America has a retirement savings problem. To varying degrees, Social Security and Medicare support retirees. Other than for the very wealthy, a significant diminution in either program would materially hurt retirees.
Most can agree with a simple proposition: over the long term, there are fiscal holes in Social Security and Medicare.
I have seven proposals to address the problem. These proposals won’t solve funding problems for all time, but will move the needle significantly towards securing Social Security and Medicare. All the tax related proposals tax those who have benefited the most from the American economy and a very favorable investment tax climate.
Before I get started, I would like to encourage the reader to endeavor to reduce his or her dependence on these programs by building up their own retirement assets and/or income streams. That said, as a practical matter both Social Security and Medicare are very important to the retirements of the vast majority of Americans.
Who Pays to Save Social Security and Medicare?
PROPOSAL ONE: No changes to the Social Security and Medicare eligibility ages.
Some propose to increase the eligibility age for Medicare and/or Social Security full retirement age.
I believe that to be a horrible idea, for a myriad of reasons. Over the long term, there are fiscal holes in Social Security and Medicare. By definition, someone in the world must pay for those holes. If we eliminate more outlandish possibilities such as billing invading extraterrestrials and foreign plunder, most of the cost must be made up by some cohort or cohorts of Americans. Raising the eligibility ages to fix the holes simply decides that Americans in their mid-to-late 60s of all income and wealth levels are the cohort of Americans who must pay for those holes.
But why? Are 60-somethings particularly well off compared to other cohorts? I don’t believe they are, and many in their mid-to-late 60s are far worse off than the average American citizen.
I’m not the only commentator to oppose increasing Social Security eligibility ages.
My three tax proposals below are hardly perfect. But at least they put the onus on filling the holes on those who (i) have benefited most from the recent American economy and (ii) have most benefited from America’s very favorable investment and endowment tax environment. Why shouldn’t the people who have benefited the most, and would be harmed by tax increases the least, fix the Social Security and Medicare holes?
Further, my three tax proposals have a significant advantage over delaying eligibility ages. Delaying eligibility ages is a delayed fix! If enacted in 2023, my three proposals go to work (in full!) on January 1, 2024.
Any delay of the eligibility age will likely be at least somewhat delayed. No politician is going to vote to raise a 66 year old’s Social Security full retirement age overnight from age 67 to age 70. There’s zero chance of that. That’s demonstrated by this proposal, which proposes to increase Social Security eligibility ages by 3 years and admits that the proposal would not save money for at least 10 years!
Would you be happy if you called a plumber to fix a leak in your sink and he responded, “Sure, happy to help, I’ll swing on by in 10 years.” No!
Further, I am not going to advocate for a politically untenable solution, and I wouldn’t recommend any politician do so either. There are plenty of solutions that can be implemented short of solutions that are guaranteed to be wildly unpopular with the electorate.
One piece of evidence demonstrates just how unpopular cutting Social Security and Medicare are. A recent Axios-Ipsos poll (see the bottom of page 9) found that Americans generally oppose Social Security and Medicare cuts by a 7 to 2 margin. Any highly unpopular solution will ultimately be counterproductive.
A group of Republican Congressmen argue Social Security eligibility ages should be increased in the future to account for increased life expectancy (see the bottom of page 88 of this file). I believe their argument is mistaken for two reasons. First, some increases in life expectancy are attributable to diminished infant mortality instead of increased lifespan in old age. Second, in 2020 and 2021, American life expectancy decreased.
PROPOSAL TWO: No Increase to the FICA Tax Rates (Employee and Employer)
Historically, there have been many payroll tax increases to fund Social Security and Medicare. I believe, in today’s economy, a simple payroll tax rate increase would be unfair and would hurt many Americans who have not benefited from the surge in financial markets the way the affluent have. In a world where working class workers have not experienced real significant salary increases in decades, while the stock market has soared over several decades, we can’t simply increase payroll taxes on everyone and call it fair.
Further, it might be tempting to only increase the payroll tax rates paid by employers. But this runs into two big problems. First, it’s a tax on job creation. I, for one, want employers of all sizes creating more jobs in the United States. Increasing the tax rates employers pay for Social Security and Medicare increases incentives to offshore jobs and shifts towards automation. Count me against that.
Second, increasing employer tax rates is a tax hike on the self-employed. The self-employed face many challenges. They are not a cohort that should shoulder the burden of closing the fiscal holes in Social Security and Medicare.
Tax Increases to Save Social Security and Medicare
PROPOSAL THREE: Increase the additional Medicare tax on earned income from 0.9% to 2.0% Use half the tax (1.0%) fund Medicare and half the tax (1.0%) fund Social Security.
PROPOSAL FOUR: Increase the Medicare surtax on net investment income from 3.8% to 5.0%. Use the increase (1.2%) to fund Social Security.
These two proposals have several advantages. They incrementally increase taxes on the most successful in America in order to close the shortfalls in Social Security and Medicare. They are not taxes on employers hiring more employees, so they do not discourage hiring. Further, these two tax proposals leverage off existing taxes such that implementation of the proposals should be relatively easy.
PROPOSAL FIVE: Impose a new 25% excise tax on net investment income of college endowments with $1 billion or more in assets as of year end.
This new tax would replace the tiny 1.4% excise tax on some college endowments enacted as part of the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act (TCJA) in 2018.
Congress can allocate tax collections between Social Security and Medicare as they best see fit.
