In the recent debate over the so-called "fiscal cliff," President Obama was reportedly at one point offering to raise the eligibility age for Medicare from 65 to 67 and cut Social Security via "chained CPI.". However, in view of the coming retirement crisis due to the decline in defined benefit plans guaranteeing a specific retirement income, this is a terrible idea. Given that proposals to cut Social Security and Medicare will be repeatedly floated in the coming debt ceiling and related budget fights, we need to understand just how bad an idea this is.
First, let's look at what Social Security and Medicare have done to elderly poverty in the U.S. over time, using the standard poverty line as our measure. Daniel R. Meyer and Geoffrey L. Wallace of the University of Wisconsin have published data on official poverty rates for those over 65:
Official poverty rate for the elderly by year
1968 25.0%
1990 12.1%
2006 9.4%
1968, of course, is just three years after the enactment of Medicare and Medicaid. We can see that elder poverty was halved between 1968 and 1994, and dropped at a slower pace through 2006. In the bad old days, one in four of the elderly lived in poverty: why would we want to go back to that when we are a much richer society today than we were in 1968?
Moreover, before we pat ourselves on the back for how well we have done, we need to consider alternative measures of poverty and the experience of other industrialized democracies. As Arthur Delaney and Ryan Grim report, the Census Bureau has developed a "Supplemental Poverty Measure" (SPM) that includes items such as out-of-pocket medical expenses, which affect seniors more than those under 65. Thus, while the SPM was only slightly higher for all individuals in 2009 than the official poverty measure (15.7% vs. 14.5%), for seniors the increase was from 8.9% to 16.1%.
As Meyer and Wallace relate, when the poverty line was first defined in the United States in 1963, it was approximately equal to 50% of median household income. Today, according to Smeeding et al., it is approximately just 30% of median household income. Meanwhile, the European Union has gone in the opposite direction, defining poverty as 60% of median income. Researchers comparing poverty cross-nationally generally use a 50% of median income standard. How does the U.S. stack up?
Here are Smeeding et al.'s figures for poverty rates in 2000 for all over 65 (figures eyeballed from Figure 1; no table provided):
Country Poverty rate
United States 25%
Australia 23%
United Kingdom 18%
Italy 14%
Germany 10%
Sweden 8%
Canada 6%
I guess we can take solace in the fact that Ireland has a substantially (20 percentage points) higher elder poverty rate for households only comprised of the elderly, as Smeeding reports in a separate paper. Otherwise, the comparison is pretty grim.
Yet what do the Very Serious People, as Paul Krugman calls them, want? At the very least, they want to cut Social Security by changing how inflation is calculated, and they want to raise the Medicare eligibility age from 65 to 67. At some points, it appeared the President would go along.
This is lunacy. As David Rosnick and Dean Baker (via David Cay Johnston) show, cuts to Medicare, such as Paul Ryan's plan, shift far more costs to beneficiaries than what government saves through the cuts. In fact, while the Ryan cuts save the government $4.9 trillion over 75 years, the elderly will pick up $34 trillion in new costs. As Johnston puts it, for every dollar in saving for the government, there will be approximately $6 in net losses to the country as a whole.
Where are seniors supposed to find $34 trillion? Fewer and fewer people will have real pensions, 401(k) plans are vulnerable to market swings, and the Very Serious People want to cut Social Security. The simple answer is that seniors will be worse off than seniors today, yet 47% of the electorate voted for people who would have cut Medicare now.
It's time to take these cruel cuts off the table permanently. What we will need in the future is an augmentation of Social Security, not cuts. We've got to make sure politicians get this through their heads.
Cross-posted at Angry Bear.
Sunday, January 13, 2013
Friday, January 11, 2013
Poll Results: 1 in 4 Never Expects to be Able to Afford to Retire
Thanks to everyone who answered the poll on when you have or expect to be able to retire. The biggest takeaway is that 1 in 4 never expect to be able to retire.
Full results:
Retire before 65: 20%
At 65: 20%
At 70: 20%
At 75: 4%
Over 75: 8%
Never: 25%
(Total does not equal 100 due to rounding.)
