The average person needs to save at least $122.65 per month starting now to protect themselves from the Catfood Commission Co-Chairs’ recommendations. I’ve done a chart to help you figure out how much you need to save.
Social Security
The Co-Chairs, Alan Simpson and Erskine Bowles, propose to cut Social Security benefits by increasing the retirement age and changing the formula for cost of living increases. The net effect of these changes is shown on Page 49 of their report (link above). For people whose income is in the middle quintile, lifetime median benefits will fall 8%. People will have to save to make up that loss.
Here’s an example. Suppose you are 42 years old, and earn the median wage. I estimate that is an income of about $47,000, based on the 2007 Federal Reserve Board’s Consumer Finance Survey (pdf), table 1 01-07. You plan to work to full retirement age, 67, and expect to live 20 years after that.
Retirement planners use charts like Table 2 on this page to estimate the amount of your Social Security benefits when you retire. Using that and interpolating, I estimate your annual benefits at $29,000, so your monthly loss would be $193. To make up that loss, you need to save $34,800 between now and retirement (I used this calculator), assuming you earn a 3% annual return in retirement.
If you manage this yourself, you will run out of money after 20 years, which would be a problem if you lived longer. If you buy an actual annuity, you have to save more, but you are protected if you live longer, and your heirs would get something if you died earlier. To be safe, let’s say you need to accumulate an additional $38,000. If you work the whole 20 years, you need to save an additional $85.20 each and every month for the entire time at 3% according to this calculator. Of course this is only an estimate. You have to watch inflation and your income going forward to make appropriate adjustments. . . . [cont'd.]
Medicare
It’s much harder to figure out the costs of the proposed Medicare reductions. The Co-Chairs just say they want to increase cost-sharing, meaning they want to increase co-pays and require you to pay a percentage of the cost of treatment. The idea is that if it costs you more out-of-pocket, you won’t abuse the system.
Suppose the final number is 5% cost sharing and an increase of $10 in co-pays. According to the Medicare Trustees (pdf), the best estimate of Medicare expenditures is 4.28% of GDP in 2020 (page 16) . The CBO projects GDP of $23.4 trillion that year, (p. 30, pdf page 48), giving an estimate of $1 trillion in Medicare expenditures. A 5% cost-sharing rule would cost Medicare beneficiaries about $50 billion. The Census Bureau projects that there will be 61.5 million people of Medicare age in 2020, so your share of the $50 billion is $813 that year, increasing after that.
How much should you budget to pay that additional cost? Let’s say you see a doctor twice a year, for $20 in co-pays. You have to pay for your drugs, so let’s add an additional $500 of co-pay and cost-sharing on those. That gives an estimate of $1,333. Assuming again that you will live 20 years after retirement (assuming you begin to use Medicare then), you would need an additional savings of $20,029, and monthly savings of $37.45. Adding the Social Security savings, we get a total of $122.65.
The Medicare number varies from person to person, but one thing is clear, the weakest citizens pay more than the healthiest, so the sicker you are, the more you need to save.
How Much Should You Save?
The calculations are a bit complicated, so I did some estimates of how much you should save. I assume that you expect to live 20 years past your retirement. I use Table 2 of this page. The cuts are my estimates based on the draft report of the Co-Chairs, page 49.
I assume an interest rate of 3% both during the time you are saving and the time you are drawing down your savings. Most people will be in CDs or savings accounts, so the lower figure is more likely to be right for them. For people who can take some risks in the stock market, you might need to save less if you think you can get a higher rate of return.
I use three estimates of time to retirement — 15, 25, and 35 years. I do not add money to cover expenses or give a cushion. I use the above estimate for Medicare, which does include a cushion.
Although Table 2 does seem to include some changes for inflation, I doubt it will be accurate. As time goes by, you need to increase your savings to account for inflation, especially if you are a long way from retirement. Also, the farther you are from retirement, the more likely your income will change. This may require increased savings as well.
Good luck, fellow Americans, you are on your own.



19 Comments





Support this site!
Subscribe to the newsletter
Advertise on Firedoglake
Send
us your tips
Make us your homepage
About Firedoglake
Interesting – there is an actuarial calculation for something called a deferred annuity (not the savings plans that simply allow you to buy an annuity at the end, but a calculation that discounts for mortality so you do not need as much money and you do not need 3 scenarios – but it is an actuarial calculation), but the point you are making is clear – more clear than if you had to explain “actuarial discount for mortality” to present your case,
I like the fact that the you show that the Federal solution to getting a lower liability is to transfer that liability reduction into an increased liability for individuals, if they want they same level of care and income. Not a great solution.
Getting rid of the wage cap is only second only to killing all the Bush tax cuts in terms of getting wealth in-equality and income in-equality to stop growing. The alternative involves violence – and we do not need a bunch of 1960 retreads now 50 years older yelling in the streets and scaring the police and any nurses near-by that might need to care for the heart attacks.
:-).
Gee I hear George Soros is upset, not over losing but over losing but not fighting. Suggested the dems give somewhere else for their causes. Suppose? On HP.
I read that earlier… But as we have seen his sperm producers seem to have been shriveled up with all of his standing up to the pukes… Whats not to be pissed about??
