June 4, 2013
By Rachel Greszler
Proponents of the Senate immigration bill have been touting a recent analysis by the Social Security Chief Actuary which alleges a $4.6 trillion immigration boon for Social Security’s 75-year financial outlook. Despite a total lack of transparency in the actuarial analysis, a number of problems are quite clear—the largest being a failure to account for all future costs.
The Social Security System operates on a pay-as-you-go basis, meaning individuals pay taxes into the system decades before they receive anything in return. So regardless of how much they receive in comparison to what they pay in, the addition of any new group of taxpaying workers benefits Social Security’s solvency in the short run. Adding the impact of those workers’ children can extend the positive benefit indefinitely.
However, the Social Security actuaries fail to account for all of the additional benefits that new immigrants and their offspring will eventually draw from the system. This is like acquiring new credit cards and adding the newly available credit as assets but not subtracting the money spent on those cards as future liabilities.
Rather than considering the effects of immigration on Social Security over a certain time horizon, the Social Security actuaries should provide a closed-group analysis of immigrants’ effects on Social Security. Such an analysis would fully incorporate both the added taxes paid and benefits received by immigrants under the proposed bill.
Social insurance for the elderly consists primarily of Social Security and Medicare. While both programs are highly insolvent, Medicare is a much larger liability for the federal government. The average worker who retires today will receive more than three dollars in Medicare benefits for every one dollar of Medicare taxes paid. By 2030, this ratio will approach four dollars in benefits per dollar of taxes paid.
Unlike Social Security, in which benefits are based in part on tax contributions, Medicare benefits are the same regardless of workers’ payroll tax contributions, and Medicare taxes support only a small portion of Medicare benefits. Consequently, adding millions of workers with below-average wages (and thus below-average payroll tax contributions) would place an especially large drain on Medicare’s already frightful long-run finances—as well as the federal budget as a whole.
Just as Social Security’s trust fund is more like a black box than a lockbox, so too are the assumptions used in this actuarial analysis.
The initial May 8 letter to Senator Marco Rubio (R–FL) provides a few top-line assumptions, including the estimated number of new immigrants, change in tax revenues, and change in Social Security beneficiaries, but it provides no information on the assumptions that generated these estimates. Furthermore, the subsequent long-run forecasts were not made publicly available. The only long-run information shared with and reported by The Wall Street Journal is the net impact over 25 years and 75 years.
Because of the progressive nature of Social Security, in which the benefit formula multiplies low-level wages by 90 percent and the high wages by only 15 percent, the high wage assumptions for undocumented workers produce higher lifetime payroll tax contributions and bias the analysis in favor of higher net immigrant contributions.
It is obvious that the birth effects for a generic increase in immigration would have a positive effect on Social Security’s finances because the children of new immigrants would contribute Social Security taxes that would presumably be more than sufficient to cover the benefits paid to their parents, but this is not true of undocumented workers.
Children who are born to undocumented workers living in the U.S. are treated automatically as U.S. citizens and therefore incorporated into the Social Security system upon obtaining their first jobs. Legalizing their parents would not have any effect on their participation in the Social Security system.
Thus, a majority of the undocumented workers who would be made legal through the proposed bill would be pure liabilities to the Social Security system; they would pay little, if anything, more in taxes than they otherwise would, but they would be eligible for full Social Security benefits.
To understand the proposed immigration bill’s true effects on U.S. entitlement programs, lawmakers should request a revised, closed-group analysis of the proposed immigration bill’s effects on both Social Security and Medicare, including the details of the actuarial assumptions.
—Rachel Greszler is Senior Policy Analyst in Economics and Entitlements in the Center for Data Analysis at The Heritage Foundation.
Show references in this report
C. Eugene Steuerle and Caleb Quakenbush, “Social Security and Medicare Taxes and Benefits over a Lifetime 2012 Update,” Urban Institute, October 2012, http://www.urban.org/UploadedPDF/412660-Social-Security-and-Medicare-Taxes-and-Benefits-Over-a-Lifetime.pdf (accessed June 4, 2103).
Social Security Office of the Chief Actuary, letter to Senator Marco Rubio (R–FL), May 8, 2013, http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887324659404578503172929165846.html (accessed June 4, 2013).
The Wall Street Journal, “A $4.6 Trillion Opportunity: Immigration Reform Will Improve Social Security’s Finances,” June 3, 2013, http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887324659404578503172929165846.html (accessed June 4, 2013).
Robert Rector and Jason Richwine, “The Fiscal Cost of Unlawful Immigrants and Amnesty to the U.S. Taxpayer,” Heritage Foundation Special Report No. 133, May 6, 2013, http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2013/05/the-fiscal-cost-of-unlawful-immigrants-and-amnesty-to-the-us-taxpayer.
Congressional Budget Office, “Is Social Security Progressive?” December 15, 2006, http://www.cbo.gov/sites/default/files/cbofiles/ftpdocs/77xx/doc7705/12-15-progressivity-ss.pdf (accessed June 4, 2013).
Rector and Richwine, “The Fiscal Cost of Unlawful Immigrants and Amnesty to the U.S. Taxpayer.”
Entitlements, Taxes & Spending Initiative of the Leadership for America Campaign
Senior Policy Analyst, Economics and Entitlements
Read More >>
Request an interview >>
Please complete the following form to request an interview with a Heritage expert.
Please note that all fields must be completed.
Heritage's daily Morning Bell e-mail keeps you updated on the ongoing policy battles in Washington and around the country.
The subscription is free and delivers you the latest conservative policy perspectives on the news each weekday--straight from Heritage experts.
The Morning Bell is your daily wake-up call offering a fresh, conservative analysis of the news.
More than 200,000 Americans rely on Heritage's Morning Bell to stay up to date on the policy battles that affect them.
Rush Limbaugh says "The Heritage Foundation's Morning Bell is just terrific!"
Rep. Peter Roskam (R-IL) says it's "a great way to start the day for any conservative who wants to get America back on track."
Sign up to start your free subscription today!
The Heritage Foundation is the nation’s most broadly supported public policy research institute, with hundreds of thousands of individual, foundation and corporate donors. Heritage, founded in February 1973, has a staff of 275 and an annual expense budget of $82.4 million.
Our mission is to formulate and promote conservative public policies based on the principles of free enterprise, limited government, individual freedom, traditional American values, and a strong national defense. Read More
© 2013, The Heritage Foundation Conservative policy research since 1973