This underscores just how dire our retirement crisis will be. As I explained in my last post, the decline in defined benefit pensions from 38% of private sector workers in 1980 to 20% in 2008 means that Generation X will be particularly vulnerable to poverty in retirement, yet Republicans want to kill Social Security and Medicare. We see their efforts as well to eliminate defined benefit pensions for public sector workers.
Baby boomers, especially younger ones, will not be exempt from the crisis. But Generation X and beyond will be the hardest hit. More on the retirement crisis soon.
Full results:
Retire before 65: 20%
At 65: 20%
At 70: 20%
At 75: 4%
Over 75: 8%
Never: 25%
(Total does not equal 100 due to rounding.)
This underscores just how dire our retirement crisis will be. As I explained in my last post, the decline in defined benefit pensions from 38% of private sector workers in 1980 to 20% in 2008 means that Generation X will be particularly vulnerable to poverty in retirement, yet Republicans want to kill Social Security and Medicare. We see their efforts as well to eliminate defined benefit pensions for public sector workers.
Baby boomers, especially younger ones, will not be exempt from the crisis. But Generation X and beyond will be the hardest hit. More on the retirement crisis soon.
Thursday, January 3, 2013
The "Fiscal Cliff" and the Coming Retirement Crisis of the Middle Class
On January 1, Congress approved a tax and spending bill to avert the so-called "fiscal cliff" combination of tax hikes and spending cuts that would have created deflationary pressure on the United States (though Yglesias questioned the conventional wisdom of whether it would necessarily cause a recession). Let's take a look at the deal in some detail, then proceed to the gruesome details of what will happen around the Ides of March.
From Think Progress, here are some of the more critical parts of the deal.
1) The Bush tax cuts expire on only about 0.7% of households, those earning more than $400,000 per year as an individual or $450,000 for a couple. This brings in $600 billion over 10 years. Since rich people don't spend as much of their income as the poor and middle class do, this is less deflationary than a tax increase on the middle class, as I discussed in November.
2) With the expiration of the temporary 2% payroll tax cut, 77% of households will see their taxes go up. Indeed, every single income group will, on average, see their taxes increase, as shown below (via Matt Yglesias):
Since this hits the middle class more directly, the deflationary consequences are larger than they would be for an increase in taxes on the rich. On the other hand, this strengthens the long-run funding of Social Security, an issue I will return to shortly.
3) Unemployment insurance is extended for two million workers. This will get spent and have a definitive stimulative effect on the economy.
However, the second shoe of the fiscal cliff, the automatic cutbacks known as the "sequester" was simply postponed for two months, which is the same time that the Treasury Department will run out of creative ways to keep the country from exceeding the debt ceiling, which it hit on December 31.
Combining these two negotiations, the debt ceiling and the sequester, will be an extremely high-stakes battle where the middle class has a lot to lose. The big problem here is that some Tea Party Republicans really do want to use the debt ceiling to take the economy hostage and force cutbacks in Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid. Despite the fact that Republicans lost the Presidency as well as both Senate and House seats (with a majority of the votes cast for the House going to Democrats), they see their gerrymandered House majority as giving them license to wreak havoc.
The consensus among most commentators (Krugman, Klein, and Yglesias, for example) is that the fiscal cliff deal will work out okay as long as the President does not cave in to the Republicans' threats over the debt ceiling. I agree as far as that goes. But, as Yglesias points out, there is nothing great about what Klein says is the most likely scenario, where the President gets $1 trillion in new tax revenue for $1 trillion in cuts over 10 years. That is still $2 trillion in austerity measures at a time when unemployment is barely below 8%!
The looming problem rarely mentioned, even in the context of the Republican campaign against Social Security, is that my children's generation (Generation X, if you will) faces a retirement crisis that many of my generation will avoid, based on the end of pension plans. According to one Social Security Administration report, the percentage of private-sector workers with a traditional defined-benefit pension plan fell from 38% in 1980 to 20% in 2008. Over the same period, private-sector workers who only received defined contribution plans rose from 8% to 31%. Note that this means that 49% of private-sector workers are not covered by any pension plan at all. Moreover, while governments have more commonly provided defined-benefit plans than private employers have, they are under attack in many states.
