Boston U. Econ. Prof. calculates $202 Trillion US Fiscal Gap

[weberlin]

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2010-08-11/u-s-is-bankrupt-and-we-don-t-even-know-commentary-by-laurence-kotlikoff.html

That frightening number, so frightening that I can’t bare to type it again, is found half way through the article, under ‘Unofficial’ Liabilities. Does anyone have a clue how he might have calculated it?

[davelj]

90% of this number is related to Social Security and Medicare. Raise the age at which Social Security and Medicare can be received to 70 – and keep raising it as life expectancy increases – and this fiscal gap largely disappears. Easy to accomplish in theory, but politically difficult. Average life expectancy is 13 years greater than it was in 1935 when Social Security was enacted. And yet the age at which benefits can be received has stayed the same. The solution isn’t that complicated, but it requires political backbone, which is in short supply.

[davelj]

90% of this number is related to Social Security and Medicare. Raise the age at which Social Security and Medicare can be received to 70 – and keep raising it as life expectancy increases – and this fiscal gap largely disappears. Easy to accomplish in theory, but politically difficult. Average life expectancy is 13 years greater than it was in 1935 when Social Security was enacted. And yet the age at which benefits can be received has stayed the same. The solution isn’t that complicated, but it requires political backbone, which is in short supply.

[davelj]

90% of this number is related to Social Security and Medicare. Raise the age at which Social Security and Medicare can be received to 70 – and keep raising it as life expectancy increases – and this fiscal gap largely disappears. Easy to accomplish in theory, but politically difficult. Average life expectancy is 13 years greater than it was in 1935 when Social Security was enacted. And yet the age at which benefits can be received has stayed the same. The solution isn’t that complicated, but it requires political backbone, which is in short supply.

[davelj]

90% of this number is related to Social Security and Medicare. Raise the age at which Social Security and Medicare can be received to 70 – and keep raising it as life expectancy increases – and this fiscal gap largely disappears. Easy to accomplish in theory, but politically difficult. Average life expectancy is 13 years greater than it was in 1935 when Social Security was enacted. And yet the age at which benefits can be received has stayed the same. The solution isn’t that complicated, but it requires political backbone, which is in short supply.

[davelj]

90% of this number is related to Social Security and Medicare. Raise the age at which Social Security and Medicare can be received to 70 – and keep raising it as life expectancy increases – and this fiscal gap largely disappears. Easy to accomplish in theory, but politically difficult. Average life expectancy is 13 years greater than it was in 1935 when Social Security was enacted. And yet the age at which benefits can be received has stayed the same. The solution isn’t that complicated, but it requires political backbone, which is in short supply.

[UCGal]

[quote=davelj]90% of this number is related to Social Security and Medicare. Raise the age at which Social Security and Medicare can be received to 70 – and keep raising it as life expectancy increases – and this fiscal gap largely disappears. Easy to accomplish in theory, but politically difficult. Average life expectancy is 13 years greater than it was in 1935 when Social Security was enacted. And yet the age at which benefits can be received has stayed the same. The solution isn’t that complicated, but it requires political backbone, which is in short supply.[/quote]
The age to receive FULL benefits was increased. It was 65 when I was younger… now it’s 67 for folks born after 1960. You can still take early (smaller) benefits at age 62 – but it is scaled accordingly.

Another option is to raise the wage ceiling for SS premiums. For 2010 you pay SS premiums on the first $106,800. If you make $150k – you do not pay SS on the $43,200 that is above 106,800. If you were to require all earned income (no ceiling) pay into SS, you’d solve the SS problem.

Medicare is another problem. It is expensive to get health insurance outside of a group (employer provided) program when you reach “a certain age”. So self employed persons would be hosed if you raised the age you can sign up for medicare (currently age 65.)

Health insurance is the one aspect I’m struggling with as I work my “what if” retirement plan scenarios.

If you raise the age you can collect SS, you’d also have to raise the age you are mandated to start taking RMDs on your 401k/IRA moneys. It’s currently mandated that you take a distribution starting at age 70.5. If you raise the age you work, this would need to be adjusted.

