On December 16, 2004, President George
W. Bush hosted a summit to discuss the future of Social Security
and to press for reform that would allow younger workers to divert
part of their payroll taxes into their own personal retirement
accounts (PRAs). During the summit, former Representative Tim
Penny (D-MN) made an interesting comment about PRAs, "[I]f we
had saved these [Social Security] surpluses honestly in personal
accounts over the last 20 years, we'd be well on the way to fixing
this problem by now."[1]
That sentiment gives rise to an
interesting simulation exercise. What if there had been PRAs
in the recent past? What would it mean to the future retirement
security of Americans? Would such change, as the President
predicted in his most recent State of the Union address, "make the
system a better deal for younger workers"?[2]
This simulation seeks to analyze what
would have happened if PRAs had been available for the baby
boomers, the large cohort of Americans, whose oldest members are
now in their late 50s. What would have happened if in 1964-when the
first baby boomers entered the workforce- President Lyndon B.
Johnson had declared an "ownership society" as part of the "Great
Society"? This ongoing research comes to the following
preliminary conclusions:
-
Currently, most baby boomers will rely
on Social Security for the bulk of their retirement
income. Social Security
has been deemed part of the "three-legged stool,"[3] in which
Social Security, private pensions, and savings may be considered
the three legs of retirement income. In truth, it is an
unbalanced stool in which Social Security represents the bulk
of retirement income for baby boomers. For the average baby-boomer
family, Social Security represents almost 63 percent of its net
worth.[4]
-
Under this sample PRA plan, baby boomers
would have been far less dependent on traditional Social
Security payments for their retirement. This simulation shows that under the
described PRA plan, the average baby-boomer family could have built
a PRA equal to nearly $400,000 by retirement. Under that scenario,
traditional Social Security would account only for roughly 26
percent of that family's net worth.
-
This simulation shows that baby boomers
would have generally seen a sizable increase in their retirement
security if they had PRAs throughout their working
lives. The average
baby-boomer family would have seen its retirement security-defined
as traditional Social Security plus PRAs-increase
significantly. This would happen despite the simulation's
assumption that the PRA plan would reduce a worker's traditional
Social Security benefits to half of current law
benefits.
Indeed, PRAs have a remarkable potential
to increase the retirement security of Americans. This simulation
analysis of the baby boomers shows that, with very few exceptions,
millions of Americans with low and moderate incomes could use PRAs
in conjunction with traditional Social Security to secure their
retirement income. For instance:
-
PRAs would have increased retirement
security by some 30 percent for baby boomers;
-
PRAs would have substantially increased
the net worth of the baby boomers, especially among low-wealth
families;
-
Virtually all of the boomers would have
been better off with PRAs; and
-
The gain in retirement security would be
between $41,000 and $214,000 at age 65, in inflation-adjusted 2001
dollars.
Background
Social Security reform has become a
central policy issue for the second term of the Bush
Administration, with the President vowing to spend his
political capital to modernize the government-run pension system.
This drive for reform is coming at a time when the baby boomers,
the largest generation alive in America today,[5] will
begin reaching retirement age in just a few years.
The research in this paper poses a novel
question. What would the baby boomers' retirement security be
if they had had personal retirement accounts? How would that have
likely changed their retirement security and their wealth
holdings generally?
With PRAs, Social Security would then
become a two-part system. Part A would consist of traditional
Social Security benefits. The only difference would be that
under PRAs, Part A Social Security would equal only half of
scheduled current law benefits. Part B would be the account
value for the PRAs.
Methodology: Baby Boomer Wealth Analysis
First, this analysis must ascertain the
likely financial well-being of the baby-boom generation by looking
at the distribution of wealth across the baby-boom population. The
baby boomers as a group are close enough to retirement age that
their likely wealth holdings at age 65 can be estimated. This
analysis also seeks to estimate what the value of their PRAs could
have been, using the actual rates of return observed in the recent
past.
In this analysis, "wealth" is
operationally defined as encompassing three major categories:
private net worth, Part A Social Security wealth, and Part B
personal retirement account value. (See the Technical Appendix for
a more detailed explanation of the methodology.)