Once subject to the tax, a college endowment would be subject to it going forward until the endowment can demonstrate its year-end assets have been under $750 million for three consecutive years.
Net investment income for this purpose would be the endowment’s Section 1411(c)(1)(A) income, less the following limited expenses: salaries and benefits for employees primarily working for the endowment (limited to $20,000 per month per employee), endowment tax return preparation fees, endowment legal fees, office supplies and equipment (printers, copiers, scanners, etc.) for the endowment, and computer software for the endowment (limited to $1 million per year). Capital gains and capital losses would be netted and no net capital loss could be taken, though any net capital loss would carry forward without limit to subsequent years.
As the excise tax taxes endowments of financial assets, dorms, classrooms, and other buildings used by the university in their educational mission would not be endowment assets for purposes of the new excise tax.
Estimated payments would be due the same dates as individual estimates are due (and the same underpayment penalties would apply), and the net investment income of any controlled endowment entity (domestic or foreign) would also be included in the endowment’s net investment income.
These tax-free hoards have enjoyed incredibly favored treatment long enough. Some of these endowments now exceed $1 million per student, more than enough to fund many students without collecting a dollar of tuition.
Most colleges do not pay income tax on tuition and donations received. I don’t propose to change that, but it’s time these colleges, which mostly serve a select privileged few, pay a significant tax on their investment income. Considering these endowments are worth vast sums of money, that tax should be equal to the rate paid by highest income individuals on long term capital gains, 25% (20% long term capital gain rate plus 5% net investment income tax under my proposal).
You might think this is unfair to colleges. But let’s imagine we were tasked with creating the entire U.S. federal tax system from scratch. If I proposed to subject waiters and factory workers to both income taxes and payroll taxes on their entire salary, while exempting colleges from taxation on tuition collected and donations received, and then added a 25% net investment income tax on large endowments, you’d probably say “Wow, you’re being unfair to waiters and factory workers and too generous to colleges.”
I don’t propose a revolution in tax policy, but rather a fair, equitable, and incremental tax change that increases the tax burden on those most able to bear it in order to combat funding shortfalls in Social Security and Medicare.
Stabilizing The Federal Government’s Finances
PROPOSAL SIX: Significant reductions in military and foreign spending
Practically all Americans reading this are owed Social Security and/or Medicare benefits! That makes you a creditor of the U.S. government.
Your creditor’s financial health matters to you. It’s time your creditor got its house in order. Your creditor’s house is not in order for many reasons, including spending that is consistent with neither the founding nor the history of our great republic.
Incredibly enough, the United States has nearly three times as many foreign military bases as it has embassies. It’s time to ditch the bases and bring the troops home for many reasons. Having so many military and other government personnel overseas is contrary to the great history of our republic. As John Quincy Adams said, “America does not go abroad in search of monsters to destroy.” Today’s historically out-of-whack military and foreign spending is destabilizing the government’s finances. It’s time to cut military and foreign spending significantly and redeploy that money to reduce the deficit and secure the financial stability of the federal government.
A financially stable government is much more likely to be able to successfully meet its Social Security and Medicare obligations.
Some might argue that neither our current level of military spending nor Social Security and Medicare are consistent with the founding and history of our country, so shouldn’t both be cut? Jeffrey Sachs has observed that there is some popular support for cutting America’s foreign military involvement. On the other hand, there is very little appetite among the electorate for reductions to Social Security and Medicare. There’s no reason to consider wildly unpopular options when there are much more popular options on the table.
Self-Help
PROPOSAL SEVEN: Change Your Health
Not every change to improve the Social Security and Medicare system needs to come from Congress.
Over the years I have become more and more convinced that almost everything we learned about health and nutrition is wrong. It is time for each of us to radically take charge of our own healthcare. We need to do this regardless of the fiscal state of Social Security and Medicare. But my hope is this shift will reduce spending on Medicare.
I have seen my health improve by focusing on eating high quality animal fats and proteins, avoiding seed oils (which are very new in human history), and dramatically reducing sugar consumption. One reason I continue with that focus is that, as discussed by Doctors Ken Berry and Lisa Wiedeman, sugar feeds cancer! See also Dr. Ken Berry discussing this further. Avoiding certain foods can dramatically improve health outcomes and reduce medical spending (including Medicare spending).
My hope is that more and more Americans will become aware of the role of diet in health, and that will, over time, reduce long term medical expenses, including the expenses paid for by Medicare. Eventually, this renewed health will hopefully lead to longer life spans and increase future Social Security payments. If this happens, it hurts Social Security many years in the future. That much delayed good problem to have will hopefully be more than compensated for by earlier (and hopefully permanent) reductions in Medicare costs.
Conclusion
As the federal government racks up more and more debt, and the clock ticks towards financial peril for both Social Security and Medicare, it’s time to take action to preserve and protect these programs.
Follow me on Twitter at @SeanMoneyandTax
This post is for entertainment and educational purposes only. It does not constitute medical, accounting, financial, legal, investment, or tax advice. Please consult with your advisor(s) regarding your personal medical, accounting, financial, legal, investment, and tax matters. Please also refer to the Disclaimer & Warning section found here.
The above does not represent the opinion of anyone other than the author, Sean W. Mullaney. The author was not compensated by any individual or entity for writing this blog post, and this blog post does not necessarily reflect the views of any current or former employer of Sean W. Mullaney.
One comment
Comments are closed.