Showing posts with label Social Security. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Social Security. Show all posts

Sunday, June 27, 2010

The Way We Live Now - The Public Pension Crisis - NYTimes.com


Roger Lowenstein has written a number of insightful books and articles on Wall Street and finance over the years (I would suggest, for example, that his biography of Warren Buffett is probably the most useful on the market).

Lowenstein wrote a book a couple of years ago entitled While American Aged which described the pension problems that plagued General Motors, New York City, and San Diego. It's an interesting read, as it describes in detail the past pension deals that corporations and politicians made that were never properly financed. Now those obligations are coming due, and there isn't enough money to pay for the benefits.

Pensions - and Social Security - have gradually emerged to become one of the major financial problems facing the public sector. It's not enough to say, "Well, we just have to cut the benefits", because it's not legally possible. On the other hand, when you read stories of teachers and policemen being laid off for lack of funding, it is clear that something has to be done.

One of the big problems, by the way, is the unrealistic investment returns that pension plans have used to calculate their required contributions. For years annual return figures of 8% to 10% were assumed, despite the fact that the funds were not returning anywhere close to those figures. Even today, with bond yields at 3% and the past return of the S&P 500 essentially flat since 1998, pension returns assume that somehow private equity and hedge funds will produce enough magic to bail out the funds.

Here's an excerpt from Lowenstein's piece in the New York Times last week, with the full link below:

....Pension obligations are a form of off-balance-sheet debt. As funds approach exhaustion, states will be forced to borrow to replenish them. Some have already done so. Thus, pension obligations will be converted into explicit liabilities (think of a family’s obligation to pay for grandma’s retirement being added to its mortgage)... if the unfinanced portion of all public pension obligations were converted to debt, total state indebtedness would soar from $1 trillion to $4.3 trillion.

Such an explosion of debt would threaten desperate governments with bankruptcy. Alternately, states could try to defray pension costs from their operating budgets. Illinois, once its funds were depleted, would be forced to devote a third of its budget to retirees; Ohio, fully half. This would impoverish every social (and other) program; it would invert the basic mission of government, which is, after all, to serve constituents’ needs.




The Way We Live Now - The Public Pension Crisis - NYTimes.com

Friday, June 18, 2010

How Working Longer Builds Security



Interesting article via the Center for Research at Boston College

As the article notes, although most surveys indicate that people plan to work until they are 65 year old, the average retirement age has been steadily declining to 62 years old.

Social Security, by the way, makes it pretty attractive to hold off for a few years before taking benefits. I went to a seminar a couple of weeks ago put on by someone from Social Security. The presenter noted that if someone waits four years before starting to take benefits - from age 66 to age 70 - the increase in benefit payments works out to be 8% per annum - not a bad return!

The math is pretty compelling to work just a few years more, if your health permits. Here's an excerpt from the article:

First, let's consider the impact of working and saving longer on your retirement income. Consider the example of a woman who is working full-time with an annual, fixed salary of $75,000 and tax-deferred savings of $150,000. Let's say that instead of retiring at 62, she decides to stay on the job for three additional years until age 65 and that annual inflation runs at a 3 percent rate. Let's also assume she saves 15 percent of her salary, or $11,250, for each of those additional working years.

Down the road, those decisions will boost her annual retirement income from investments by about 14 percent per year. At the end of those additional working years, her annual retirement income, in today's dollars, would be 43 percent higher than it would have been had she retired at age 62. If she could sock away even more of her income--25 percent-- the total increase in her income from her investments alone would be 60 percent.

How Working Longer Builds Security

Wednesday, June 2, 2010

Collect Now, or Later? Timing Social Security Benefits - NYTimes.com


Good article from last summer's New York Times on Social Security. The fact that the Times's website still shows it as one of the most popular posts is an indication of how much interest there is in the subject.


Collect Now, or Later? Timing Social Security Benefits - NYTimes.com

Wednesday, February 10, 2010

NBC News Story on the Deficit

From NBC Nightly News, by way of the blog EconomistMom.com. Good visualization of our current problem:

Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

Monday, February 8, 2010

Changes in Society


There was an article in yesterday's New York Times about some of the demographic changes occurring on college campuses (article linked below).

On many college campuses women students significantly outnumber men. This imbalance - which was the opposite of prior generations - has created significant changes in the college social scene.

More serious, perhaps, is the chart shown here (courtesy of the blog Clusterstock). There are many reasons why men seem to have been hit harder than women by the recent rise in unemployment - that discussion is probably beyond the scope of this blog.

Sufficient to say, while it is not clear what the longer term impact of having nearly one of five "working age" American males unemployed, but it should be interesting, to say the least.

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/02/07/fashion/07campus.html?ref=fashion

Tuesday, January 19, 2010

Social Security/Medicare Conflict

From this morning's Wall Street Journal. Good illustration of how tricky this financial planning can be.