Let's do the math. With 49% of private workers having no pension, and another 31% having an on-average less generous defined contribution pension, how will seniors support themselves if Social Security is cut? Hint: It won't be pretty.
Get ready for a bumpy March.
Cross-posted at Angry Bear.
From Think Progress, here are some of the more critical parts of the deal.
1) The Bush tax cuts expire on only about 0.7% of households, those earning more than $400,000 per year as an individual or $450,000 for a couple. This brings in $600 billion over 10 years. Since rich people don't spend as much of their income as the poor and middle class do, this is less deflationary than a tax increase on the middle class, as I discussed in November.
2) With the expiration of the temporary 2% payroll tax cut, 77% of households will see their taxes go up. Indeed, every single income group will, on average, see their taxes increase, as shown below (via Matt Yglesias):
Since this hits the middle class more directly, the deflationary consequences are larger than they would be for an increase in taxes on the rich. On the other hand, this strengthens the long-run funding of Social Security, an issue I will return to shortly.
3) Unemployment insurance is extended for two million workers. This will get spent and have a definitive stimulative effect on the economy.
However, the second shoe of the fiscal cliff, the automatic cutbacks known as the "sequester" was simply postponed for two months, which is the same time that the Treasury Department will run out of creative ways to keep the country from exceeding the debt ceiling, which it hit on December 31.
Combining these two negotiations, the debt ceiling and the sequester, will be an extremely high-stakes battle where the middle class has a lot to lose. The big problem here is that some Tea Party Republicans really do want to use the debt ceiling to take the economy hostage and force cutbacks in Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid. Despite the fact that Republicans lost the Presidency as well as both Senate and House seats (with a majority of the votes cast for the House going to Democrats), they see their gerrymandered House majority as giving them license to wreak havoc.
The consensus among most commentators (Krugman, Klein, and Yglesias, for example) is that the fiscal cliff deal will work out okay as long as the President does not cave in to the Republicans' threats over the debt ceiling. I agree as far as that goes. But, as Yglesias points out, there is nothing great about what Klein says is the most likely scenario, where the President gets $1 trillion in new tax revenue for $1 trillion in cuts over 10 years. That is still $2 trillion in austerity measures at a time when unemployment is barely below 8%!
The looming problem rarely mentioned, even in the context of the Republican campaign against Social Security, is that my children's generation (Generation X, if you will) faces a retirement crisis that many of my generation will avoid, based on the end of pension plans. According to one Social Security Administration report, the percentage of private-sector workers with a traditional defined-benefit pension plan fell from 38% in 1980 to 20% in 2008. Over the same period, private-sector workers who only received defined contribution plans rose from 8% to 31%. Note that this means that 49% of private-sector workers are not covered by any pension plan at all. Moreover, while governments have more commonly provided defined-benefit plans than private employers have, they are under attack in many states.
Let's do the math. With 49% of private workers having no pension, and another 31% having an on-average less generous defined contribution pension, how will seniors support themselves if Social Security is cut? Hint: It won't be pretty.
Get ready for a bumpy March.
Cross-posted at Angry Bear.
Friday, December 28, 2012
Surprise! Facebook Avoids its European Taxes
If you are as cynical as I am, I know you are not surprised that Facebook paid Irish taxes (via Tax Justice Network) of about $4.64 million on its entire non-US profits of $1.344 billion for 2011.* This 0.3% tax rate is a bit below the normal, already low, Irish corporate income tax of 12.5%.
As with Apple, Facebook funnels its foreign profits into its Irish subsidiary. As the Guardian article explains:
As you've no doubt figured out, it's that "Double Irish" ploy again. Facebook operates a second subsidiary that is incorporated in Ireland but controlled in the Cayman Islands. This subsidiary owns Facebook Ireland, but the setup allows the two companies to be considered as one for U.S. tax purposes, but separate for Irish tax purposes. The Caymans-operated subsidiary owns the rights to use Facebook's intellectual property outside the U.S., for which Facebook Ireland pays hefty royalties to use. This lets Facebook Ireland transfer the profits from low-tax Ireland to no-tax Cayman Islands. For more on the arcane mechanics, see Joseph Darby's article "International Tax Planning," downloadable at Wikipedia.
This makes no sense of course, but is, in David Cay Johnston's inimitable phrase, Perfectly Legal. But it shouldn't be. And in the UK, Chancellor of the Exchequer George Osborne has announced
* Dollar figures converted from pound sterling figures in the Guardian at an exchange rate of $1.60 per pound.
As with Apple, Facebook funnels its foreign profits into its Irish subsidiary. As the Guardian article explains:
Facebook is structured so that companies buying advertisements on the website in the UK, or anywhere outside of the US, have to pay Facebook Ireland.As a result, Facebook manages to slash its taxes in other countries, paying, for example, $380,800 in British tax on estimated 2011 UK profits of $280 million, or a little over 0.1%. What is shocking is that Facebook paid so much Irish tax since it managed to convert its $1.3 billion gross profit into a net loss of $24 million.
As you've no doubt figured out, it's that "Double Irish" ploy again. Facebook operates a second subsidiary that is incorporated in Ireland but controlled in the Cayman Islands. This subsidiary owns Facebook Ireland, but the setup allows the two companies to be considered as one for U.S. tax purposes, but separate for Irish tax purposes. The Caymans-operated subsidiary owns the rights to use Facebook's intellectual property outside the U.S., for which Facebook Ireland pays hefty royalties to use. This lets Facebook Ireland transfer the profits from low-tax Ireland to no-tax Cayman Islands. For more on the arcane mechanics, see Joseph Darby's article "International Tax Planning," downloadable at Wikipedia.
This makes no sense of course, but is, in David Cay Johnston's inimitable phrase, Perfectly Legal. But it shouldn't be. And in the UK, Chancellor of the Exchequer George Osborne has announced
a £154m [$246.4 million] blitz on tax avoidance and evasion, with HMRC [the British equivalent of the IRS] hiring an extra 2,500 tax inspectors to target high earners who aggressively exploit loopholes to avoid or evade tax.The U.S. should do the same.
* Dollar figures converted from pound sterling figures in the Guardian at an exchange rate of $1.60 per pound.
Friday, December 21, 2012
Conservative ALEC Economic Policies Have No Benefit, Some Risks, for States
The economic policies proposed for states by the conservative American Legislative Council Exchange (ALEC) not only don't work, but carry risks for states' economies, according to new research by the Iowa Policy Project and Good Jobs First.
As we have seen most recently with Michigan's passage of anti-union so-called "right to work" legislation (which lets people free ride on union contracts and makes union organization and representation more difficult), the legislative agenda of ALEC proclaims that states should follow a low-tax, low-wage, non-union route to economic prosperity. Now, you or I might wonder how creating low-wage jobs is supposed to create prosperity, but luckily for us ALEC has ranked the states by how "competitive" their economic policies were beginning in 2007, giving us the chance to see how well their recommended policies have done.
ALEC's 15 recommended factors (p. 18) include taxes, debt service, public employees per 10,000 residents, "quality" of the legal system, "right to work," minimum wage, and workers' compensation costs. As pointed out by earlier commentaries, it says nothing about education or infrastructure, which have clear effects on a state's economy. The new report by economist Peter Fisher with Greg LeRoy and Phil Mattera undertakes a statistical analysis of these policies, using the ALEC ranking of all 50 states as of 2007 to see how well their economies have performed since then. Fisher et al. also highlight the shoddy statistical work by Arthur Laffer in creating the ALEC index and reporting results.
Whereas Laffer frequently makes his points simply by comparing the top vs. bottom 8-10 states, Fisher et al. start with a full comparison of all 50 states via a correlation analysis, then proceed to the necessary addition of holding other potential causes constant in what is know as multiple regression analysis. Beginning with the correlations, here is what the new report finds. Correlation runs from -1 (perfect negative relationship) to +1 (perfect positive relationship); the closer to +1 below, the better the ALEC competitiveness index predicted the following outcomes. All changes are from 2007 to 2011.
ALEC Competitiveness Index ranking correlated with--
State gross domestic product: .02 (not statistically significant)
Percent change in nonfarm employment: -.09 (not statistically significant)
Percent change in per capita income: -.27 (statistically significant)
Percent change in state and local government revenue: -.16 (not statistically significant)
Percent change in median family income: -.30 (statistically significant)
Change in poverty rate: .21 ("statistically significant" at the .1 level*)
What this tells us is that the states which were following ALEC's preferred policies the most in 2007 saw worse performance in per capita income growth and median family income as well as a worse performance n poverty that we can almost be sure was not due to chance. The only thing ALEC's top states did see as predicted was an increase was in population (Fisher et al. did not report the correlation coefficient, but their discussion makes it clear that it was statistically significant). However, population growth per se is not an economic outcome, as the report points out.
The concluding regression analysis weakens the case for negative consequences, but provides no support for positive effects of ALEC's state policies. Fisher et al. show that the most important determinants of 2007-11 GDP growth, employment growth, and per capita income growth are the components of a state's economy, with the strongest determinants being the presence of extractive industry (primarily due to the higher price of oil during this period) and a large health care industry. Once these are controlled for, none of the ALEC variables are statistically significant, though the closest is that the top personal income tax rate is associated with higher, not lower, per capita income growth.
If none of ALEC's policies work as advertised for job and income growth, what do they do? They are, in fact, a prescription for economic inequality. So-called "right to work" does not increase growth, but it reduces workers' bargaining power. Reducing taxes on the wealthy increases post-tax inequality. And so on, down the panoply of ALEC policies. Fisher et al. (p. 11) put it well:
The report is Selling Snake Oil to the States, and that is precisely what ALEC's policies are.
* Technical note: I'm old school on when we should consider something probably not due to chance. For generations, the standard cutoff was that you have to be 95% certain a result was *not* due to chance to call it statistically significant. In economics, and now increasingly in political science, researchers have sometimes called a result statistically significant using a 90% cutoff instead. In my view, this shift has been due to what is called "publication bias": it is easier to get your study published in an academic journal if you have some statistically significant result. But this is a big problem in areas like minimum wage research, where not finding a statistically significant negative effect from increasing the minimum wage actually tells you a great deal. The key analysis of publication bias in minimum wage research can be found in David Card and Alan Krueger's book Myth and Measurement.
Cross-posted at Angry Bear.
As we have seen most recently with Michigan's passage of anti-union so-called "right to work" legislation (which lets people free ride on union contracts and makes union organization and representation more difficult), the legislative agenda of ALEC proclaims that states should follow a low-tax, low-wage, non-union route to economic prosperity. Now, you or I might wonder how creating low-wage jobs is supposed to create prosperity, but luckily for us ALEC has ranked the states by how "competitive" their economic policies were beginning in 2007, giving us the chance to see how well their recommended policies have done.
ALEC's 15 recommended factors (p. 18) include taxes, debt service, public employees per 10,000 residents, "quality" of the legal system, "right to work," minimum wage, and workers' compensation costs. As pointed out by earlier commentaries, it says nothing about education or infrastructure, which have clear effects on a state's economy. The new report by economist Peter Fisher with Greg LeRoy and Phil Mattera undertakes a statistical analysis of these policies, using the ALEC ranking of all 50 states as of 2007 to see how well their economies have performed since then. Fisher et al. also highlight the shoddy statistical work by Arthur Laffer in creating the ALEC index and reporting results.
Whereas Laffer frequently makes his points simply by comparing the top vs. bottom 8-10 states, Fisher et al. start with a full comparison of all 50 states via a correlation analysis, then proceed to the necessary addition of holding other potential causes constant in what is know as multiple regression analysis. Beginning with the correlations, here is what the new report finds. Correlation runs from -1 (perfect negative relationship) to +1 (perfect positive relationship); the closer to +1 below, the better the ALEC competitiveness index predicted the following outcomes. All changes are from 2007 to 2011.