Private Net
Worth. Typical
discussions of wealth focus almost exclusively on this topic. Net
worth is defined as the sum of assets (e.g., personal savings,
real estate, investment and retirement accounts, and future
pension claims) minus any liabilities (e.g., mortgages, credit card
balances, and other secured and unsecured loans). This
simulation assumes that, between the stock of current wealth and
the flow of new money into accounts, the real inflation-adjusted
growth rate would equal a conservative 5 percent per year. Net
worth is evaluated upon attainment of age 65. The Federal Reserve
Bank's triennial Survey of Consumer Finance (SCF) is used to
generate figures for these families, and the 2001 data are used for
this analysis.[6]
Part A Social Security
Wealth. Social Security
payments may be considered as a kind of wealth holding.[7] If Congress does not change
current law (and sufficient funds exist to pay these future
beneficiaries), a person's Social Security wealth equals the
total of Social Security payments over the individual's
estimated life expectancy after retirement, including survivor's
benefits.
In order to gauge Social Security
payments, something must be known about a worker's earnings
history. The SCF data have only limited information regarding the
wages, salaries, and self-employment earnings in the file. However,
census data[8] can be used to construct a
somewhat predictable earnings profile for a worker's entire
career. This profile can then be used to estimate the worker's (and
spouse's) Social Security benefits.[9]
Part B Personal Retirement Account
Value. The final
category is the value of a Part B PRA account at age 65. The
simulated PRA is funded via a sliding-scale payroll tax, which
varies between 2.5 percent and 7 percent of earnings depending on
the worker's earnings level.[10] The PRA is
funded in this manner up to the value of the Social Security wage
base, which for 2005 is $90,000 per worker. A worker earning
$90,000 or more would have $2,250 deposited into his or her PRA for
the year.
The account is invested in a portfolio
equally divided between large company stocks and bonds. Actual
rates of return are used where historical data exist. Otherwise,
the simulation assumes a nominal rate of return (net of
administrative fees) of 7.7 percent (a 4.7 percent real rate of
return plus the assumed 3.0 percent inflation rate). At age 65, the
value of the account is deflated to 2001 dollars, in order to be
consistent with the other parts of the analysis.
The simulation compares two scenarios.
First, current law Social Security wealth (i.e., the value of all
Social Security payments over the estimated life expectancy of
the individual) is compared against estimated non-Social
Security wealth for the family. Then, the value of PRAs is added.
The assumed trade-off in this simulation is that Social Security is
split into a Part A traditional benefit, which is reduced to
50 percent of scheduled current law benefits, and the Part B
personal retirement account.
Disaggregated Results
The following sections answer three
basic questions: First, what will the net worth of the baby
boomers at age 65 likely be? Second, under current law, what
will the Social Security benefits likely be for this group? What
proportion of net worth would Social Security comprise, if it were
an asset? Third, what would be the net effect of PRAs, if they had
existed in 1964 when the first baby boomers entered the
workforce?
Net Worth. Because the baby-boom generation is a
large one-more than 70 million individuals born during the course
of 18 years-calculating the net worth of the entire generation is
not necessarily an easy endeavor. Using data from the Federal
Reserve,[11] the baby boomers' net worth
(defined broadly as total assets minus total liabilities) was
calculated. Older baby boomers would be expected to have a higher
net worth than those who are younger, and the data and calculations
confirm this.
In order to adequately compare the net
worth of the boomers, all baby-boomer families are evaluated
at age 65. Net worth for the boomers at age 65 will likely be much
larger than it currently is, so the simulated net worth is
conservatively grown at a real rate of 5 percent per year,[12] which encompasses not
only the appreciation of assets but also the net paydown of
privately held debt. Obviously, this methodology cannot be used if
the baby-boomer family has a negative net worth. Fortunately,
this problem affects only a very small fraction of the
baby-boom population.
The baby boomers are then subdivided
into 10 deciles, or equal groupings, on the basis of net worth.
Deciles are chosen so that a distributional analysis may be
conducted for boomers at various wealth and income levels (since
income and wealth are generally correlated with each other).
Therefore, the bottom 10 percent of families in terms of net worth
comprise the first decile, the next lowest 10 percent comprise the
second decile, and so forth. Mean (average) net worth
calculations are specified for each of the deciles, and the
results of this exercise are in Table 1.

Table 1 shows that most baby boomers
will have substantial assets at age 65. The average net worth for
baby boomers in the fifth (median) decile is nearly $278,000. At
the same time, there is a sizable group of baby boomers that
may have little in net assets at retirement. This analysis shows
that some 25 percent of baby boomers may have a net worth at
retirement of less than $50,000, which may not be an adequate
safety net in case of emergencies. At the other end of the
spectrum, this analysis estimates that perhaps as many as 25
percent of the boomers may have a net worth of over $1 million
at age 65.