* JANUARY 14, 2010

Medicare Costs More—for Some



By KELLY GREENE and ANNE TERGESEN

Some Medicare beneficiaries are finding their 2010 premiums—which they thought would be frozen at 2009 levels—are actually jumping 15%.

The hike affects individuals who have heeded the advice of experts and waited to claim Social Security benefits until they reach full retirement age, as the federal government defines it.

The increase results from a little-noticed intersection between rules governing Medicare and Social Security, two of the country's largest entitlement programs.

Under the Social Security Act's "hold harmless" provision, Medicare can't pass along to Social Security recipients a premium hike that's higher than whatever they would receive through Social Security's annual cost-of-living adjustment, according to Mark Lassiter, a Social Security Administration spokesman in Washington, D.C

With no Social Security increase expected for 2010, Medicare can't charge beneficiaries who are also Social Security recipients any extra premium.

The Department of Health and Human Services sets the standard premium each year for Medicare Part B, which mainly helps pay for doctor visits and other outpatient treatment. Premium revenues are supposed to cover about 25% of the average cost of Medicare Part B services incurred by enrollees age 65 and older.

Of the 42.3 million Americans covered by Medicare Part B, some 73% also receive Social Security—meaning the remaining 27% of Medicare beneficiaries must make up the difference by paying higher premiums.

"The Part B premium increase is higher than it would otherwise be because the costs are spread across a smaller share of beneficiaries," according to a Kaiser Family Foundation report.

The affected beneficiaries include the 3% of Medicare Part B recipients who are celebrating their 65th birthday this year, along with the 2% who haven't started collecting Social Security yet mainly because they haven't reached their "full retirement age"—the age at which older adults can receive 100% of the Social Security benefit to which they are entitled. For people turning 65 in 2008 through 2019, full retirement age is 66.

Dave Weber, a 65-year-old part-time consultant from Scottsdale, Ariz., enrolled in Medicare last year but postponed Social Security in order to get a higher monthly check at some future point. Now, he feels he is being unfairly penalized for this decision.

While retirees collecting Social Security were spared, his Part B premium is rising to $110.50 a month from $96.40. "My annual income—from a small pension, investment income and some part-time consulting—is only enough to put me in the 28% federal tax bracket," Mr. Weber says. "It's not like I'm in a high income bracket."

Richard Braden, 66, was laid off in 2008 but delayed signing up for Social Security until his 66th birthday, in December 2009. "I was trying to do what was right for myself and my family and wait to get my full benefit," he says.

Mr. Braden wasn't on the Social Security rolls in November, as required to be covered by the "hold harmless" provision, and so he must pay the higher Part B monthly premium this year. "It really bothers me that I'm being penalized for waiting," says the Tomball, Texas, resident, whose family lives on savings and his wife's salary.

The inequity is expected to extend into 2011. With no Social Security cost-of-living adjustment anticipated for next year, Medicare has estimated that some Part B premiums could increase an additional 9% to at least $120.20 a month.

Assuming that Social Security payments increase in 2012, Part B premiums for everyone would reset at $111.50 (or more for higher-income enrollees).

Last year, HHS supported a bill that would have eliminated the higher premiums for Part B enrollees not covered under the "hold harmless" provision. The bill passed in the House but stalled in the Senate.

Such enrollees include both higher-income individuals who are subject to larger monthly premiums, and lower-income enrollees whose premiums are paid by Medicare and Medicaid, the state- and federal-funded health program for the poor.

Orlando Ortega, 74, was paying monthly Medicare Part B premiums of $250.50 a month for his wife and for himself (their modified adjusted gross income, including tax-exempt interest income, exceeds the $170,000 annual threshold after which married couples pay higher premiums).

With the additional increase, the Fullerton, Calif., couple will each see their monthly premium rise to $287.30 this year. "Those whose income exceeds the threshold are being penalized twice," says Mr. Ortega.

In the past, the "hold harmless" provision affected a much smaller portion of Social Security recipients because there was a cost-of-living adjustment. It was relatively low, and so the "hold harmless" provision applied to a smaller number of Medicare Part B enrollees, Mr. Lassiter says.

For example, someone getting $500 a month in Social Security in a year with a 1% cost-of-living adjustment—for an additional $5 a month—wouldn't have to pay more than $5 a month in additional Medicare Part B premiums if the cost were to increase.

This year "is the first time it has touched so many people," Mr. Lassiter says. As for those who are deferring their Social Security benefits, Mr. Lassiter says even though they are on the hook this year for an additional $169.20 in Medicare premium payments, they can still take comfort.

"They're increasing their benefits each year," he says. "I would imagine that trade-off is still advantageous to them."