whatever they
desire.
3.
Individual Accounts Could Be Bequeathable. Some people die before they reach age 65,
and Individual Accounts could be bequeathable, thus making it possible for individuals who
do not pass along any wealth to their heirs to do so. However, if a portion of individual
accounts were bequeathable, the income available for consumption during retirement years
would be reduced.
Most reform proposal retain the existing structure for survivor benefits for young
people. However, cuts to the Social Security benefit formula -- as part of
comprehensive reform -- would reduce survivor benefits.
Permitting bequests is particularly appealing to low-income and minority populations
which have lower life-expectancy, and therefore, on average, would not receive their
Individual Account annuity for as many years. For example, life expectancy at age
65 is 1.8 years shorter for blacks than for whites. (In the traditional Social Security
system, the progressivity of benefit formulas offsets the shorter life expectancy.)
4.
May Change Perception of Saving. The experience of owning an Individual Account may
lead people who do not save currently to begin saving on their own. By directly showing
people the power of compound interest and the benefits of savings, we may alter people's
spending habits.
KEY POINT #6: TRANSITION COSTS AND MISLEADING RATES OF RETURN ARGUMENTS
THE CHARGE:
Some claim they could do better investing on their own. Many critics of Social
Security point to the rate of return that workers will earn in the future on their
contributions into the system, and argue that they could do better on their own investing
in individual accounts.
--
According to the Social Security actuaries, a single male with average earnings
retiring in 2030 will receive a real return of only about 1-1/2 percent per year.
--
By contrast, over the period 1926-1996, stocks earned a real rate of return equal
to about 7 percent per year.
By using the surplus to prefund retirement benefits and invest in equities, it is possible to
increase rates of return in the future.
THE TRANSITION ISSUE:
The story is different if we are talking about funding individual accounts with revenue
currently allocated to paying benefits under the current system. In this case, simply
calculating rates of return for the individual accounts ignores the need to provide
benefits for current and future retirees who have paid into the current Social Security
system.
Ninety percent of contributions into the Social Security system are used immediately to
pay benefits to today's retirees and other beneficiaries. If current workers put their
payroll tax contributions into individual accounts for their own retirement, we will need
to come up with some other way to pay retirement benefits for people who are entitled to
Social Security benefits.
Rates of return that ignore this cost are misleading when compared to Social Security
rates of return that include this cost.
Is THE RATE OF RETURN THE CORRECT WAY TO JUDGE SOCIAL SECURITY?
Some suggest that focusing too much on rate of return does not acknowledge that Social
Security plays a distinct role as a universal low risk leg in the retirement structure that
you can always count on.
REAL RATE OF RETURN TO SOCIAL SECURITY CONTRIBUTIONS
(Percent per year)
Year born/
year age 65
Single male earner
One-earner couple
Low
Avg.
High
Low
Avg.
High
earnings
earnings
earnings
earnings
earnings
earnings
1920/1985
4.4
2.8
2.5
8.1
6.6
6.3
1930/1995
3.1
1.9
1.5
6.1
5.0
4.7
1964/2029
2.4
1.3
0.7
4.7
3.7
3.1
2004/2069
1.5
0.8
0.2
4.0
3.0
2.4
KEY POINT #8: OPTIONAL INVESTMENTS IN INDIVIDUAL ACCOUNTS
Some reform proposals include a voluntary individual account option. These options are
of two types:
TYPE I:
Individual Account proposals that allow additional contributions
TYPE II:
Non-Individual account proposals that would allow for a Voluntary individual
account
ISSUES:
A main benefit of these proposals is that for the half of all American workers who do
not have pension plans this could be a major step toward increasing employment-related
retirement savings.
Some employers who currently resist the administrative burden of setting up retirement
programs might match employee contributions, thereby augmenting the impact of the
worker's savings.
However, it is possible that some employers who currently provide a pension to their
employees might cancel these plans knowing that their employees have this new
retirement savings option.
In addition, since most employees currently have the option of contributing to an IRA,
the new accounts might not be seen as providing much additional impetus for saving.
Indeed, the plans could be criticized for giving upper-income Americans another
opportunity for tax-preferred saving. This risk could be minimized by providing a cap
on total contributions to IRAs, 401ks, and the new Individual Accounts.
Clinton Presidential Records
Digital Records Marker
This is not a presidential record. This is used as an administrative
marker by the William J. Clinton Presidential Library Staff.
This marker identifies the place of a tabbed divider. Given our
digitization capabilities, we are sometimes unable to adequately
scan such dividers. The title from the original document is
indicated below.
20
Divider Title:
ADMINISTRATIVE COSTS
KEY POINT #1: INTERNATIONAL EVIDENCE ON ADMINISTRATIVE COSTS
IN INDIVIDUAL ACCOUNT PLANS
Administrative costs in Chile have been high. The accumulation of administrative
costs over a worker's career results in retirement income in the Chilean system that is
20 percent lower than it would be if there were no administrative costs.
In Chile, fund management companies appear to compete on factors other than
price. The funds are highly regulated in the types of allowable investments, and offer
very similar portfolios. Individuals are allowed to switch portfolios every 4 months.
This has caused fierce competition. The funds spend huge amounts on advertising,
have increased their sales forces, and offer incentives such as televisions or trips to lure
individuals to their particular fund. This non-price competition has driven up costs.
In Chile there are 3.5 salespeople per 1,000 contributors. In the United States,
there are 0.5 SSA employees per 1,000 insured workers.
Costs in the early years of the UK individual account system have been high as
well. In the UK, workers can opt out of the earnings-related defined benefit system,
and instead contribute to an individual retirement account. A recent paper by Professor
Peter Diamond reports that the charges for these individual accounts are large,
complicated, and often not visible to the workers. He calculates that the total
administrative costs in the typical UK account reduce retirement income by more than
24 percent.
The international evidence suggests that it is important to focus on ways to keep
costs down. The lesson from these two examples is not that individual account
systems are necessarily expensive, but rather that it is important to design systems in a
way that provides the desired services at a reasonable cost.
KEY POINT #2: ADMINISTRATIVE COSTS DEPEND ON SERVICES PROVIDED
Administrative costs can have a large impact on retirement income.
Annual Administrative Costs
Percentage Reduction in Value of
(basis points per year)
Individual's Retirement Income
10
2.4
50
11.5
100
21.5
Current US system has very low costs. The current Social Security system has
maintained an extremely low level of administrative costs. Less than 1 cent of every
dollar paid into the system by workers and employers goes to administrative costs. To
achieve this low an administrative cost, an individual account plan would have to have
annual administrative costs of less than 5 basis points.
Investing trust fund in equities would be extremely inexpensive. Estimates suggest
that costs could be only one-half of one basis point.
