Contact Us


Send a Message

Get the latest news delivered to your inbox.

Newsletter

West Branch Capital Logo

Independent fee-only, minority owned SEC Registered Investment Adviser

Social Security — How Secure Is It?

April 19, 2023
Social Security — How Secure Is It?

If one was to read only the headlines of articles written to describe the future of our Social Security system, one could be excused for being alarmed. Some people, especially younger people when polled, even believe that they will never see a penny from Social Security when they retire someday. The topic of Social Security’s long term viability becomes major news every year when the administrators publish their latest projections.


According to the most recent forecast, the current surplus, referred to as the Social Security Trust Fund, is expected to be depleted in 2033. The trust fund was built up over time because for many years the money collected from payroll taxes exceeded the money paid out in benefits. However, the money collected is now falling short of the money paid out. The money in the trust fund is being used to make up for that shortfall.


The reason usually cited for the current shortfall is the falling ratio of workers to retirees. However, in a report of the Advisory Council on Social Security, the actuaries pointed out that the worker to retiree ratio was not the primary cause. The shortfall is also the result of higher disability take-up, slower wage growth, a growing share of earnings above the taxable wage base, and a growing share of compensation going toward health insurance and other untaxed benefits.


Once the trust fund is depleted, the program will be able to pay out only about 77% of scheduled benefits. So we can put to rest the idea that there will be no money to pay benefits at all. There will still be workers paying into the system, just not enough to pay 100% of scheduled benefits. The system does not operate like a typical corporate pension plan. It is primarily a pay-as-you-go system in which there is a monetary transfer from current workers to current retirees. The first recipients paid into the system for only five years before receiving benefits.


We have been here before. In fact, the Social Security surplus was on the verge of depletion when, in 1981, President Reagan established a bipartisan commission chaired by Alan Greenspan to study the options and make recommendations. Hanging over the process was the future stress on the system presented by the eventual retirement of the Baby Boom generation. Among the commission’s recommendations adopted by Congress were to gradually increase the full retirement age from 65 to 67, accelerate the payroll tax rate increases that had been previously scheduled, initiate partial taxation of Social Security benefits on higher income recipients, and bring newly-hired federal employees into the system.


Not infrequently, the ability of Democrats and Republicans to come together in the 1980s and address a future crisis is referred to as a model of bipartisanship that seems impossible to replicate in the current political environment. Instead, it has become a political football. It’s clear that people (voters) do not want to see their benefits cut, nor do they want to pay more in taxes. No wonder that Social Security has been called the “third rail” of politics. However, a recent survey conducted by the Program for Public Consultation at the University of Maryland provides some evidence that Americans are more receptive to small increases in both the payroll tax and the retirement age in order to preserve the system than politicians seem to think.


The Social Security actuaries have projected that an increase in revenues equal to less than 1% of GDP will be sufficient to cover promised benefits over the 75-year planning period. Certainly, raising the payroll tax rate is one way to raise revenues. The percent of wages subject to the payroll tax reached its current level of 12.4% in 1990. Half of that is paid by employees and half by employers, with the self-employed paying the full 12.4%. Raising it to 16%, which would bring the employee portion up from 6.2% to 8% of wages, would solve most of the problem, and a smaller increase would be a partial fix. A strong argument against increasing it is that it would hurt lower-income workers, many of whom already are subject to a higher average tax rate than many higher income workers, when payroll taxes are added to income taxes.


Another proposal is to raise the wage base to which the rates are applied or even eliminate the cap altogether. In 2023 that base is $160,200, which increases each year as salaries rise. A variation of that is to leave it where it is, but then re-apply the rate to wages above a certain level, such as $400,000, as proposed by President Biden, and perhaps phase it out again at a still-higher level. One rationale for expanding the wage base is that the total share of wages escaping the tax has risen from 10% in the 1980s to 20% today.


Some proposed solutions involve reducing benefits. One is to again raise the full retirement age beyond 67, which will apply to people born in 1960 or later. To ease the impact on workers who need to retire earlier, the early retirement age, at which lower payments are received, could be maintained at age 62. Another proposal is to lower the cost-of-living adjustment that is applied each year. The impact on retirees may not be severe initially but over time it would take its toll on lower income recipients. Benefits for higher income recipients could be reduced indirectly by expanding the proportion of benefits that is subject to income taxation, currently no more than 85%. That would bring additional revenue into the system.


Some argue that no change be made to the payroll tax rate or the wage base and that that general tax revenues should fill the gap. They point out that it would be no different than how we pay for other federal programs and that the cost is only a very small percent of the nation’s GDP. But that would entail shifting funds from other programs, raising income taxes, or increasing the federal debt. It also would involve changing the law, which requires the program to be self-funding.