And there are jobs that have maximum retirement ages – like the military, law enforcement officers under the DOJ (like FBI), etc. What if your career is a commercial pilot… do you really want to raise the age that people are on the job? Do you want geezer pilots driving the passenger jets? I don’t. I want that nice middle aged, experienced pilot that still has decent reflexes and isn’t worried about arthritis, Metamucil, or denture gaps.

[UCGal]

[quote=davelj]90% of this number is related to Social Security and Medicare. Raise the age at which Social Security and Medicare can be received to 70 – and keep raising it as life expectancy increases – and this fiscal gap largely disappears. Easy to accomplish in theory, but politically difficult. Average life expectancy is 13 years greater than it was in 1935 when Social Security was enacted. And yet the age at which benefits can be received has stayed the same. The solution isn’t that complicated, but it requires political backbone, which is in short supply.[/quote]
The age to receive FULL benefits was increased. It was 65 when I was younger… now it’s 67 for folks born after 1960. You can still take early (smaller) benefits at age 62 – but it is scaled accordingly.

Another option is to raise the wage ceiling for SS premiums. For 2010 you pay SS premiums on the first $106,800. If you make $150k – you do not pay SS on the $43,200 that is above 106,800. If you were to require all earned income (no ceiling) pay into SS, you’d solve the SS problem.

Medicare is another problem. It is expensive to get health insurance outside of a group (employer provided) program when you reach “a certain age”. So self employed persons would be hosed if you raised the age you can sign up for medicare (currently age 65.)

Health insurance is the one aspect I’m struggling with as I work my “what if” retirement plan scenarios.

If you raise the age you can collect SS, you’d also have to raise the age you are mandated to start taking RMDs on your 401k/IRA moneys. It’s currently mandated that you take a distribution starting at age 70.5. If you raise the age you work, this would need to be adjusted.

And there are jobs that have maximum retirement ages – like the military, law enforcement officers under the DOJ (like FBI), etc. What if your career is a commercial pilot… do you really want to raise the age that people are on the job? Do you want geezer pilots driving the passenger jets? I don’t. I want that nice middle aged, experienced pilot that still has decent reflexes and isn’t worried about arthritis, Metamucil, or denture gaps.

[UCGal]

[quote=davelj]90% of this number is related to Social Security and Medicare. Raise the age at which Social Security and Medicare can be received to 70 – and keep raising it as life expectancy increases – and this fiscal gap largely disappears. Easy to accomplish in theory, but politically difficult. Average life expectancy is 13 years greater than it was in 1935 when Social Security was enacted. And yet the age at which benefits can be received has stayed the same. The solution isn’t that complicated, but it requires political backbone, which is in short supply.[/quote]
The age to receive FULL benefits was increased. It was 65 when I was younger… now it’s 67 for folks born after 1960. You can still take early (smaller) benefits at age 62 – but it is scaled accordingly.

Another option is to raise the wage ceiling for SS premiums. For 2010 you pay SS premiums on the first $106,800. If you make $150k – you do not pay SS on the $43,200 that is above 106,800. If you were to require all earned income (no ceiling) pay into SS, you’d solve the SS problem.

Medicare is another problem. It is expensive to get health insurance outside of a group (employer provided) program when you reach “a certain age”. So self employed persons would be hosed if you raised the age you can sign up for medicare (currently age 65.)

Health insurance is the one aspect I’m struggling with as I work my “what if” retirement plan scenarios.

If you raise the age you can collect SS, you’d also have to raise the age you are mandated to start taking RMDs on your 401k/IRA moneys. It’s currently mandated that you take a distribution starting at age 70.5. If you raise the age you work, this would need to be adjusted.

And there are jobs that have maximum retirement ages – like the military, law enforcement officers under the DOJ (like FBI), etc. What if your career is a commercial pilot… do you really want to raise the age that people are on the job? Do you want geezer pilots driving the passenger jets? I don’t. I want that nice middle aged, experienced pilot that still has decent reflexes and isn’t worried about arthritis, Metamucil, or denture gaps.