Under individual accounts, costs could vary widely depending on the services
provided and on the way in which the accounts are administered.
Estimated Administrative and
Investment-Management Costs for Individual Accounts
(bps = basis points)
Administering Body
Passive Mutual Fund
Active Mutual Fund
Government-Based (e.g., TSP)
8-16 bps
58-66 bps
Employer-Based (2,000 workers)
36-44 bps
109-117 bps
Employer-Based (25 workers)
76-86 bps
138-148 bps
Individual-Based (e.g., IRA)
81-91 bps
143-153 bps
Costs in the early years would be even higher. Account balances would be small at
the beginning, driving up cost ratios.
The costs of actively managed funds are significantly higher than are the costs of
index funds. A 1998 Department of Labor study found average expense ratios for
actively managed retail large equity funds of 147 basis points, while average expense
ratios for index funds were only 59 basis points.
Technological advances might reduce the costs substantially in the future. If fund
allocations could be handled by an automatic telephone procedure or over the Internet,
individuals could be permitted to reallocate their portfolios frequently at a relatively
low cost.
KEY POINT #3: THE TSP MODEL
The Federal Thrift Savings Plan has been a model for many individual account
proposals. Its costs are low -- roughly 10 basis points per year, excluding employer
costs of reporting individual earnings to the TSP.
--
Costs are low in part because TSP offers only 3 investment options -- a stock
index fund, a corporate bond fund, and a Treasury security fund -- and all three
funds are passively managed. In addition, the participating "employers"
(Federal departments and agencies) are large. Finally, the total pool of funds is
large, and TSP runs a competitive process in issuing contracts to private fund
managers to run the funds.
A national government-run system would face much larger challenges. The TSP
covers 2.6 million participants, all of whom work for one employer (the Federal
government). A universal personal account system would eventually involve 180
million individual participants, who work for 6.5 million different employers.
Last year over 55 million individuals called the SSA's 800 number. Many
additional calls would need to be handled if individual accounts were set up. In
recent testimony, Frank Cavanaugh, former Executive Director of the TSP,
estimated that a Social Security reform plan modeled after the TSP "would
require at least 10,000 highly trained Federal employees to man the telephone
and answer employee questions."
Corporate governance issues could arise in a TSP-style plan. Because the
government would be contracting with a small number of private-sector managers to
invest the aggregate holdings of the accounts, corporate governance issues could arise
that are similar to those that would arise if Social Security were invested in equities.
KEY POINT #4: How WOULD SERVICES BE PERCEIVED?
How would services be perceived? In a very inexpensive system, the services
provided would likely be perceived as inferior to those provided under workers' other
investment accounts such as 401ks and IRAs. For example, workers might have their
contributions deposited into their accounts only infrequently, be given limited
opportunity to reallocate their portfolios, and receive less frequent statements of
account balances.
Some analysts fear that people would be disappointed when they realize that
under some forms of a TSP approach, deposits would not be made to individual
accounts until October of the following year (the date at which SSA and IRS
essentially finish reconciling the previous year's earnings). In 401k plans,
contributions are made much more frequently.
Others feel that the individual account will seem like a new tax cut and that
people will be pleased to receive it. If a new policy is announced that every
year $500 or 2 percent of earnings will be deposited into your account 90 days
after you file your taxes, it will seem like a good deal.
Keeping costs low conflicts with features that give individual accounts their
popularity. Proponents of individual accounts hold up savings account booklets and
suggest that people could have frequent reports on account balances, wide investment
choices, and the ability to reallocate their portfolios whenever they want. These
features would raise costs.
Political pressure for added services could drive up costs. There might be political
pressure to introduce additional services, such as emergency loans against the
accounts. The additional services would drive up costs.
Clinton Presidential Records
Digital Records Marker
This is not a presidential record. This is used as an administrative
marker by the William J. Clinton Presidential Library Staff.
This marker identifies the place of a tabbed divider. Given our
digitization capabilities, we are sometimes unable to adequately
scan such dividers. The title from the original document is
indicated below.
21
Divider Title:
CORPORATE GOVERNANCE
KEY POINT #1: POTENTIAL PROBLEMS
Some experts have proposed that as much as 50 percent of the Social Security trust
fund be invested in equities. Under this scenario, the trust fund would be a very large
share of the U.S. stock market. In fact, it could rise to as high as 15-30 percent of total
equity holdings in 2030.
Even smaller fractions could raise issues such as "the government is the largest single
shareholder of 200 of the 500 largest companies."
Additional possible implications of investing the trust fund in equities include:
1.
Political pressure on investment decisions. Political considerations could
influence the manner in which the Trust Fund is invested.
2.
Corporate governance issues. The government will have to decide whether and
how to exercise its right as a shareholder to choose corporations' managers and
influence business decisions.
3.
Constraints on economic policy-making. Investing a large share of the Trust
Fund in equities could constrain economic policies that affect stock prices.
4.
Similar issues are present with individual accounts. Some of the issues listed
here could also arise under a system of individual accounts if the system were
centrally administered and investors were limited to a small number of
investment vehicles.
KEY POINT #2: POTENTIAL SOLUTIONS
A number of strategies have been suggested for limiting the risk of these adverse outcomes.
Several of these strategies are interrelated.
An independent investment board. Like the members of the Federal Reserve Board,
the members of a Social Security Investment Board could be appointed to long
overlapping terms, and could be subject to removal only "for cause." The Board could
be empowered to determine its own budget and submit it directly to the Congress.
Qualifications. Members of the board could be required to be from the private sector,
and have substantial expertise in the investment industry, pension industry, or similar
background. (Such qualifications are currently required of the TSP Board members.)
Nominees could be rated as "well qualified," "qualified," or "not qualified" by some
outside group in a procedure modeled on the rating of judicial candidates by the ABA.
Strict fiduciary duty. The Board could be charged with acting in the sole interests of
the beneficiaries of the Trust Fund, and no other interests, however meritorious.
Limited investment choices. The experience of the state pension funds suggests that
scope for non-economic investing is especially great when the available range of
investment vehicles is broad. For example, some state funds are authorized to invest in
local infrastructure, in-state equity funds, Ginnie Mae and Fannie Mae pools,
residential mortgages, and small-business loans. By contrast, the Thrift Investment
Board is authorized to invest in only five broad funds, and thus far has avoided any
difficulty with issues related to corporate governance.
Proxy voting strategies. Some have suggested that government-owned shares simply
not be voted, or be voted in proportion to the votes of non-governmental shareholders.
This approach would have the downside of effectively destroying one of the important
sources of value in share ownership, namely the power to vote, and facilitating the
ability of managers to be unresponsive to shareholders. In addition, minority
shareholders could be turned into majority shareholders. One alternative strategy for
dealing with this issue would be to require that the shares be voted by the private-
sector firms serving as portfolio managers; these firms would be under fiduciary
responsibility to act in the best interests of the beneficiaries of the plan. Another
options would be to limit the share of any one company that the government could
hold.