Other ideas revolve around increasing the number of workers paying into the system. For example, the workforce could be increased and the ratio of workers to retirees raised by admitting more working-age immigrants, especially if the current worker shortage persists. Or newly-hired state and local employees could be brought into the system, as was done in 1984 with federal employees, which would bring more funds in at a time when they are needed. While many state and local employees already participate in Social Security, there are still some public employees at the state and local level who do not.


There was a time not too long ago that retirement planners looked at the “three-legged stool” with the three legs being a company pension, Social Security, and personal savings. Company pensions have almost become extinct, leaving workers to bear the burden of funding and managing their employer-sponsored retirement plans, such as 401(k) and 403(b) plans, if they even participate at all. That makes people more dependent on the other two legs of the stool, especially Social Security, given the meager personal savings that many people retire with. Congress can only procrastinate for so long, and may continue to do so until the program is on the brink, as it was in the 1980s. But the importance of Social Security income is greater than ever.

 

If you have questions about Social Security or any other topics, please reach us at (833) 888-0534 x2 or info@westbranchcapital.com.

 

 

The views and information contained in this article and on this website are those of West Branch Capital LLC and are provided for general information. The information herein should not serve as the sole determining factor for making legal, tax, or investment decisions. All information is obtained from sources believed to be reliable, but West Branch Capital LLC does not guarantee its reliability. West Branch Capital LLC is not an attorney, accountant or actuary and does not provide legal, tax, accounting or actuarial advice.


About The Author

Anne Christopulos

Anne is a Managing Director and Financial Planner with over twenty years of experience in the financial services industry. After holding corporate management positions in finance and strategic planning in New York City, she moved to Boston to become the Product Manager for the IRA business at Fidelity Investments. Following that, she was Vice President, Retirement Investments, at Fleet Financial Services. A native of Cape Cod, she returned to the Cape in 2001 and made the transition to personal financial planning with Secure Future Financial Services in Dennis and Davis Financial Services in Orleans before joining West Branch Capital. Anne holds a B.A. in music and economics from Wellesley College and an MBA from Harvard Business School.