I’m not a big fan of lifting the wage cap. To my mind, the problem is that the hyper-rich wrecked the economy, and then started sucking the blood out of the working people of America. Until they pay, I don’t want to pay more.
But eliminating the cap completly would make sure SS is there for the next generation. And the Rich would have top pay the same rate as the rest of us. I see no problem in the fairness of that. Some at the top now hit the top stop with their first pay check of the year. Why are they Entitled to not have pay at the same rate as the rest of the working Americans???
Gotta MAKE money in order to save it. There are a whole lot of us not making anything and it’s only getting worse.
To masaccio at #4
Removing the wage cap is equivalent of a 1.75% reduction in the payroll tax, assuming you want the same take as to tax going into Social Security and we agree to not make SS into a welfare program with the rich paying an extra tax without getting an extra benefit. So the rich pay more, get an extra benefit, and your payroll tax rate drops from 15.3% to 13.55, where we retain the current 7.65 share for the employer, and reduce your rate to 5.90 %.
I suspect that even without the wage cap, you would pay less because of that lower rate – and it is certain the system would fairer. In any case the default is a wage cap coving 90% of the population’s income – which means a cap at $194,000.
To masaccio at #4
I forgot to mention that the effect is that the rich pay more – because the benefit formula, unlike the tax, is very progressive with only a 15% factor for the top wages, the sytem gets that extra money that allows you to pay less.
I can’t think of a more progressive idea – except may not renewing any of the Bush tax cuts.
We don’t need a tax increase to solve the Social Security problem, now or for a very long time. As I pointed out in this diary, the only thing we do by increasing FICA is increase the amount of money available to cut the budget deficit. According to the Co-Chairs, the increase in taxes will reduce the budget deficit by .2%.
What we need is money to fix our problems, unemployment and infrastructure. There is too much money available for unneeded and unwanted private investment, and that money is corrupting the financial system. It is used for gambling, investments overseas, and buying politicians.
We should raise taxes dramatically on the rich, fix the real problems, and then see what we need to do about Social Security.
I worry that if we remain fixated on the Trust Fund, and raise taxes to add more money to it, sooner or later it will be used to screw people. I’m beginning to think it might be better to convert to a pay as you go system, supplemented by the existing Trust Fund in down years.
What do you think about that?
I would agree with the income tax but go back to the tax rate under Kennedy. And then in the future permanently fix SS by making everyone pay the same % rates. I still see no reason eliminate the top stop, but in line with what you said as part of that that, the added $$ goes into a fund that only SS can draw from when needed. One of the reasons SS will have problems is that money was already spent in budgets!
What happens if we can’t average 3% return on retirement savings accounts? Thanks to Timmeh!, Helicopter Ben, and the rest of the Rubinite Gang we may be in a very long period of zero percent interest rates where nobody makes money on their IRA’s.
Amen.
F*&#kers better not call me up and ask me for money. Better not e-mail asking me to Dig deep.
Thanks for the chart. I won’t be reviving the economy this holiday season. I ‘ll be saving for retirement.
Well said.
As a single, public school teacher at 50, based upon my current salary, I will be fine if I stop buying groceries, using electricity, and forego any and all medical care. Oh, and I need to live to the age of 125 or so. Should be doable. Or I can just commit suicide, whichever suits the rich, of course, and causes them the least trouble.
I thought this was an interesting statement from Jeremy Grantham:
- excerpt from “November 16, 2010 – The Jeremy Grantham Interview“
The US system, like the European systems set up at the later 1800′s and early 1900′s, is basically “pay as you go” because the rich, already pissed by the setting up of a public retirement system, were red-faced over the idea of the government controlling “private assets”.
The fellow who designed the system for FDR, and was later Chief Actuary, Mr Myers, wrote a book, “Social Security”, where he recounts how when the GOP and Southern Democrats regain Congressional control in the 1940′s (FDR never lost “Democratic control” with the 1947 Congress being the first to go R – and then it did so in both Houses)they immediately killed the idea of pre-funding retirement – making the “Trust Fund” just a safety valve that was to contain 3 to 18 months of payments.
So the system has been “pay as you” go for years – indeed from day one more or less. Other social net programs invest in non-government bonds so that no one can claim they are pretend assets and so deficits lead directly to the need to borrow from the market – a control on government spending. But from day one in 1940′s our Social Security only acted as a way to borrow less from the public markets (Bullshit about budgit changes in the 60′s that were a grab of Social Security assets are just folks that do not understand the sytem – there was an accounting presentation change called the “unified budget” that made clear what would be the coming demand on the private capital market (the total new debt less the portion funded by Social Security surpluses) – but the presentation change did not do anything new to the System.
Back in the 1940′s there were actual political campaign screaming about “Socialism by the backdoor” if Social Security were allowed to develope large assets – fund itself in the manner used by private company pension plans. So pay-as-you-go with a small surplus equal to a few months payments which is invested in only government bonds was the rule for the Trust Fund. Myers book is fun reading (well at least for an actuary it is! :-) ).
In any case removing the cap is a 1.75% payroll tax equivalent reduction if you want to not increase the size of the Trust Fund.