Social Security Wealth. Earnings from self-employment income and
traditional wages and salaries were used to generate a curvilinear
lifetime earnings function. This information was then used to
calculate the Social Security benefits (the "personal
insurance amount") of the individual baby-boomer worker for his or
her initial retirement year. This is done for all of the baby
boomers who reported positive earnings in the Federal Reserve data.
The model's estimated Social Security benefits were compared
against calculations using the ANYPIA computer program of the
Social Security Administration,[13] which can
estimate benefits. In the cases selected for audit, the Heritage
Foundation program produced results very close to the ANYPIA
calculations.
Under current law, once initial Social
Security benefits are set, they are only adjusted annually for
inflation. If all baby boomers in the analysis are assumed to
attain an age of 65, they are estimated to live for another 16.4
years if male and 19.4 years if female. The sum of these Social
Security payments over the baby boomer's lifetime may be termed
"Social Security wealth."[14]
Chart 1a and Chart 1b show averages for
Social Security wealth and other net worth. Totaling these averages
gives the individual family's estimated net assets at retirement.
For most baby boomers, Social Security wealth is greater than other
net worth. For the fifth (median) decile, the average Social
Security wealth amounts to $472,000- substantially higher than the
nearly $278,000 in other net worth. Only at the seventh decile does
average Social Security wealth approximately equal average other
net worth.


Therefore, Social Security will comprise
the lion's share of retirement security for most baby boomers.
Indeed, Chart 2 shows that Social Security wealth accounts for more
than 75 percent of wealth at retirement for the bottom three
deciles. Additionally, it represents at least 50 percent of
wealth at retirement for more than 70 percent of all baby
boomers.

Effect of Part B Personal Retirement
Accounts. PRAs would be
individually owned accounts funded through the current Social
Security payroll taxes on a sliding scale. Those workers with the
lowest earnings would have 7 percent of their earnings placed
into their Part B PRAs, while those at the maximum Social Security
wage base would have 2.5 percent of their earnings deposited into
their PRAs.[15]
Because the introduction of PRAs would
come at a cost in the current system, Social Security benefits
would be cut in half under the PRA simulation. Operationally,
the same average baby-boomer family would have only a Social
Security wealth of $236,000 in the PRA simulation, instead of
$472,000 under traditional Social Security. Put another way, the
sum total of the traditional Social Security (Part A) payments over
their lifetimes would be half of scheduled benefits under
current law.
This simulation seeks to establish
whether or not this PRA system would have made the typical baby
boomer better off financially. In other words, would the private
accounts grow enough to offset the 50 percent reduction in
benefits?
Critics may disagree with conducting
this kind of "what if" analysis, arguing that the point is largely
moot given that PRAs do not in fact exist. However, this analysis
shows the potential of PRAs, using actual historical rates of
return for most of this generation's working lives.
Table 2 shows how much money could have
been saved in these PRAs, if they had been available for the
baby boomers' entire working lives. The average family in the fifth
(median) decile would have accumulated nearly $400,000 in its PRA.
Even workers at the bottom end of the distribution would have
earned a tidy sum: The bottom decile would have amassed nearly
$118,000 by age 65.

This simulation shows that virtually all
baby boomers would have been better off under PRAs versus current
law Social Security benefits. Chart 3 shows that even after the
reduction of current law Social Security benefits, the average
baby-boomer family would have gained nearly $162,000 in additional
assets that could be spent at retirement. If that lump sum was used
to purchase an annuity at age 66 (the full retirement age for
the oldest of the baby boomers), that additional money could be
converted into an income stream that would pay out between $850 and
$1,150 per month, depending on the kind of annuity purchased.[16]

A detailed analysis of the simulation
database generated found that some 98 percent of baby boomers would
have been better off financially with PRAs than under current law.
Those who were not made better off typically had very low earnings.
A separate policy solution could be fashioned so that the plan
does not worsen the situation of these families.
Clearly, PRAs strengthen retirement
security for Americans. If PRAs had been available to baby boomers,
they would have experienced about a 30 percent increase in their
retirement security, a percentage that fluctuates only
slightly across the 10 baby-boomer groups outlined here.
Additionally, PRAs generate a
significant amount of wealth, especially for the lower-wealth
deciles. Chart 4 shows the percent increase in net worth at age 65
with the advent of the PRA. The bottom three deciles show a more
than 50 percent increase in net worth with PRAs, a percentage that
understandably tapers off as net worth rises.

