Improvements in mortality are
changing Social Security's progressive design intended to benefit lower
earners, according to an issue brief released Tuesday by the Center for
Retirement Research at Boston College.
Matthew S. Rutledge, a research
economist at CRR, noted in the issue brief that average
life expectancy at age 65 has increased by six years for men and four years for
women in the last 50 years, but people with lower socioeconomic status
"have seen relatively small improvements."
A review of research finds that
the widening gap in life expectancy is due in part to improved health outcomes
for higher earners. One study included in the brief also found that lower
earners live longer in areas with greater income disparities, possibly because
of exposure to behavioral norms or more robust tax bases that enable more
government spending on health care and the environment.
Auto portability viewed as way to reduce number of missing
participantsCommentary: Forget about me – save Social SecuritySave early, often and anywhere you canMillennials on track for better retirement outcome –
Empower Institute
As the mortality gap between
income levels increases, higher earners are receiving Social Security benefits
for a longer time. That has significantly reduced — though not eliminated — the
overall progressivity of the Social Security program, which was designed to
help lower earners the most. The research brief cites a 2017 National Academy
of Sciences report that found benefits for men in the highest income quartile
increasing to $295,000 for those born in 1960 from $229,000 for those born in
1930, while benefits for men in the two lowest income quartiles fell or
increased modestly.
Improved mortality also came up
Tuesday as the confirmation hearing for Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh
began in the Senate Judiciary Committee. According to an actuarial analysis by
Oliver Wyman, increasing longevity also means fewer court vacancies and fewer
opportunities for future presidents to appoint a justice. Many of the current
justices "are not likely to be going anywhere for two or three
decades" and presidents who do get an opportunity to appoint a justice
"will be able to leave a mark on the court for many years after their time
in the White House," the analysis said.
CONTACT HAZEL BRADFORD AT HBRADFORD@PIONLINE.COM · @BRADFORD_PI
No comments:
Post a Comment