Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Christina Romer
Issue:
have outlays greater than revenues by 2019 and will be unable to pay benefits in full by 2049
(See Figure 1 above). This memo evaluates the impact of reducing Social Security benefits
2. An increase in the normal retirement age from 67 to 72 and in the early retirement
age to 70
Arguments For:
• The CBO estimates that by cutting PIA by 20% in the year 2012 will delay Social
Security revenues falling below outlays to 2028 and will prevent an exhaustion of the
fund.
Arguments Against:
• Although reducing benefits by 25% does make Social Security solvent in the short run,
Feldstein argues that the solvency problem is caused by both an increase in the number of
o Cutting benefits does not address the long term problem of increased longevity,
Impact:
• Those close to retirement will be impacted heavily as they will have little time to adjust
savings in response to this benefit cut, whereas those further from retirement will have
• Feldstein notes that individuals for whom Social Security payments make up more than
50% of after tax pre-retirement income are less inclined to save for old age.
more since Social Security payments will be a lower percentage of after tax pre-
retirement income.
An increase in the normal retirement age from 67 to 72 and in the early retirement age to
70:
Arguments For:
• Peterson and Howe point out that if Americans retired at age 72 they could expect to live in
• According to the Congressional Budget Office, eliminating the NRA hiatus to 67 and
continuing to increase the NRA by two months per year to age 70, so the NRA reaches
70 for beneficiaries turning 62 in 2029 would help delay the trust fund exhaustion to
2089.
o Increasing NRA to 72 and the early retirement age (ERA) to 70 by 2015 would
only delay the exhaustion of the fund further and may even prevent an exhaustion.
Arguments Against:
• Raising the NRA and ERA to 72 and 70 respectively only solves the issue of solvency in
o In order to keep Social Security solvent in the long run, you would need to not
only increase NRA and ERA but also index them to life expectancy since life
Impact:
• According to the Brookings Institute increasing both NRA and ERA would lead to an
increase in NRA and ERA but older workers closer to retirement will not have the same
• Low income workers tend to work more physically demanding jobs, as a result it may be
Arguments For:
• The government doesn’t invest Social Security revenues and therefore the revenues do
not grow with inflation but outlays do, this means that in order for revenues to match
outlays either inflation indexing has to decrease or revenues have to increase through
higher taxes and higher taxes would increase dead weight loss.
Arguments Against:
• Forcing individuals to invest in a program that is not indexed for inflation increases their
losses considering the individual could get better returns by saving themselves in a
Impact:
• Abolishing inflation indexing will lead to more people retiring early as the real value of
the money they have contributed to Social Security will decrease as long as inflation is
greater than 0.
• This proposal would also be particularly hard on lower income workers who are already
retired as the lack of inflation indexing would push them into the bottom rungs of the
economic distribution.
Works Cited
Gregory, David. "Why not raise retirement age?." NBC News 3 May 2005 Web.26 Apr 2009.
<http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/7725312/>.
Feldstein, Martin. "Rethinking Social Insurance." American Economic Review Vol. 95 No. 1
"Increasing the Eligibility Age for Social Security Pensions." Brookings Institute 15 July 1998
Peterson, Peter, and Neil Howe. On borrowed time: how the growth in entitlement spending
"Updated Long-Term Projections for Social Security." Aug 2008. Congressional Budget Office.
26 Apr 2009