Discussion
PRAs have a remarkable potential to
increase the retirement security of Americans. This simulation
of the baby boomers shows that, with very few exceptions, millions
of Americans with low and moderate incomes could use PRAs in
conjunction with traditional Social Security to secure their
retirement income. This analysis concludes the following
potential benefits of Social Security reform that includes
PRAs:
-
PRAs would have increased retirement
security by some 30 percent for baby boomers;
-
PRAs would have substantially increased
the net worth of the baby boomers, especially among low-wealth
families;
-
Virtually all baby boomers would have
been better off with PRAs; and
-
The gain in retirement security would be
between $41,000 and $214,000 at age 65.
In most cases, properly structured PRAs
would have allowed baby boomers to accumulate wealth in the
hundreds of thousands of dollars. This increased wealth would more
than compensate for reduced level of Social Security (Part A)
retirement benefits. Therefore, PRAs could help millions of
American families to build savings and accumulate wealth that they
could use during retirement or pass on to future generations.
Ultimately, such reform could provide millions of individuals with
the opportunity to attain greater economic security and
independence through their own personalized retirement
assets.
Sadly, the baby-boom generation is
nearing retirement, and only the youngest baby boomers could now
benefit from such Social Security reform. Even so, this research
underscores the tremendous potential of PRAs for Generation
Xers and following generations. Congress owes it to the American
people to create such an ownership society this
session.
Kirk A. Johnson,
Ph.D., is Senior Policy Analyst in the Center
for Data Analysis at The Heritage Foundation.
Technical Appendix
This analysis seeks to ascertain the
likely effect of PRAs on the wealth holdings of the baby boomers,
the more than 70 million individuals born between 1946 and 1964.
This effort included three basic steps.
Step #1: Calculate
Net Worth for Baby Boomers at Age 65.
Net worth is defined as the sum of
assets (e.g., personal savings, real estate, investment and
retirement accounts, and future pension claims) minus any
liabilities (e.g., mortgages, credit card balances, and other
secured and unsecured loans). This simulation assumes that, between
the stock of current wealth and the flow of new money into
accounts, the real inflation-adjusted growth rate would equal a
conservative 5 percent per year. Net worth is evaluated upon the
attainment of age 65.
The Federal Reserve Bank's triennial
Survey of Consumer Finance (SCF)[17] is used to
generate net worth figures for these families, and the 2001 data
are used for this analysis.[18]
Step #2: Calculate
Social Security Wealth.
Social Security wealth is operationally
defined here as the present value of the Social Security retirement
and survivorship payments (if applicable) that the individual
family would likely receive throughout retirement. In order to
gauge Social Security payments, something must be known about the
earnings history of these workers. Since SCF data are used to
generate the wealth profile of these families, the SCF is also used
for the earnings data. Ideal data would include an entire work
history. However, the SCF provides only cross-sectional
data on earnings and self-employment income. Nevertheless, census
data[19] can be used to construct a
somewhat predictable profile of earnings throughout a worker's
career.[20] This profile can then be
used to calculate the worker's (and spouse's) Social Security
benefits.[21] This is done for all of the
boomers who reported positive earnings in the Federal Reserve
data.[22] The model's estimated Social
Security benefits were compared against calculations using the
Social Security Administration's ANYPIA computer program,[23] which can estimate benefits.
The Heritage program produced results very close to the ANYPIA
calculations in the cases selected for audit.
Under current law, once initial Social
Security benefits are set, they are only adjusted annually for
inflation. If all baby boomers in the analysis are assumed to
attain an age of 65,[24] they are estimated to
live for another 16.4 years if male and 19.4 years if female.[25]
Social Security is then treated as a
kind of store of wealth that is operationally defined as the stream
of benefit payments paid after retirement, based on life
expectancy. Even though the Supreme Court held in Flemming v.
Nestor[26] that there is no
individual right to Social Security payments, economists
routinely treat Social Security as a store of wealth in this
fashion because of the rational expectation of such benefits. Some
may argue that Social Security wealth should be equal to the price
of an annuity that would be needed to purchase such a stream of
monthly payments. Case-study computations by CDA analysts showed
that annuity prices can be approximately equal to or less than the
sum of monthly payments when the life expectancies assumed in this
paper are used together with a real interest rate assumption of
1.25 percent, which was based on the inflation-adjusted T-bill
rate.