ALEC Competitiveness Index ranking correlated with--
State gross domestic product: .02 (not statistically significant)
Percent change in nonfarm employment: -.09 (not statistically significant)
Percent change in per capita income: -.27 (statistically significant)
Percent change in state and local government revenue: -.16 (not statistically significant)
Percent change in median family income: -.30 (statistically significant)
Change in poverty rate: .21 ("statistically significant" at the .1 level*)
What this tells us is that the states which were following ALEC's preferred policies the most in 2007 saw worse performance in per capita income growth and median family income as well as a worse performance n poverty that we can almost be sure was not due to chance. The only thing ALEC's top states did see as predicted was an increase was in population (Fisher et al. did not report the correlation coefficient, but their discussion makes it clear that it was statistically significant). However, population growth per se is not an economic outcome, as the report points out.
The concluding regression analysis weakens the case for negative consequences, but provides no support for positive effects of ALEC's state policies. Fisher et al. show that the most important determinants of 2007-11 GDP growth, employment growth, and per capita income growth are the components of a state's economy, with the strongest determinants being the presence of extractive industry (primarily due to the higher price of oil during this period) and a large health care industry. Once these are controlled for, none of the ALEC variables are statistically significant, though the closest is that the top personal income tax rate is associated with higher, not lower, per capita income growth.
If none of ALEC's policies work as advertised for job and income growth, what do they do? They are, in fact, a prescription for economic inequality. So-called "right to work" does not increase growth, but it reduces workers' bargaining power. Reducing taxes on the wealthy increases post-tax inequality. And so on, down the panoply of ALEC policies. Fisher et al. (p. 11) put it well:
The ALEC-Laffer strategies are exclusively those that would lower taxes on corporations and the wealthy, reduce public sector revenues (and hence public investments in education, health and infrastructure), and lower wages by eliminating minimum wages and weakening the bargaining power of workers. Yet the book claims that all of these measures would make states, and their populations, richer.
The report is Selling Snake Oil to the States, and that is precisely what ALEC's policies are.
* Technical note: I'm old school on when we should consider something probably not due to chance. For generations, the standard cutoff was that you have to be 95% certain a result was *not* due to chance to call it statistically significant. In economics, and now increasingly in political science, researchers have sometimes called a result statistically significant using a 90% cutoff instead. In my view, this shift has been due to what is called "publication bias": it is easier to get your study published in an academic journal if you have some statistically significant result. But this is a big problem in areas like minimum wage research, where not finding a statistically significant negative effect from increasing the minimum wage actually tells you a great deal. The key analysis of publication bias in minimum wage research can be found in David Card and Alan Krueger's book Myth and Measurement.
Cross-posted at Angry Bear.
Thursday, December 13, 2012
Suppression of Congressional Research Service Report Reversed
Just as quietly as it happened, the Republican suppression of a Congressional Research Service (CRS) report showing the lack of relationship between top tax rates and economic growth has apparently been overcome. Jared Bernstein reports today that the report is back up. You can find it on the CRS website here.
What made this report so objectionable to Republicans was that it showed no relationship between the top tax rates and economic growth rates, and went beyond simple correlation analysis to more complex analysis that statistically controlled for other potential causes, known as regression.
Moreover, it performed the same series of analyses on the data for tax rates and inequality, showing that a low top tax rate contributes to economic inequality, again controlling for other potential causes.
It is good to see that the non-partisan CRS is still allowed to post the results of its own research. But it's bad that there could ever have been any question of it.
What made this report so objectionable to Republicans was that it showed no relationship between the top tax rates and economic growth rates, and went beyond simple correlation analysis to more complex analysis that statistically controlled for other potential causes, known as regression.
Moreover, it performed the same series of analyses on the data for tax rates and inequality, showing that a low top tax rate contributes to economic inequality, again controlling for other potential causes.
It is good to see that the non-partisan CRS is still allowed to post the results of its own research. But it's bad that there could ever have been any question of it.
Sunday, December 9, 2012
Appearing on National Progressive Talk Radio Tonight
Sorry for the short notice, but I will be on Lane Prophet's live call-in show on National Progressive Talk Radio at 9pm Eastern/6pm Pacific for one hour. I'll be talking about the so-called "fiscal cliff" and, probably subsidies as well. Here is the announcement from NPTR: http://www.blogtalkradio.com/national-progressive-talk-radio/2012/12/10/the-fiscal-cliff--kenneth-thomas--nptr-29
If you want to call in, the number is 347-326-9690.
If you want to call in, the number is 347-326-9690.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)