[UCGal]

[quote=davelj]90% of this number is related to Social Security and Medicare. Raise the age at which Social Security and Medicare can be received to 70 – and keep raising it as life expectancy increases – and this fiscal gap largely disappears. Easy to accomplish in theory, but politically difficult. Average life expectancy is 13 years greater than it was in 1935 when Social Security was enacted. And yet the age at which benefits can be received has stayed the same. The solution isn’t that complicated, but it requires political backbone, which is in short supply.[/quote]
The age to receive FULL benefits was increased. It was 65 when I was younger… now it’s 67 for folks born after 1960. You can still take early (smaller) benefits at age 62 – but it is scaled accordingly.

Another option is to raise the wage ceiling for SS premiums. For 2010 you pay SS premiums on the first $106,800. If you make $150k – you do not pay SS on the $43,200 that is above 106,800. If you were to require all earned income (no ceiling) pay into SS, you’d solve the SS problem.

Medicare is another problem. It is expensive to get health insurance outside of a group (employer provided) program when you reach “a certain age”. So self employed persons would be hosed if you raised the age you can sign up for medicare (currently age 65.)

Health insurance is the one aspect I’m struggling with as I work my “what if” retirement plan scenarios.

If you raise the age you can collect SS, you’d also have to raise the age you are mandated to start taking RMDs on your 401k/IRA moneys. It’s currently mandated that you take a distribution starting at age 70.5. If you raise the age you work, this would need to be adjusted.

And there are jobs that have maximum retirement ages – like the military, law enforcement officers under the DOJ (like FBI), etc. What if your career is a commercial pilot… do you really want to raise the age that people are on the job? Do you want geezer pilots driving the passenger jets? I don’t. I want that nice middle aged, experienced pilot that still has decent reflexes and isn’t worried about arthritis, Metamucil, or denture gaps.

[UCGal]

[quote=davelj]90% of this number is related to Social Security and Medicare. Raise the age at which Social Security and Medicare can be received to 70 – and keep raising it as life expectancy increases – and this fiscal gap largely disappears. Easy to accomplish in theory, but politically difficult. Average life expectancy is 13 years greater than it was in 1935 when Social Security was enacted. And yet the age at which benefits can be received has stayed the same. The solution isn’t that complicated, but it requires political backbone, which is in short supply.[/quote]
The age to receive FULL benefits was increased. It was 65 when I was younger… now it’s 67 for folks born after 1960. You can still take early (smaller) benefits at age 62 – but it is scaled accordingly.

Another option is to raise the wage ceiling for SS premiums. For 2010 you pay SS premiums on the first $106,800. If you make $150k – you do not pay SS on the $43,200 that is above 106,800. If you were to require all earned income (no ceiling) pay into SS, you’d solve the SS problem.

Medicare is another problem. It is expensive to get health insurance outside of a group (employer provided) program when you reach “a certain age”. So self employed persons would be hosed if you raised the age you can sign up for medicare (currently age 65.)

Health insurance is the one aspect I’m struggling with as I work my “what if” retirement plan scenarios.

If you raise the age you can collect SS, you’d also have to raise the age you are mandated to start taking RMDs on your 401k/IRA moneys. It’s currently mandated that you take a distribution starting at age 70.5. If you raise the age you work, this would need to be adjusted.

And there are jobs that have maximum retirement ages – like the military, law enforcement officers under the DOJ (like FBI), etc. What if your career is a commercial pilot… do you really want to raise the age that people are on the job? Do you want geezer pilots driving the passenger jets? I don’t. I want that nice middle aged, experienced pilot that still has decent reflexes and isn’t worried about arthritis, Metamucil, or denture gaps.

[CA renter]

Totally agree with your solution, UCGal, and might also include investment income as long as the payer qualifies for SS.

[CA renter]

Totally agree with your solution, UCGal, and might also include investment income as long as the payer qualifies for SS.

[CA renter]

Totally agree with your solution, UCGal, and might also include investment income as long as the payer qualifies for SS.

[CA renter]

Totally agree with your solution, UCGal, and might also include investment income as long as the payer qualifies for SS.

[Author]

Posts