Recent Articles

November 8, 2024
How do my income taxes affect my Medicare premiums? Although most Medicare enrollees are paying a Medicare Part B premium of $174.70 in 2024, many people pay much more. Prior to 2007, everyone received the same 75% subsidy from the government and paid the same premium. Then IRMAA (Income Related Monthly Adjustment Amount) was implemented, which established a bracket system for both Part B and Part D (prescriptions). The higher your income, the lower the subsidy and the higher your Medicare premium. Because Medicare uses your tax return from two years prior to determine your premium for the coming year, your 2024 premium was based on your 2022 tax return. The specific income figure used is Modified Adjusted Gross Income, which adds tax-exempt income to the AGI figure you see on your tax return. Sometimes, the higher premium comes as a shock, after a year of unusually high income, perhaps due to a capital gain from the sale of a home. But if that is the case, the higher premium will only be applied for one year, and once income declines, so will the premium. It’s important to know that if there has been a life-changing event that reduced your household income, such as retirement or the loss of a spouse, you can apply to have the premium lowered. Are there ways to limit the higher premiums? There may be. First, avoid (if possible) making large withdrawals from your tax-deferred retirement plans, including Traditional IRAs and 401(k)s, in a single year, or taking a very large capital gain on a stock sale in a nonretirement account in any one tax year. Instead, try to spread the IRA withdrawals or capital gains over two or more years, or take a capital loss if you have any in your nonretirement account. You also may be able to make a tax-deductible IRA contribution to lower your AGI below the IRMAA threshold, as long as you had earned income during the year and qualify for a deduction. Are my charitable contributions deductible? Ever since the 2017 tax law increased the standard deduction (while eliminating the personal exemption), most people do not see a reduction their taxes as a result of making charitable contributions. However, there are some exceptions. Taxpayers whose total itemized deductions (medical expenses above a certain threshold, mortgage interest, state and local taxes up to $10,000, charitable contributions) exceed their standard deduction can lower their taxes with charitable contributions. There is also something called a Qualified Charitable Deduction (QCD), available to IRA owners over age 70½. Under current tax law, you can instruct your IRA custodian to send your contribution directly from your IRA to the qualified charity or send you the check made out to the charity, which you can forward, rather than making the charitable contribution yourself. This has the same effect as a tax deduction because it lowers the amount of your taxable IRA distributions. It may also lower your AGI enough to reduce your Medicare premium or your capital gains rate. Withdrawals to make a QCD can count toward your Required Minimum Distribution for the year. Additional points on charitable deductions: (1) Most of the provisions in the 2017 tax law expire in 2025, so in 2026 we could see reinstated personal exemptions and a return to lower standard deductions, which would make charitable contributions more likely to lower your tax liability. (2) Some states, including Massachusetts (cash contributions only) and New York, allow a charitable deduction against income for state income taxes. How much of my Social Security income is taxed? There is a rather complicated formula that determines the taxable portion of your Social Security benefits. The formula adds half of your Social Security income to your AGI plus your tax-exempt income to get provisional income. If that figure falls under $25,000 (single filer) or $32,000 (joint filer), none of the benefits are taxable, which is the case for about 60% of recipients, who have little or no income other than Social Security. The other 40% pay tax on between 1% and 85% of their Social Security income, but no more than 85%, regardless of how much additional income they have. As time goes on, more and more people pay tax on more and more of their SS income, because the formula does not get adjusted for inflation every year, unlike with most other tax figures and unlike with SS benefits themselves. Note: State taxation of Social Security varies, with some states, including Massachusetts, not taxing it at all. What is the Net Investment Income Tax? Most taxpayers do not pay this tax, which came into being in 2013 to help cover the cost of the Medicare program. The approximately 5% of taxpayers who are subject to the tax have AGI of over $250,000 (joint) or $200,000 (single). The 3.8% tax is applied to either (1) the amount by which AGI exceeds these thresholds, or (2) the amount of net taxable investment income, whichever is lower. The same strategies discussed above regarding Medicare premiums could also be employed to minimize this tax. When I get a cost-of-living raise at work, will that push me into a higher income tax bracket? While a large raise at work could push you into a higher income tax bracket, if your raise is roughly equivalent to the inflation rate, it should not affect your marginal tax bracket. Every year, most tax figures, including tax bracket boundaries and the standard deduction, are adjusted to reflect increases in inflation, as measured by the “chained CPI”, an alternative to the traditional consumer price index, which attempts to account for the effects of product substitution on changes in the cost of living. Some figures, such as maximums for IRAs and 401(k) contributions, are adjusted only in years when applying the CPI rounds the figure up to the next increment, usually $500. What will happen to federal income tax rates and estate taxes in 2026? If Congress does nothing, most of the provisions of the 2017 tax legislation will expire and revert to the higher tax rate structure that was previously in place. However, leaders of both major political parties are not in favor of raising tax rates for taxpayers with less than $400,000 in income. The parties disagree on taxes for taxpayers with incomes above $400,000. There are also differences between the two parties on future of the estate tax exclusion, which will rise to $13,990,000 per person in 2025 but will fall to about half that in 2026 without action by Congress. Annual gifting is one way to lower one’s taxable estate. The annual gift tax exclusion in 2024 is $18,000 per person per donee for 2024 and is adjusted for inflation in $1,000 increments. As always, if you have any questions about taxes, please reach us any time at (833) 888-0534 x2 or info@westbranchcapital.com The views and information contained in this article and on this website are those of West Branch Capital LLC and are provided for general information. The information herein should not serve as the sole determining factor for making legal, tax, or investment decisions. All information is obtained from sources believed to be reliable, but West Branch Capital LLC does not guarantee its reliability. West Branch Capital LLC is not an attorney, accountant or actuary and does not provide legal, tax, accounting or actuarial advice.
November 7, 2024
One of the most important questions to ask about any investment account is: “what percentage of the account is allocated to equities (stocks)?” This is an important question, in general, because equity exposure will increase the volatility of the account. In a strong bull market (like we are experiencing currently), equity allocation is a major driver of positive returns relative to fixed income (bonds) or cash. During a stock market correction (decline), equity allocation will negatively impact performance relative to bonds or cash, therefore, in both instances contributing to large variability of the account value. It is important to note that these points are generalizations, not rules. There are exceptions. For example, a highly speculative fixed income investment like a junk bond can be more volatile than a high quality defensive stock. Generalizations are best applied to broad market indices (e.g. the S&P 500 and the U.S. Aggregate Bond Index) or baskets of well-chosen high-quality stocks and investment grade bonds. Because of the increased volatility of equities, they have an especially significant impact on any account during bull and bear markets. While past returns are no guarantee of future returns, equities have also delivered higher returns than fixed income over the long term historically. In the WBC client portal, you can view the performance of your holdings by asset class (Equity, Fixed Income, others) by clicking “Reports” along the top bar, then selecting “Account Performance” under “Performance” and scrolling down. Comparing Equity and Bond Returns Two of the most widely used performance measures for US equities and US investment grade bonds are the SPDR S&P 500 ETF Trust (Ticker: SPY, which tracks the S&P 500) and the iShares Core US Aggregate Bond ETF (Ticker: AGG, which tracks the Bloomberg US Aggregate Bond Index). Based on these two measures, as shown in the table below, equities have outperformed fixed income significantly. On a total return basis, equities have outperformed over the last 1, 3, 5, 10 and 20-year periods. Holding the S&P 500 for the last 20 years would have earned a 677% total return. This return is 598% higher than the total return from the bond index. 
How to Protect Against Inflation
By Ian Mahmud August 28, 2024
With inflation easing and the US economy showing some signs of weakness, the market is now turning its attention to a potential rate cut.

Share Article

Share by: