A new @MorningstarInc report argues that the optimistic picture of retirement incomes looks plausible when you ignore long-term care costs, such as nursing homes.
But when long-term care costs are counted, the familiar retirement crisis story reappears./2 morningstar.com/business/insig…
@MorningstarInc The Morningstar report explores 2 scenarios:
First, where LTC costs aren't counted. In that case, just 26% of seniors are projected to run short of money in retirement. /3
@MorningstarInc But in the second, when long-term care costs are factored in, 41% of retiree households run out of cash.
The retirement crisis is back! /4
@MorningstarInc But that's not really what Morningstar is doing.
They're not contrasting a situation in which seniors have no long-term care costs to a realistic scenario that factors such costs in. /5
@MorningstarInc Rather, they assume that retirees must pay ALL long-term care costs out of pocket.
So no Medicaid, no Medicare, no private insurance, no state programs, no charity, no nothing. Retirees pay everything. /6
@MorningstarInc But that's not the real world. In 2021, only 14% of long-term care costs were paid out of pocket. The rest came from other sources.
So Morningstar's scenario which includes long-term care also implicitly EXcludes providers that currently pay 86% of total LTC costs. /7
@MorningstarInc This raises long-term care costs in retirement for everyone, but especially for low-income seniors. The idea that they have to pay full-freight when in fact Medicaid will cover most LTC costs doesn't make sense. /8
@MorningstarInc All of this is of a pattern with studies claiming to find there's a retirement crisis: there's also some string that, if tugged upon, pulls the whole study apart.
I'm not sure why Rich generated these figures using the Current Population Survey, which the Census Bureau has confirmed dramatically overstates elderly poverty and distorts poverty trends over time. A quick thread to explain. /1
First, the CPS counts "money income," which includes only regular payments such as Social Security and traditional pensions. As-needed withdrawals from IRAs or 401ks are *not* counted as income in these figures. This 2014 @wsj op-ed explains. /2 wsj.com/articles/andre…
@WSJ The Census Bureau has explored this issue thoroughly. using IRS data, which aren't subject to the CPS's measurement error. In 2018, the 65+ poverty rate in the CPS was 9.8%, while using IRS data elderly poverty was only 6.4% -- a huge difference. /3 census.gov/data/experimen…
The short story: the 2024 #SocialSecurity Trustees Report shows improvements. Trust fund exhaustion delayed 1 year to 2035. Long-run funding gap down by 3%. Benefit cut when TF runs out reduced from 23% to 17%.
Mostly, the economy today has been stronger than it previously was projected to be. If more people are working and earning more, that's a stronger starting point for the projections going forward. /2
The Social Security story, and how you might feel about different reform options, hasn't really changed. The system will still go insolvent absent revenue increases or benefit reductions. I don't see why this Report would alter that narrative. /3
First, the MAIN reason Social Security faces a massive funding deficit is that past and even current participants receive significantly more benefits than they paid in taxes + interest. It was a great deal for them, but that makes it a poorer deal going forward.
Second, and related, even today Social Security is promising more than it takes in. Call it an earned benefit; but you can't call it a paid-for benefit because haven't paid for it. wsj.com/articles/no-so…
@BobStein_FT This thread is 100% correct (possibly more). Which for me has long implied that Social Security reform needs to break out of the traditional menu of common options (retirement age, COLA cuts, etc.) if it's to produce retirement security at reasonable cost. Some ideas. /1
@BobStein_FT /2 Social Security is the largest federal program not because a safety net is expensive, but because high benefits for middle/upper income retirees are. If Social Security simply paid everyone a poverty-level benefit, old age poverty would fall to zero and costs drop by half.
@BobStein_FT /3 The key to simultaneously keeping Social Security solvent; eliminating poverty in old age; and retaining a reasonable tax burden is to refocus the program on preventing poverty while telling middle/high income workers they have to save more for retirement on their own.
I have a new working paper that overcomes some of the weaknesses in traditional methods of analyzing the adequacy of teacher salaries. Thread to follow.
Some studies, such as from @economicpolicy, find that teachers receive salaries ~20% lower than other workers with similar levels of education (and other attributes). Many people accept that conclusion – why wouldn’t they? epi.org/publication/te…
The answer is that the same data & methods that “prove” teachers are underpaid also claim that nurse anesthetists – who do the same work as anesthesiologists, at half the salary – are the most OVERpaid occupation, earning 74% more than they “should.” That doesn't make sense.
I'm in Monday's @wsj writing about Joe Biden's Social Security plan. Biden says the right things about the need to save Social Security. But his plan adds just 5 years to Social Security's solvency. Why? /1
/2 Biden's plan includes large tax increases, which hit the rich immediately & will hit the upper middle class as the plan is fully implemented. The all-in US top marginal tax rate could hit 60% when state/local taxes are included.
/3 But Biden's plan spends nearly 2/3rds of its tax increases on boosting benefits, not paying for the benefits Social Security already has promised but can't afford to pay. Social Security would still be insolvent by 2040, meaning more tax increases are on the way.