Culture of non-interference. Since Congress could pass a law altering any of the
safeguards, it will be important that a culture of non-interference develop around the
independent board, similar to the culture surrounding the Fed.
KEY POINT #3: THE NEW CANADIAN SYSTEM
The Canada Pension Plan (CPP) is expected to begin investing in private securities in early
1999. Draft investment regulations have been proposed, and final regulations are expected to
be issued later this summer.
Investment decisions will be taken by a 12-member Investment Board (yet to be
named). Each member of the Investment Board will serve a three-year term, can be
reappointed, and will receive pay similar to that in the private sector.
The members of the Investment Board will have a fiduciary responsibility to the fund;
specifically, the Board members are to "manage any amounts transferred to it
in the
best interests of the contributors and beneficiaries" of the CPP. They will be held to a
"prudent person" standard, and members with special knowledge or skill will have a
higher level of responsibility.
By law, the fund will be prohibited from investing more than 20 percent of CPP funds
in foreign markets (equities and bonds). However, there has been much speculation
that this limit will be raised or eliminated.
The draft regulations covering the first three years of operation call for all investment
in equities to be undertaken passively (that is, via one or more indexes).
The Investment Board will be prohibited from investing more than 10 percent of the
fund in any individual company, and from owning more than 30 percent of the voting
shares of any one firm. Some real estate holding would be permitted.
After three years, the investment regulations will be reviewed by the Finance Minister
and the provinces.
Clinton Presidential Records
Digital Records Marker
This is not a presidential record. This is used as an administrative
marker by the William J. Clinton Presidential Library Staff.
This marker identifies the place of a tabbed divider. Given our
digitization capabilities, we are sometimes unable to adequately
scan such dividers. The title from the original document is
indicated below.
22
Divider Title:
RAISING THE RETIREMENT AGE
FRAMEWORK FOR ANSWERS:
This Is Clearly a Major Issue That Needs to Be Discussed During this Year's
Debate. Increased Life Expectancy Combined With Early Retirement Are Primary
Causes of The Social Security Problem -- Here and Around The World.
Life Expectancy Is Rising. Not only is our senior population doubling in the next
30 years, but life expectancy among seniors is increasing dramatically. Sixty
years ago, life expectancy for those at age 65 was about 77 for men and 79 for
women. Today, it is 81 for men and 85 for women. And rising for both.
More Americans are retiring earlier. In 1962, only 18 percent of Americans
chose to receive their Social Security benefits at age 62. By 1996, that percentage
had more than tripled, to 60 percent. The reasons for the increase in early
retirement are diverse -- but it is occurring across the world. In nearly every other
industrialized country (especially Italy, Japan, Germany), the share of the
population that is over 65 is rising even faster than in the US and retirement
systems are being strained.
However, In Examining Any Proposal To Improve Social Security Solvency --
Including This One -- We Must Balance The Goal of Solvency With The Goal of
Fairness. Thus, We Must Look Closely At This Proposal's Impact on Americans
Who Have Physically Demanding Jobs.
Some Workers Can't Work Late Into Their 60s. For manufacturing workers who
have worked with their hands and kindergarten teachers who have stood on their
feet, working late into their 60's may not be a real possibility. Therefore, we must
balance the goals of solvency with fairness.
Between 20 and 25 Percent of Workers Feel They Must Retire Early. Today, 12
percent of the near elderly are already receiving disability benefits. And another
20-25 percent of those about to retire feel that they must retire because of health
reasons or the fact that they no longer can do their physically demanding jobs.
As Part of This Social Security Dialogue, We Need To Come Up With The Best
Possible Thinking To Balance The Solvency Concerns of Longer Lifespans With
Fairness Concerns With People Working In Different Types of Jobs. Because This
Issue Is So Important, I Hope We Will Discuss it at the White House Conference on
Social Security This December.
BACKGROUND ON THE RETIREMENT AGE
CURRENT LAW:
The Normal Retirement Age Is Currently 65. But people can retire as early as 62. with
reduced benefits.
1983 Reforms Gradually Raise the Normal Retirement Age to 66 for orkers Who
Reach Age 62 in 2005. Then the retirement age will remain at ()() until 2016. when It
will begin increasing gradually again until Il reaches 67 III 2022. The earliest eligibility
age will remain 62.
The normal retirement age for someone who IS 54 years old today is 60.
The normal retirement age for someone who is 37 years old today IS 67.
REFORM PROPOSALS WOULD:
1.
Phase in the retirement age increase from 66 to 67 more rapidly than is currently
scheduled,
2.
Raise the retirement age beyond 67, or
3.
Index the retirement age to life expectancies.
BACKGROUND ON RETIREMENT TRENDS
AMERIC ARE LIVING LONGER THAN IN THE PAST:
The challenges of financing the retirement of the baby boomers and of future generations of
retirees are largely the result of good news -- people are living longer.
LIFE EXPECTANCY AT AGE 65
Year turning age 65
Male
Female
Total
1940
12.0
13.7
12.9
1998
16.2
19.8
18.1
2030
17.7
21.1
19.4
Increased longevity and reduced fertility imply a falling ratio of workers to beneficiaries.
The ratio of workers to beneficiaries was 5.1 in 1960 and is 3.4 today. It is expected to
fall below 2 in 2035 and reach 1.8 by 2075.
Similar trends are occurring around the world. As the chart below shows, many countries
are aging much more rapidly than the U.S.
RATIO OF PEOPLE AGE 65 AND OLDER TO PEOPLE AGES 20 TO 64
(In percent)
1990
2010
2050
Japan
19.3
35.8
60.1
Germany
23.6
32.9
57.5
France
23.4
27.2
48.4
Italy
24.3
33.8
66.7
United Kingdom
26.7
28.6
45.8
Canada
18.6
22.9
46.5
United States
20.8
21.3
37.0
AMERICANS ARE RETIRING EARLIER THAN IN THE PAST:
In 1950. nearly half (46 percent) of men 65 and older were in the labor force. Today only 16
percent of men 65 and older are in the labor force. In 1950. 10 percent of women 65 and over
were in the labor force. while 8 percent participate today.
Over the past 3 decades. the percentage of Americans who receive Social Security retirement
benefits before age 65 has increased dramatically.
