Changing Progressivity as a Means of Risk Protection in Investment-Based Social Security
This paper analyzes changes in the progressivity of the Social Security benefit formula as a means of lessening the risk inherent in investment-based Social Security reform. Focusing on a single cohort of workers, it simulates the distribution of benefits subject to both earnings and financial risks in a reformed system in which solvency has been restored and traditional benefits have been augmented by personal retirement accounts (PRAs). The simulations show that some investment in equities is desirable in all cases. However, switching from the current benefit formula to the maximally progressive formula -- a flat benefit independent of earnings -- improves the welfare of the the bottom 30 percent of the earnings distribution even if they reduce their PRA investments in equity to zero. An additional 30 percent of earners can lessen their equity investments without loss of welfare under the maximally progressive formula. Intermediate approaches in which traditional benefit replacement rates for lower earnings are reduced by less than those for higher earnings allow about half of the equity risk to be eliminated for the lowest earnings decile. Sensitivity tests show that these patterns are robust to different assumptions about risk aversion, the equity premium, and the size of the personal retirement accounts established by the reform.
|Date of creation:||Apr 2007|
|Publication status:||published as Brown, Jeffrey R., Jeffrey Liebman, and David A. Wise (eds.) Social Security Policy in a Changing Environment. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2009.|
|Contact details of provider:|| Postal: National Bureau of Economic Research, 1050 Massachusetts Avenue Cambridge, MA 02138, U.S.A.|
Web page: http://www.nber.org
More information through EDIRC
References listed on IDEAS
Please report citation or reference errors to , or , if you are the registered author of the cited work, log in to your RePEc Author Service profile, click on "citations" and make appropriate adjustments.:
- James M. Poterba & Joshua Rauh & Steven F. Venti & David A. Wise, 2009.
"Lifecycle Asset Allocation Strategies and the Distribution of 401(k) Retirement Wealth,"
in: Developments in the Economics of Aging, pages 15-50
National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
- James Poterba & Joshua Rauh & Steven Venti & David Wise, 2006. "Lifecycle Asset Allocation Strategies and the Distribution of 401(k) Retirement Wealth," NBER Working Papers 11974, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
- Samwick, Andrew A., 1999. "Social Security Reform in the United States," National Tax Journal, National Tax Association, vol. 52(4), pages 819-842, December.
- Martin Feldstein & Elena Ranguelova, 2001. "Accumulated Pension Collars: A Market Approach to Reducing the Risk of Investment-Based Social Security Reform," NBER Chapters, in: Tax Policy and the Economy, Volume 15, pages 149-166 National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
- Martin Feldstein & Elena Ranguelova, 2000. "Accumulated Pension Collars: A Market Approach to Reducing the Risk of Investment-Based Social Security Reform," NBER Working Papers 7861, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
- Brooks,Robin & Razin,Assaf (ed.), 2005. "Social Security Reform," Cambridge Books, Cambridge University Press, number 9780521844956, October.
- Martin Feldstein & Elena Ranguelova, 2001. "Individual Risk in an Investment-Based Social Security System," NBER Working Papers 8074, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
- Samwick, Andrew A., 1999. "Social Security Reform in the United States," National Tax Journal, National Tax Association, vol. 52(n. 4), pages 819-42, December.
- Poterba, James M. & Samwick, Andrew A., 2003. "Taxation and household portfolio composition: US evidence from the 1980s and 1990s," Journal of Public Economics, Elsevier, vol. 87(1), pages 5-38, January.
- James M. Poterba & Andrew Samwick, 1999. "Taxation and Household Portfolio Composition: U.S. Evidence from the 1980s and 1990s," NBER Working Papers 7392, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:nbr:nberwo:13059. 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 references are entirely missing, you can add them using this form.