Product details

By continuing to use our site you consent to the use of cookies as described in our privacy policy unless you have disabled them.
You can change your cookie settings at any time but parts of our site will not function correctly without them.
Management article
-
Reference no. SMR44213
Published by: MIT Sloan School of Management
Published in: "MIT Sloan Management Review", 2003
Length: 3 pages

Abstract

President Bush''s Commission to Strengthen Social Security (CSSS) confirmed what thoughtful analysts have known for years: Without substantial reforms, Social Security will not be able to pay the benefits promised to US citizens - at least not without a substantial increase in Social Security taxes, which, of course, would hinder the ability of US businesses and industries to compete. To close the growing funding gap created by the declining ratio of workers to retirees, the CSSS has proposed three solutions, each of which would enable participants to transfer a portion of their Social Security contributions to individual mutual fund accounts that invest in both stocks and bonds. While, over the long run, this would produce more revenue than the current practice of investing in government bonds, in our opinion, the high costs involved in this approach would substantially reduce future benefits and would not relieve the government of the enormous cost of transitioning from a pay- as-you-go system to a funded system. This would also put pressure on businesses, especially small businesses, to expend resources directing and managing relationships with financial institutions. Critically, the CSSS''s proposals would also abrogate Social Security''s most valuable feature - government-guaranteed retirement benefits (or ''defined benefits''). Contributions would still be government-mandated, but benefits would be uncertain - dictated by the market value of one''s portfolio at the time of retirement. We propose an alternative approach that would be a far more effective and fiscally prudent way to maintain current benefit levels and stable contribution rates.

About

Abstract

President Bush''s Commission to Strengthen Social Security (CSSS) confirmed what thoughtful analysts have known for years: Without substantial reforms, Social Security will not be able to pay the benefits promised to US citizens - at least not without a substantial increase in Social Security taxes, which, of course, would hinder the ability of US businesses and industries to compete. To close the growing funding gap created by the declining ratio of workers to retirees, the CSSS has proposed three solutions, each of which would enable participants to transfer a portion of their Social Security contributions to individual mutual fund accounts that invest in both stocks and bonds. While, over the long run, this would produce more revenue than the current practice of investing in government bonds, in our opinion, the high costs involved in this approach would substantially reduce future benefits and would not relieve the government of the enormous cost of transitioning from a pay- as-you-go system to a funded system. This would also put pressure on businesses, especially small businesses, to expend resources directing and managing relationships with financial institutions. Critically, the CSSS''s proposals would also abrogate Social Security''s most valuable feature - government-guaranteed retirement benefits (or ''defined benefits''). Contributions would still be government-mandated, but benefits would be uncertain - dictated by the market value of one''s portfolio at the time of retirement. We propose an alternative approach that would be a far more effective and fiscally prudent way to maintain current benefit levels and stable contribution rates.

Related