PERCENTAGE OF FIRST RECEIPT OF RETIREMENT BENEFITS BY AGE
Year/Age
62
63-64
65+
TOTAL
1962
18
19
63
100
1970
27.8
23.2
49.0
100
1980
40.5
22.2
37.3
100
1990
56.6
20.2
23.2
100
1996
60.1
18.3
21.6
100
EXPLANATIONS FOR WHY PEOPLE ARE RETIRING EARLIER THAN IN THE PAST:
Social Security has made it possible for more elderly to afford to retire. In particular, the
introduction of the early retirement age in 1961 (1956 for women) has enabled people to retire
before age 65.
Rising incomes have made it possible for some people to afford to retire even before they are
eligible for Social Security.
Private pension plans can create incentives to retire early.
Society's attitude toward the appropriate age of retirement may have changed.
THE HEALTH OF THE ELDERLY Is IMPROVING, BUT SOME PEOPLE WORK IN PHYSICALLY
DEMANDING JOBS:
In a recent survey, one-quarter of retirees said that poor health was the most important reason
why they retired.
The percentage of workers approaching retirement who work in physically demanding jobs has
been declining and is expected to decline further in coming decades. However, there remains a
segment of the population, particularly the lower paid and African Americans, who tend to
work in these physically démanding jobs.
Estimates of the percentage of workers approaching retirement who are in physically
demanding jobs range from 11 percent to over 30 percent depending on the definition used.
A recent academic study concluded job flexibility -- particularly the ability to shift to part time
work -- has a large impact.
BACKGROUND ON HEALTH AND
DISABILITY AMONG ELDERLY
KEY FACTS:
Reduced mortality from heart disease and stroke is responsible for most of the
increase in life expectancy for older Americans since 1940. As recently as the early
1970s, there were few effective treatments for severe cases of these illnesses; prevention
was the main cause of reduced mortality. Over the past 25 years, the treatment of heart
attacks and other severe forms of heart disease has improved. Sophisticated procedures
like angioplasty and bypass surgery have become commonplace, and many effective new
drug therapies have been introduced. In the future, gene therapies and a greater
understanding of the biochemical basis of heart disease are likely to prevent even more
cases of heart disease, reducing the need for invasive surgery and enabling people to live
longer healthier lives.
More than half of the elderly will develop cataracts, but cataracts are rarely debilitating
any more. Left untreated, cataracts can be very disabling - with reduced vision it is difficult
to work, read, and participate in many other activities of life. During the 1970s, surgical
treatments for cataracts were developed, but the procedures were long, unpleasant, costly, and
restored only fair eyesight. Over the past 15 years, cataract removal and lens replacement has
become a routine outpatient procedure, and has restored very good eyesight to millions of
older Americans.
IMPROVING HEALTH OF OLDER AMERICANS:
AMERICANS ARE LIVING LONGER THAN IN THE PAST:
Americans are one-third more likely [83% VS. 60%] to reach age 65 now than they were when
Social Security began, and they are more than three times as likely [35% vs. 10%] to reach age
85.
Life expectancy for 65-year old Americans has increased by about one month per year for
the past 60 years. A woman turning 65 in 1998 has a life expectancy of 20 more years; a
man can expect to live an additional 16 years.
THESE IMPROVEMENTS IN LIFE EXPECTANCY ARE LIKELY TO CONTINUE:
The increase in life expectancy of older Americans since 1940 can be traced mainly to
reduced mortality from heart disease and stroke. Both improvements in disease
prevention (especially before 1980) and improvements in medical treatments for heart
disease (especially since 1980) have accounted for the reduced mortality.
New innovations in the treatment of heart disease and stroke, and new knowledge about
preventing these diseases and their complications, suggest that reductions in
cardiovascular death rates will continue.
Mortality from other diseases may also decline in the future. Death rates from cancer
have increased slightly since 1940. However, cancer death rates have fallen for the last
several years. Many new innovations in cancer treatment, such as greater use of
mammograms to detect cancers early as well as genetically-engineered drugs that inhibit
the blood vessels supplying cancers, provide some promise that these declines will
continue.
Many experts believe that these trends will result in continued steady improvements in
survival to the "oldest old" ages of 85 and beyond, and continued increases in life
expectancy.
QUALITY OF LIFE IS IMPROVING ALONG WITH LENGTH OF LIFE FOR OLDER AMERICANS:
An increasing share of elderly Americans report themselves to be in good to excellent
health. As the Table below shows, Americans aged 75 and over now report their overall
health to be about as good did Americans aged 65-74 a decade earlier. In turn Americans
65-74 now report their health to be about as good as did Americans aged 55-64 a decade
earlier.
PERCENT RATING OWN HEALTH AS EXCELLENT,
VERY GOOD, OR.GOOD, BY AGE
55-64
65-74
75+
1984
74.6
67.8
64.1
1994 (most recent
79.7
74.4
68.7
year available)
Most studies have found that objective measures of the physical and cognitive health of
the elderly have also improved.
The additional years of life that older Americans are experiencing do not appear to be
years spent with serious morbidity from severe functional impairments. Some studies
find that serious morbidity has even been "compressed" into a shorter time period before
death, and that the likelihood and length of nursing-home stays has not increased.
DESPITE THESE SUBSTANTIAL IMPROVEMENTS IN HEALTH, THE HIGH RATES
OF CHRONIC ILLNESSES AND DISABILITY IN OLDER AMERICANS REMAIN
IMPORTANT CONSIDERATIONS FOR POLICIES AFFECTING RETIREMENT AND
SOCIAL SECURITY:
Around 1/5 of the elderly need help with at least one activity of daily living, and 1/20 live
in nursing homes. These rates increase substantially with age: half of those aged 85 and
over need assistance with at least one activity of daily living, and most nursing home
residents are in this age group.
The rates of many chronic illnesses in elderly Americans - including arthritis, hearing or
vision impairments, heart failure, diabetes, and many others - are at least twice as high
for the elderly as for the nonelderly.
The rates of most of these illnesses have not declined in proportion to the mortality
improvements, suggesting that many of the elderly are living more effectively despite
chronic health problems. For example: better joint replacement procedures have
improved the mobility of the elderly with arthritis; devices and procedures to improve
hearing and vision have substantially improved sensory capabilities; and better drug
treatment for the complications of heart failure has improved the physical capacity of the
elderly with heart failure.
Clinton Presidential Records
Digital Records Marker
This is not a presidential record. This is used as an administrative
marker by the William J. Clinton Presidential Library Staff.
This marker identifies the place of a tabbed divider. Given our
digitization capabilities, we are sometimes unable to adequately
scan such dividers. The title from the original document is
indicated below.
23
Divider Title:
RAIDING THE TRUST FUND
FRAMEWORK FOR ANSWERS:
Unified Balance is Traditional Measure Used to Evaluate Budget.
The unified balance is the same measure that has been used by all administrations going
back to the Johnson Administration. The unified budget is the simplest and clearest
measure of how much the government is taking in and how much the government is
spending and it allows us to look out into the future to see if the government will be
able to meet all of our obligations, including Social Security.
If A Dollar Comes Into Social Security, It Goes To Pay Current Benefits or If There Is
Extra In Any Year, It Is Invested in Treasury Bonds And Is Paid Back To Social Security
When The Money Is Needed. This Investment Is Backed By A Legal Commitment And
The Full Faith and Credit of the United States Government That It Will Be Repaid.
Every dollar received by Social Security is either used to pay current benefits or helps pay
future benefits by being invested in special-purpose Treasury bonds, which represent a legal
commitment now to finance Social Security later. Under the law, if Social Security requires
funds and the Trust Funds have assets in them, the Treasury must make the funds available.
The special-purpose bonds held by the Trust Funds have the same legal standing as regular
Treasury bonds, which are the benchmark of reliability in the world's capital markets.
Five Years Ago, When We Had $300 Billion Deficits, I Could Understand The Concern
That We May Have Been Unable To Repay Meet Our Commitment -- But With
Surpluses, That Concern Should Be Gone.
When President Clinton took office, the deficit was $290 billion and there were real
questions about whether the government would be able to meet its commitments in the
future. Because of the fiscal discipline of the past five years -- instead of the $357 billion
deficit in 1998 projected when we took office -- we will have a budget surplus for the first
time since 1969. And over the next 10 years, we are projecting $1.8 trillion of surpluses.
BACKGROUND:
According to OMB, the budget surplus will total $1.8 trillion over the next 10 years; CBO
projects the surplus to be $1.55 trillion.
In January 1993, the Congressional Budget Office projected the deficit to be $357 billion this
year. In fact, this past year we had a $70 billion surplus.
When President Clinton took office, the deficit was projected to be $579 billion in 2002.
Today, we are projecting a surplus of $148 billion. That means that our fiscal situation in 2002
will be $727 billion better than projected in January 1993.
In 2013, Social Security tax revenue will not meet Social Security expenditures. However,
Trust Fund continues to expand until 2021 because of interest revenue earned on existing
bonds. In 2021, the Trust Fund will gradually shrink as its bonds are redeemed. In 2032, the
Trust Fund will be exhausted.
Clinton Presidential Records
Digital Records Marker
This is not a presidential record. This is used as an administrative
marker by the William J. Clinton Presidential Library Staff.
This marker identifies the place of a tabbed divider. Given our
digitization capabilities, we are sometimes unable to adequately
scan such dividers. The title from the original document is
indicated below.
24
Divider Title:
TAXES
FRAMEWORK FOR ANSWER:
Should Not Have to Increase the Payroll Tax Rate as Part of a Comprehensive Plan.
As I said in the Kansas City forum, we should not have to increase the payroll tax rate as
part of a comprehensive plan. From looking at the proposals that have been put forth so
far, it seems clear that it is possible to design a comprehensive solution that does not
include an increase in the payroll tax rate.
Many Ideas Have Been Proposed -- We Must Give Every Idea a Fair Hearing. As
part of an overall plan, many ideas are on the table. Ultimately, though, what we must
consider is whether a comprehensive reform package meets the principles I set forth at
the last conference.
Bipartisan Process for Fair and Workable Solution. We are confident that through a
mutually agreeable bipartisan process, we can come up with a fair and workable solution
to strengthening Social Security for the future.
POTENTIAL QUESTION:
ARE YOU FOR RAISING THE MAXMIUM EARNINGS LIMIT OR EVEN
COMPLETELY ELIMINATING IT?
As I Have Said Before, Completely Eliminating the Maximum Earnings Limit May
Not Be Necessary as Part of Social Security Reform and Could Break the Link
Between What a Worker Puts into Social Security and What He or She Gets Out.
Currently, Social Security taxes are assessed on earnings up to $68,400. This
level increases every year with inflation.
However, I Do Not Want to Put On or Take Off the Table Any Proposal at This
Time.
At the Kansas City conference, you said that a modest increase in the cap is
among the options that should be debated this year.
BACKGROUND:
Some have argued for raising or even eliminating the cap. Currently, 6 percent of
workers earn above $68,400. Some proposals would gradually raise the cap by between
15 and 25 percent. For example, under Senator Moynihan's proposal, the taxable
maximum in 2003 would reach $97,500 instead of the $82,800 it is expected to reach
under current law. Others have proposed phasing in the increase more slowly -- for
example by 2015.
FOLLOW-UP QUESTION:
SPEAKER GINGRICH HAS PROPOSED REPEALING THE 1993 INCREASE IN THE
PERCENTAGE OF BENEFITS SUBJECT TO TAXATION. DO YOU SUPPORT THIS
PROPOSAL?
I Believe We Must Resist the Temptation To Say Something About A Social
Security Proposal Now That Would Help 10-15 Percent of Retirees And Goes
Against Our Efforts To Maintain Fiscal Discipline.
I Am Also Concerned That This Proposal Would Help 10-15 Percent of Social
Security Recipients While Moving The Insolvency Date of the Medicare Trust Fund
Closer For Everyone.
BACKGROUND:
The partial tax on Social Security benefits does not apply to seniors with income below
$25,000 if single or $32,000 if married. In 1997, only 25 percent of beneficiaries were
subject to taxes on their Social Security benefits.
For those with income above $25,000 if single and $32,000 if married, up to 50 percent
of benefits are taxable. The fund are credited to the Social Security Trust Funds.
For those with income above $34,000 if single and $44,000 if married, up to 85
percent of benefits are taxable. The additional revenue from this provision is
credited to the Medicare Trust Fund.
One common proposal would extend the tax on Social Security benefits to all persons
subject to Federal income tax by phasing out the current income thresholds. Even if the
thresholds were completed phased out, other provisions in the tax code (e.g., standard
deduction and exemptions) would ensure that 30 percent of beneficiaries (those at the
lowest income levels) would still not have to pay taxes on their benefits.
Other proposals would also tax Social Security benefits like other pensions. The proposal
would tax benefits -- on an individual-by-individual basis -- to the extent that benefits
exceed what workers had paid in. This treatment would mirror the tax treatment of other
defined-benefit pension plans.
Making both changes would reduce the long-run imbalance in the Social Security system
by 0.36 percent of payroll -- relative to the current gap of 2.19 percent.
Clinton Presidential Records
Digital Records Marker
This is not a presidential record. This is used as an administrative
marker by the William J. Clinton Presidential Library Staff.
This marker identifies the place of a tabbed divider. Given our
digitization capabilities, we are sometimes unable to adequately
scan such dividers. The title from the original document is
indicated below.
25
Divider Title:
MEANS TESTING
FRAMEWORK FOR ANSWERS:
The President Believes That Social Security Reform Must Be Fair for All Americans -
- But We Most Look At How Fair and Progressive Is A Comprehensive Plan, Not
Any One Provision.
For Example, The President Is Certainly Not In Favor Of Comprehensive Reforms
That Put An Undue Burden On Lower-Income Americans. The President believes that
the Social Security system must be progressive and fair to those who need it most. This is
one of the principles he announced at the Kansas City forum earlier this year.
The President Also Believes That Social Security Should Be A Universal Program.
This is also one of the five principles he put forth in Kansas City. Everyone pays in to the
system, and everyone benefits.
Additional Point to be used ONLY IF NECESSARY:
In 1983, President Reagan and Congress Addressed These Concerns -- and We Did the
Same Thing in 1993 for Very High Income Beneficiaries. In 1993, as part of our
economic plan, we did ask the top 13 percent of Social Security beneficiaries to include more
of their benefits in taxable income, while protecting the vast majority of beneficiaries from
any such increase.
BACKGROUND:
Currently, Social Security benefits are not means-tested. Some proposals would means test
the benefits by reducing them by a given amount for every $1 of income over some
threshold.
Subjecting benefits to income tax accomplishes many of the goals of means-testing benefits.
For those with income above $34,000 if single and $44,000 if married, our 1993 Economic
Plan made up to 85 percent of Social Security benefits taxable. The additional revenue from
taxing benefits at 85 percent rather than 50 percent is credited to the HI Trust Fund, not the
Social Security Trust Funds.
At various times, we have showed openness to means testing the premium subsidy for high-
income beneficiaries in the Medicare program. In Putting People First, we supported means
testing of Medicare -- raising Part B premiums for those earning more than $125,000. We
included a similar proposal in the 1994 Health Care plan and we showed openness in 1997
as long as the provision was administratively feasible and did not fully eliminate the
premium subsidy which would have given incentives for higher-income individuals to
withdrawal from the system.
Clinton Presidential Records
Digital Records Marker
This is not a presidential record. This is used as an administrative
marker by the William J. Clinton Presidential Library Staff.
This marker identifies the place of a tabbed divider. Given our
digitization capabilities, we are sometimes unable to adequately
scan such dividers. The title from the original document is
indicated below.
26
Divider Title:
COVERING STATE AND LOCAL WORKERS
FRAMEWORK FOR ANSWER:
Clearly An Idea That Is On The Table, But Pros and Cons Need to Be Weighed. This
proposal has been included in many reform plans. But before we reach any conclusions, we
need to study carefully the pros and cons.
Advantages of This Proposal Are:
Social Security Coverage Has Expanded Significantly. Since the Social Security Act of
1935, coverage has expanded from workers in business and industry to almost all Americans.
State and Local Government Workers Are Final Group Not Covered. Many people
have argued that state and local government employees are the final sizable group of
workers not universally covered (nonetheless, about 70 percent of state and local workers
receive benefits for various reasons). Being covered under Social Security would allow
state and local workers to move from one job to another without losing coverage. Proposals
are to cover newly hired state and local workers, not existing workers.
Disadvantages of This Proposal Are:
But Impact on Existing State and Local Programs Needs to Be Carefully Examined. I
know that the impact of the proposal would vary greatly across the nation, and that some
people are concerned about its effect on existing state and local retirement programs. So we
will need to look carefully at this and other proposals over the coming year, to figure out
which changes are best as part of a comprehensive Social Security reform.
BACKGROUND:
Since the Social Security Act of 1935, coverage has expanded from workers in business and
industry to include the self-employed, nonprofit groups, agricultural and household workers,
the Armed Services, Congress, and all other Federal employees hired after 1983. In 1998,
96 percent of all workers are covered under Social Security -- up from 55 percent in 1939.
State and local government employees are the final sizable group of workers not universally
covered by Social Security. If such workers are mandatorily covered under a state or local
public pension system, they are not mandatorily covered under Social Security. Roughly 25
percent of state and local workers are not covered under Social Security. Many of these
workers are in California, Ohio, New York, and Texas. In New Mexico, about 17 percent of
state and local government employees are not currently covered by Social Security.
Many proposals would expand mandatory Social Security coverage to state and local
government workers hired after a certain date. Such proposals would close roughly 0.2
percent of the current 2.19 percent gap. Moving newly hired workers out of the state and
local programs that would otherwise cover them could put financial pressure on some state
and local programs -- although a gradual phase-in could attenuate any such pressures.
Clinton Presidential Records
Digital Records Marker
This is not a presidential record. This is used as an administrative
marker by the William J. Clinton Presidential Library Staff.
This marker identifies the place of a tabbed divider. Given our
digitization capabilities, we are sometimes unable to adequately
scan such dividers. The title from the original document is
indicated below.
27
Divider Title:
REDUCING COST OF LIVING ADJUSTMENTS
FRAMEWORK FOR ANSWERS:
We Are Committed to The Most Technically Accurate Index. The issue of whether we
should change the COLAs in order to better reflect inflation is a legitimate one, but one that
needs to resolved by experts. The administration is strongly committed to using the most
technically accurate index.
COLAs Affect Millions of Americans. The COLAs affect 44 million Americans through the
Social Security program, and millions more through other programs (including the tax code).
Any change in the COLAs should be carefully considered to assure that the most vulnerable
elderly and lowest-income retirees are not put in jeopardy.
BLS is Making Improvements. The Bureau of Labor Statistics is continuing to make
improvements in the CPI, and many economists believe that they are making good progress.
Alan Greenspan recently testified that the "BLS has done such a good job recently I must say
-- they have done really an excellent job over the last couple of years." According to Janet
Yellen, recent and planned changes will reduce the CPI inflation rate by about 0.33 percentage
point per year more than was previously anticipated.
COLA for this Year Will Be 1.3 Percent. Recent COLAs have been relatively small because
inflation has been low. The COLA payable in the January 1999 benefit check will be 1.3
percent for OASDI benefits.
BACKGROUND:
The cost-of-living adjustment within Social Security is set each year on the basis of the increase
in the CPI-W over the year ending in the third quarter of the previous year.
In December 1996, the Boskin Commission concluded that the CPI was overstating increases
in the cost of living by 1.1 percentage points per year. Most of the President's economic
advisers believe that the CPI does overstate increases in the cost of living, but that the Boskin
figure was too high.
Since the Boskin Commission report was issued, the BLS has been working to address many of
the biases in the CPI. According to Janet Yellen, recent and planned changes would reduce
even the Boskin estimate by about 0.33 percentage point per year -- to about 0.8 percentage
point per year.
Reducing the COLA by 1 percentage point per year reduces lifetime benefits for the average
retiree by roughly 10 percent, and reduces the long-run actuarial imbalance in the Social
Security system by 1.4 percent of taxable payroll (out of current gap of 2.19 percent).
Clinton Presidential Records
Digital Records Marker
This is not a presidential record. This is used as an administrative
marker by the William J. Clinton Presidential Library Staff.
This marker identifies the place of a tabbed divider. Given our
digitization capabilities, we are sometimes unable to adequately
scan such dividers. The title from the original document is
indicated below.
28
Divider Title:
RATES OF RETURN
FRAMEWORK FOR ANSWERS:
Rates of Return on Social Security Are Positive, Even after Accounting for Inflation, for
Almost All Workers.
Although rates of return to Social Security are lower than they once were, they remain
positive, even after accounting for inflation, for almost all workers.
Rates of Return Could Be Raised Either Through Individual Accounts or Through
Investing Some of the Trust Funds in the Stock Market.
A key question in this year's national discussion is whether it will be possible to achieve
higher rates of return in the future using individual accounts or trust fund investments in
equities. Both approaches need to be explored carefully in the context of a
comprehensive plan, to see whether they meet the principles the President have put
forward. In particular, Social Security must remain a program that everyone can depend
on.
Must Not Forget about Transition Costs.
Sometimes people argue that if they could opt out of Social Security and invest on their
own they could do better than they do in Social Security. But this ignores the fact that
90 percent of today's payroll tax goes to pay benefits for current beneficiaries. If
current workers put their payroll tax contributions into individual accounts for their own
retirement, we will need to come up with some other way to pay retirement benefits for
people who are entitled to Social Security benefits. Rates of return that ignore this cost
are misleading when compared to Social Security rates of return that include this cost.
Social Security Is More than a Retirement Program.
It provides disability insurance and survivors' insurance -- each is equivalent for the
average young family of four to an insurance policy worth about $300,000 ($600,000 in
total). And it is low risk; its benefit is always there for you, no matter what happens to
stocks, interest rates, or inflation. But most importantly, it reflects our fundamental
values and a social compact.
REAL RATE OF RETURN TO SOCIAL SECURITY CONTRIBUTIONS
(Percent per year)
Year born/
year age 65
Single male earner
One-earner couple
Low
Avg.
High
Low
Avg.
High
earnings
earnings
earnings
earnings
earnings
earnings
1920/1985
4.4
2.8
2.5
8.1
6.6
6.3
1930/1995
3.1
1.9
1.5
6.1
5.0
4.7
1964/2029
2.4
1.3
0.7
4.7
3.7
3.1
2004/2069
1.5
0.8
0.2
4.0
3.0
2.4
Clinton Presidential Records
Digital Records Marker
This is not a presidential record. This is used as an administrative
marker by the William J. Clinton Presidential Library Staff.
This marker identifies the place of a tabbed divider. Given our
digitization capabilities, we are sometimes unable to adequately
scan such dividers. The title from the original document is
indicated below.
29
Divider Title:
ELIMINATE THE EARNINGS TEST
KEY POINTS:
This Is One of the Important Issues That Needs to Be Discussed Because There Are
Serious Arguments on Both Sides.
Some Say Social Security Benefits Should Go Only to People Who Are Retired. Some
believe that it makes sense to reduce Social Security benefits for people who continue working
because FDR's Committee on Economic Security recommended that no benefits be paid before
a person had "retired from gainful employment." Various forms of earnings limits have always
been part of the program.
Others Argue That This Is An Outdated Provision That Provokes Unnecessary Confusion
and Prevents People from Doing Part Time Work That Would Be Good for Them. While
retirees get back these lost benefits, on average, through the delayed retirement credit which
provides them with increased benefits once they stop working, many elderly workers perceive
the earnings test to be unfair and an impediment to work. They argue that removing the
earnings test would help people make the right choice about whether or not to work. In
addition, they say it would make the system more understandable and easier to administer.
In 1996, Working Closely with Members of Congress from Both Parties, I Signed
Legislation That Will Gradually Double the Earning Limit for People Between 65 and 70.
KEY FACTS:
Currently, Social Security recipients who are between the ages of 62 and 69 have their benefits
reduced if their earnings exceed a certain amount. Recipients under 65 lose $1 of benefits for
every $2 of earnings above $9,120. Recipients between 65 and 69 lose $1 of benefits for every
$3 of earnings above $14,500. (The benefits of recipients who are aged 70 or above are not
affected by the limit.)
In 1996, working with both Democrats and Republicans in Congress, you signed into law
annual increases in the earning limit for those between 65 and 70. Between 1998 and 2002, the
limit for workers in this age range will increase from $14,500 to $30,000.
Because benefits foregone are given back through the delayed retirement credit, eliminating the
earnings limit would have almost no effect on the long-run actuarial balance of the OASDI
program. Such a change would have significant short-run budget effects, however. Removing
the earnings limit for those aged 62 and above would raise Social Security expenditures by
roughly $12 billion in 2001 alone.
Clinton Presidential Records
Digital Records Marker
This is not a presidential record. This is used as an administrative
marker by the William J. Clinton Presidential Library Staff.
This marker identifies the place of a tabbed divider. Given our
digitization capabilities, we are sometimes unable to adequately
scan such dividers. The title from the original document is
indicated below.
30
Divider Title:
ESECURITY REFORM IN
The Chilean privatization has influenced Social Security debates across the world. The
Pinochet dictatorship established the current system in 1981. Benefits are based on either (a) a
general-revenue-financed minimum benefit, or (b) the proceeds of an individual account. To
cover the transition costs (paying workers for the benefits they had accrued entitlement to under
the old system), the government issued new debt, known as recognition bonds.
The minimum benefit is set at either 75 percent of the poverty rate or 25 percent of the
worker's average pay over 10 years, whichever is greater. The minimum benefit is paid
only if the individual account generates an annual benefit below the minimum. A
worker cannot collect from both tiers: if a retiree collects the minimum benefit, he or
she surrenders the proceeds from the individual account.
The individual account is financed by a mandatory employee contribution of 10 percent,
supplemented by additional voluntary contributions of up to 20 percent of wages.
Advocates of Social Security Privatization hail Chile as a success. Supporters attribute
Chile's 7 percent growth rates directly to social security privatization and they also credit the
new system with increasing national saving. Projected benefits are 40 to 50 percent above
those under the old system, and the funds realized real rates of return that averaged 10 percent
during the decade of the 1980s (Chile's stock market performance has been much weaker
recently). In addition, supporters argue that the new system has de-politicized the setting of
benefits, because benefits (other than the minimum) are tied to the performance of the
individual accounts.
There are reasons why the Chilean experience is not applicable to the U.S. Many
economists have argued that Chile's economy has improved because the economic reforms
accompanying privatization have enhanced the appeal of Chilean capital markets and improved
their efficiency. The U.S. already has well developed financial markets, and has little to gain
along these lines from reform. In addition, the low-level of benefits under the old system and
the relatively small fraction of the Chilean population that was old, meant that transition costs
in Chile were much smaller than they would be in the United States.
