Writing in U.S. News & World Report, I argue that the technical side of Social Security reform should wait until we consider some of the broader issues on what we want a social insurance program to accomplish and how different households react to government plans offering retirement benefits.
First, we must recognize that while Social Security is a progressive program and does help reduce poverty in old age, most benefits don't go to poor households. In fact, the highest-earning fifth of the population receives about one-third of total Social Security benefits, and the next fifth receives almost another third. Social Security doesn't pay benefits to middle- and high-earning households because those households can't save on their own. It pays those benefits based on a political calculation, dating from the time of Social Security's founding, that middle- and higher-earning Americans wouldn't support a program that benefits the poor unless they themselves received a benefit from it. But paying generous benefits to middle- and high-earning households gets very expensive as the population ages and the workforce paying into Social Security shrinks.
And second, there is plenty of evidence that middle- and high-earning households treat Social Security and personal saving as substitutes. That is, if you increase Social Security benefits, these households will save less on their own. If Social Security benefits are lower, middle- and high-earning households tend to save more to make up the difference. Research from the U.S., United Kingdom, Canada and Poland finds similar results: If future Social Security benefits are lowered, middle- and upper-income workers save more. But if future benefits are made more generous, working-age households will save less. The result of the Democratic candidates' plans to expand Social Security benefits would very likely be less individual retirement saving by middle- and upper-income Americans.
Click here to read the whole article.