Skip to content
CRR logo
Submit Search
Join E-mail List | Contact Us
  • Topics
  • Publications
  • Initiatives
  • Data
  • Sponsors
  • Opportunities
  • About Us
  • Search

Social Security in the Cross Hairs: Overestimating the Deficit  

January 19, 2016
Share
Mobile Share Email Facebook Bluesky Twitter LinkedIn

MarketWatch Blog by Alicia H. Munnell

Headshot of Alicia H. Munnell

Alicia H. Munnell is a columnist for MarketWatch and senior advisor of the Center for Retirement Research at Boston College.

New estimates make the problem sound insoluble.

My sense is that Social Security may be at risk after the November elections.  Critics are writing op-eds saying that benefits – relative to previous earnings – are very high, and the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) has come out with an astounding estimate of the 75-year deficit.  The stage is being set for benefit reductions.  Cutting benefits would be a huge mistake, given that half the private sector workforce does not participate in an employer-sponsored retirement plan and that those lucky enough to participate in a 401(k) have combined 401(k)/IRA balances of $111,000 as they approach retirement.  Therefore, it is very important to take a hard look at the emerging characterization of the Social Security program.  This blog focuses on the 75-year deficit.   

The 75-year deficit is the difference between the income rate and the cost rate.  The income rate is calculated by adding the current trust fund balance to the present discounted value of scheduled taxes and then dividing by the present discounted value of taxable payroll over the 75-year period.  The cost rate is the present discounted value of scheduled benefits divided by the same payroll number.  In 2015, the Social Security Trustees Report had an estimated deficit equal to 2.68 percent of taxable payroll. That figure means that if payroll taxes were raised immediately by 2.68 percentage points – 1.34 percentage points each for the employee and the employer – the government would be able to pay the current package of benefits for everyone who reaches retirement age at least through 2089.

Is 2.68 a reasonable number?  Every four years, Social Security establishes a Technical Panel to evaluate the Trustees’ projections.  I chaired the Technical Panel in 2015, and we concluded that the Trustees’ assumptions unequivocally were reasonable.  

That said, we offered our preferred alternative for a number of assumptions.  Specifically, the Technical Panel suggested: 1) more rapid mortality improvement, which means that people will live longer and receive more total Social Security benefits; lower fertility, which reduces the population at working ages relatively to the elderly population; and lower interest rates, which mean that revenues and benefits are discounted by a lower number.  These cost-increasing changes raised the 2.68 percent deficit in the 2015 Trustees Report to 3.42 percent.  (The net increase would have been lower if the Panel had quantified the impact of assumed greater labor force participation.)  

I think my liberal friends are disappointed that the Panel adopted assumptions that increased the 75-year deficit by such a large amount.  But I look at it this way.  The Panel pulled no punches, ignored the cost implications when making its recommendations, and the worst that it could do is to increase the long-run deficit by 0.7 percentage point.  

My experience with the Technical Panel makes it very difficult to understand the new CBO deficit estimate of 4.37 percent.  The CBO report cites three main reasons for the difference between the Trustees’ and CBO’s estimates (2.68 percent versus 4.37 percent): mortality improvement, disability incidence, and interest rates.  But the Technical Panel increased mortality improvement significantly and reduced the interest rate, as well as reducing the fertility rate and did not come close to the CBO number (see Table).  

Policymakers should view the reasonable range as between the Trustees and the 2015 Technical Panel (2.68 percent and 3.42 percent).  In other words, the Trustees’ assumptions are reasonable, and the Technical Panel’s recommendations are reasonable.  Only time will tell which of us comes closer.   

target ring and out of focus archer with a bow in the foreground during an archery competition
target ring and out of focus archer with a bow in the foreground during an archery competition
Downloads
PDF Version
Related Content

Read on MarketWatch

Topics
Social Security
Publication Type
MarketWatch Blog
Related Articles
Social Security card on money with a gold ribbon that says Social Security at 90

Social Security Is Loved by People Across the Political Spectrum

MarketWatch Blog by Alicia H. Munnell

May 20, 2025
Scissors and money icons on wooden cubes

President Trump Should Combine Extending Tax Cuts with Fixing Social Security

MarketWatch Blog by Alicia H. Munnell

February 21, 2025
United States capitol in Washington DC with a Social Security card and money

Here’s a Proposal to Fix Social Security that We Could Enact Today

MarketWatch Blog by Alicia H. Munnell

January 29, 2025

Support timely research that informs real-world solutions.

About us
Contact
Join e-mail list
Facebook Bluesky Twitter LinkedIn Instagram YouTube RSS

© 2025 Trustees of Boston College, Center for Retirement Research|Terms of Use|Privacy Policy|Accessibility

This website uses cookies to improve your experience. We also use IP addresses, domain information and other access statistics to administer the site and analyze usage trends. If you prefer to opt out, you can select Update settings. Read our Privacy Policy. Accept
Privacy & Cookies Policy

Privacy Overview

This website uses cookies to improve your experience while you navigate through the website. Out of these cookies, the cookies that are categorized as necessary are stored on your browser as they are essential for the working of basic functionalities of the website. We also use third-party cookies that help us analyze and understand how you use this website. These cookies will be stored in your browser only with your consent. You also have the option to opt-out of these cookies. But opting out of some of these cookies may have an effect on your browsing experience.
Necessary
Always Enabled
Necessary cookies are absolutely essential for the website to function properly. This category only includes cookies that ensures basic functionalities and security features of the website. These cookies do not store any personal information.
Non-necessary
Any cookies that may not be particularly necessary for the website to function and is used specifically to collect user personal data via analytics, ads, other embedded contents are termed as non-necessary cookies. It is mandatory to procure user consent prior to running these cookies on your website.
SAVE & ACCEPT