Step #3: Calculate
PRA Value.
The final category is the value of a
Part B personal retirement account at age 65. The PRA is
funded via a sliding-scale payroll tax, which varies between 2.5
percent and 7 percent of earnings depending on the earnings level
of the individual worker.[27] The PRA is funded in this
manner up to the value of the Social Security wage base, which for
2005 is $90,000 per worker. A worker earning $90,000 or more would
have $2,250 deposited into his or her PRA for the year.
The account is invested in a portfolio
equally divided between large company stocks and bonds. Given that
this simulation estimates the value of the PRA at age 65 for
individuals who are relatively close to retirement, the
returns to those investments are known for most of their working
lives. Actual rates of return were used where the historical data
exist, using the Ibbotson guide.[28] An equal
portfolio of large company stocks (total return) and government
bonds (year end yield) is used for this analysis.
After 2002, the simulation assumes a
nominal rate of return (net of administrative fees) of 7.7 percent
(a 4.7 percent real rate of return plus the assumed 3.0 percent
inflation rate).[29] At age 65, the value of the
account is deflated to 2001 dollars in order to be consistent
with the other parts of the analysis.
[1]White
House, "President Discusses Budget, Tax Relief at White House
Conference," Washington, D.C., December 16, 2004, at
www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2004/12/20041216-2.html
(January 31, 2005).
[2]President
George W. Bush, State of the Union Address, February 2, 2005, at
www.whitehouse.gov/stateoftheunion/2005/ index.html
(February 3, 2005).
[3]The
"three-legged stool" reference is attributed to former Metropolitan
Life Insurance actuary Reinhard A. Hohaus. Larry DeWitt, "Research
Note #1: Origins of the Three-Legged Stool Metaphor for Social
Security," Social Security Administration, May 1996, at
www.ssa.gov/history/stool.html (January 25,
2005).
[4]This
simulation assumes that Social Security benefit payments are
treated as an asset.
[5]The
baby-boom generation is typically defined as those born between
1946 and 1964. In 2004, the 78 million baby boomers were between
the ages of 40 and 58.
[6]See
Federal Reserve Board of Governors, "2001 Survey of Consumer
Finances," updated April 29, 2004,
at
www.federalreserve.gov/pubs/oss/oss2/2001/scf2001home.html
(January 25, 2005).
[7]The
notion of "Social Security wealth" traces its origins back to at
least the 1970s. The Congressional Budget Office notes that Social
Security wealth is "a measure that summarizes the value of future
Social Security benefits less the value of future payroll taxes."
Congressional Budget Office, "Social Security and Private Saving: A
Review of the Empirical Evidence," CBO Memorandum, July
1998, p. 3, at www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/7xx/doc731/ssprisav.pdf
(January 25, 2005). This notion is simplified somewhat for purposes
of this paper by evaluating the present value of Social Security at
age 65, which more or less obviates the need to subtract future
payroll taxes.
[8]U.S.
Bureau of the Census, Census 2000 Supplementary Survey. The survey
data are available at University of Minnesota, Social Sciences Data
Services, "Census 2000 Supplementary Survey (C2SS) Microdata
Sample," revised November 23, 2004, at
dsrc.lib.umn.edu/datadesc/c2ss-ipums.html (January 26,
2005).
[9]The
earnings data that the SCF uses are based on tax return
information. Consequently, no husband/wife earnings split
information is available. Therefore, this analysis assumes a
roughly 65/35 earnings split between husbands and wives, as often
reported in the empirical literature. See Anne E. Winkler,
"Earnings of Husbands and Wives in Dual-Earner Families,"
Monthly Labor Review, April 1998, p. 47. Social Security
benefits are estimated individually and summed for the
couple.
[10]This
methodology was used in previous research. See William W. Beach,
Alfredo B. Goyburu, Ralph A. Rector, David C. John, Kirk A.
Johnson, and Thomas Bingel, "Peace of Mind in Retirement: Making
Future Generations Better Off by Fixing Social Security,"
Heritage Foundation Center for Data Analysis Report No.
04-06, September 10, 2004, p. 45, at
www.heritage.org/Research/SocialSecurity/CDA04-06.cfm.
[11]Federal
Reserve Board of Governors, "2001 Survey of Consumer
Finances."
[12]This
real return rate of 5 percent was used because it roughly conformed
to the future PRA rate of return, while including a small (0.3
percent) premium that includes the net drawdown of debt.
