IDEAS home Printed from
MyIDEAS: Login to save this paper or follow this series

The US Social Security: A Financial Appraisal For The Median Voter

  • Galasso, Vincenzo

Why do voters support PAYG social security systems? Browning (1975) suggested that for a majority of voters, who consider past contributions as a sunk cost, unfunded systems may represent a better investment than alternative assets, such as mutual or pension funds. I quantify the relevance of Browning's argument by analysing the performance of the US social security system as an asset. For different specifications of the median voter's household at US Presidential elections from 1964 to 1996, I calculate the return from 'investing' in social security, i.e. the rate of discount that equalizes the expected present value of current and future contributions with the expected present value of pension benefits. For the baseline family, the returns fluctuate between 5.7% in 1984 - with a 43 year old median voter - and 9.8% in 1964 - 46 year old median voter - and is therefore in line with the average US stock market return over the last century: 6.6% for the S&P Composite. In particular, social security outperforms both S&P Composite and Dow Jones Industrial Average in ex-post returns for the median voters at the 1964 and 1968 elections, this difference vanishes in the 1972 election, and it is reversed in the 1976 election.

If you experience problems downloading a file, check if you have the proper application to view it first. In case of further problems read the IDEAS help page. Note that these files are not on the IDEAS site. Please be patient as the files may be large.

File URL:
Download Restriction: CEPR Discussion Papers are free to download for our researchers, subscribers and members. If you fall into one of these categories but have trouble downloading our papers, please contact us at

As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to look for a different version under "Related research" (further below) or search for a different version of it.

Paper provided by C.E.P.R. Discussion Papers in its series CEPR Discussion Papers with number 2456.

in new window

Date of creation: May 2000
Date of revision:
Handle: RePEc:cpr:ceprdp:2456
Contact details of provider: Postal: Centre for Economic Policy Research, 77 Bastwick Street, London EC1V 3PZ.
Phone: 44 - 20 - 7183 8801
Fax: 44 - 20 - 7183 8820

Order Information: Email:

No references listed on IDEAS
You can help add them by filling out this form.

This item is not listed on Wikipedia, on a reading list or among the top items on IDEAS.

When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:cpr:ceprdp:2456. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: ()

If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

If references are entirely missing, you can add them using this form.

If the full references list an item that is present in RePEc, but the system did not link to it, you can help with this form.

If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

This information is provided to you by IDEAS at the Research Division of the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis using RePEc data.