The big drawback of the Chilean system has been high administrative costs. The
accumulation of administrative costs over a worker's career results in retirement income in the
Chilean system that is 20 percent lower than it would be if there were no administrative costs.
In Chile, fund management companies appear to compete on factors other than price.
The funds are highly regulated in the types of allowable investments, and offer very
similar portfolios. Individuals are allowed to switch portfolios every 4 months. This
has caused fierce competition. The funds spend huge amounts on advertising, have
increased their sales forces, and offer incentives such as televisions or trips to lure
individuals to their particular fund. This non-price competition has driven up costs.
In Chile there are 3.5 salespeople per 1,000 contributors. In the United States, there are
0.5 SSA employees per 1,000 insured workers.
SOCIALSECURE REFORM INTHE UK
Reforms over the past decade have greatly reduced the UK's long term financing
problem. In the mid-1980s, Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher's Conservative government
introduced a series of reforms partially privatizing the existing state pension system. As a result
of these reforms, the British system does not face the same type of looming financing problem
that the U.S. and many other European nations are currently confronting. Although the number
of workers per beneficiary in the U.K. is expected to fall from its current level of just over 2 to
about 1.6 by 2030, the cost of promised benefits is actually expected to fall as a percentage of
GDP, from 4.2 percent currently to 3.3 percent in 2030.
The UK now has a two-tiered system. The first tier provides a basic flat-rate pension. The
second tier provides a benefit based on an individual's earnings history and workers can choose
whether to take the state provided benefit or to opt-out of the state system in favor of an
employer or individual pension.
-- The Basic State Retirement Pension. The first tier consists of the basic state
retirement pension (BSP), a flat-rate benefit that pays most beneficiaries approximately
$105 per week. The BSP is funded on a pay-as-you-go basis through a portion of the
payroll tax. The BSP provides about one-third of total income for retirees, and costs
roughly 4 percent of GDP.
-- The State Earnings-Related Pension Scheme. The most basic of the second tier
options available to workers is the State Earnings-Related Pension Scheme (SERPS).
At present, about one-fifth of British workers are enrolled in this program, which
provides a publicly-funded pay-as-you-go benefit based on earnings history. When it
was first introduced in 1975, SERPS was based on a worker's highest 20 years of
earnings, indexed to average earnings. Subsequent changes, however, have made the
program less generous. These changes, which were introduced in the mid-1980s, were
intended to reduce the state's financial obligation and to encourage participants to
switch to either employer- or individual-based privatized systems.
-- Contracted out options. Workers who opt out of SERPS have two other second tier
options available to them: an employer-based system and an individual-based system.
Those who choose either of these options (or "contract out") have a payroll tax rate that
is 4.6 percentage points lower than the contracted-in rate.
Employer-Based Pension. One option available to those who wish to contract out of
SERPS is to participate in an employer-sponsored pension plan (often referred to as an
"occupational pension"). About half of all workers choose this option. Occupational
pensions can be either defined-benefit or defined-contributions plans; at present DB
plans are more common. In order to qualify for the lower contracted-out tax rate,
occupational DB pensions must meet certain standards; most plans are more generous
than SERPS.
Personal Pension The other way to achieve contracted-out status is through a personal
pension, which is similar to an IRA. About 17 percent of workers are enrolled in
personal pensions. Workers enrolled in a personal pension must deposit the contracted-
out rebate of 4.6 percent into their account.
While the financing problem has been solved, their are serious concerns about the
adequacy of retirement benefits in the UK. The size of the basic state benefit is indexed to
inflation. Since real wages have been increasing, however, the benefit has fallen from about 20
percent of average earnings in 1977-78 to about 15 percent currently. By 2030, the ratio of
BSP to average earnings is expected to drop to 9 percent. This presents a particular problem for
low earners, since the BSP is likely to account for a large portion of their benefits once they
retire. Similarly, reductions in the generosity of SERPS has resulted in some workers having
low retirement income.
Administrative costs in the early years of the UK individual account system have been
high. A recent paper by Professor Peter Diamond reports that the charges for these individual
accounts are large, complicated, and often not visible to the workers. He calculates that the
total administrative costs in the typical UK account reduce retirement income by more than 24
percent. The lesson from the Chilean and UK two examples is not that individual account
systems are necessarily expensive, but rather that it is important to design systems in a way that
provides the desired services at a reasonable cost.
The mis-selling scandal shows that careful regulation of privatized systems is necessary.
Overly aggressive marketing techniques by providers of personal pensions in the UK have
misled a large number of workers into choices that were not in their own best interest. For
example, although occupational pensions turn out to be better investments than private pensions
in most instances, there are numerous and repeated examples of the banks and insurance
companies advising workers to drop out of more beneficial occupational pensions to purchase
personal pensions instead. In what has been dubbed the "Mis-selling Scandal," at least 600,000
cases of pension mis-selling have been identified, and the final total may be 2 million.
Regulators have already levied fines on insurers and financial advisors of more than $7 million,
and Scotland Yard is conducting a criminal investigation related to the scandal. In order to
fend off lawsuits, many insurers are voluntarily reimbursing investors for the losses they
suffered based on the bad information they received; one insurer has set aside $1 billion for this
purpose. When all is said and done, this scandal is expected to cost British insurers roughly
$18 billion.
SOCIAL SECURITY REFORM IN CANADA
Canada has recently decided to invest the assets of its Social Security system in private
securities beginning in early 1999. This will provide an important test of the feasibility and
desirability of a policy of trust fund investments in private securities.
Draft investment regulations have been proposed, and final regulations are expected to be
issued soon.
Investment decisions will be taken by a 12-member Investment Board (yet to be
named). Each member of the Investment Board will serve a three-year term, can be
reappointed, and will receive pay similar to that in the private sector.
The members of the Investment Board will have a fiduciary responsibility to the fund;
specifically, the Board members are to "manage any amounts transferred to it
in the
best interests of the contributors and beneficiaries" of the CPP. They will be held to a
"prudent person" standard, and members with special knowledge or skill will have a
higher level of responsibility.
By law, the fund will be prohibited from investing more than 20 percent of CPP funds
in foreign markets (equities and bonds). However, there has been much speculation
that this limit will be raised or eliminated.
The draft regulations covering the first three years of operation call for all investment
in equities to be undertaken passively (that is, via one or more indexes).
The Investment Board will be prohibited from investing more than 10 percent of the
fund in any individual company, and from owning more than 30 percent of the voting
shares of any one firm. Some real estate holding would be permitted.
After three years, the investment regulations will be reviewed by the Finance Minister
and the provinces.