[13]Social
Security Administration, "Social Security Detailed Calculator,"
updated November 1, 2004, at www.ssa.gov/OACT/
ANYPIA/anypia.html (January 25, 2005).
[14]Put
another way, this is the present value of the future Social
Security benefits with an assumed zero percent interest
rate.
[15]This
follows the methodology in Beach et al., "Peace of Mind in
Retirement," p. 45. This is an example PRA plan, which does not
exactly mimic any legislation currently being considered by
Congress.
[16]These
estimates are based on Federal Retirement Thrift Investment Board,
"Annuity Calculator," at
calc.tsp.gov/annuityCalculators/annuity.cfm (January 25,
2005).
[17]Federal
Reserve Board of Governors, "2001 Survey of Consumer
Finances."
[18]The
2004 data will not be released until the first quarter of 2006.
Field interviews for the survey were conducted through the end of
2004.
[19]U.S.
Bureau of the Census, Census 2000 Supplementary Survey. These data
show that earnings tend to take on a predictable curvilinear
shape. That is, earnings tend to increase rapidly in the first
several years of an individual's work life before tapering off when
the worker reaches his or her 40s. Earnings then decline
precipitously after age 50. Similar models have been used before.
See Beach et al., "Peace of Mind in Retirement," p.
45.
[20]One
of the unavoidable deficiencies in this approach is that it does
not allow for gaps in employment through a lifetime. Therefore, it
is likely that Social Security benefits would tend to be overstated
by this model, unless workers are employed through most-if not
all-of their prime earning years.
[21]The
full retirement age is either 66, 67, or something in between for
baby boomers. For an age breakdown, see Social Security
Administration, "Find Your Retirement Age," at
www.ssa.gov/retirechartred.htm (January 25, 2005). For
simplicity, baby boomers are assumed to retire at either age 66 or
67 and not an age in between.
[22]A
few baby boomers did not have positive earnings because of business
losses in that particular year. Without such information,
calculating Social Security benefits is not possible.
[23]Social
Security Administration, "Social Security Detailed
Calculator."
[24]This
is a somewhat strong assumption, although nearly 85 percent of all
Americans who reach the age of one will be alive at age 65
according to the CDC's life and survivorship tables. See Robert N.
Anderson, "United States Life Tables, 1998," National Vital
Statistics Report, February 7, 2001, p. 7, Table 1, at
www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/nvsr/nvsr48/nvs48_18.pdf (January 26,
2005).
[25]Kenneth
D. Kochanek, and Betty L. Smith, "Deaths: Preliminary Data for
2002," National Vital Statistics Report, February 11, 2004,
p. 25, Table 6, at
www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/nvsr/nvsr52/nvsr52_13.pdf (January 26,
2005). Although life expectancy has been increasing over the past
several years, it is unclear if this trend will continue and, if
so, by how much. Therefore, the model assumes current life
expectancy at age 65.
[27]This
methodology was used in previous research. See Beach et al.,
"Peace of Mind in Retirement," p. 45.
[28]
Ibbotson
Associates, Stocks,
Bonds, Bills, and Inflation: 2003 Yearbook, Market Results
for1926-2002 (Chicago,
Ill.: Ibbotson Associates, 2003), Table 2-6.
[29]This
rate of return is comparable to rates of return used elsewhere in
the Social Security debate. For example, see President's
Commission to Strengthen Social Security, Strengthening Social
Security and Creating Personal Wealth for All Americans,
December 2001, pp. 97-98; Stephen C. Goss, "Appendix II: Comparison
of Financial Effects of Advisory Council Plans to Modify the OASDI
Program," in Report of the 1994-1996 Advisory Council on Social
Security, Vol. 1, at
www.ssa.gov/history/reports/adcouncil/report/append2.htm
(January 26, 2005); and Social Security Administration, 2002
Annual Report of the Board of Trustees of the Federal Old-Age and
Survivors Insurance and Disability Insurance Trust Funds, March
26, 2002, Table V.B1 and Table V.B2, at
www.ssa.gov/OACT/TR/TR02 (January 26, 2005). The President's
Commission used a 4.6 percent real rate of return net of expenses,
while Goss and the SSA assume a 5.0 percent rate of return for
their respective mixed portfolios. Subtracting 0.3 percent from the
Goss/SSA rate for administrative expenses brings the rate of return
to 4.7 percent, the same one used in this analysis.