A Weblog of Centrist Voices in American Politics
|
|
|
A Weblog of Centrist Voices in American Politics | |
|
March 17, 2005SS...Pozen's Modest Proposal: Progressive IndexationHere's a social security reform idea that may be growing some wings, progressive indexation.
I have no idea how MUCH buzz this is getting, the coverage here in the Boston Globe may be due in part to pumping the local boy. But on the basis of this article, it sounds to me like Pozen is in a fair and decent ballpark. Check out the whole thing. Posted by Brian Keegan at March 17, 2005 09:33 AM Comments
Not just no, but HELL NO! Of course, I'm biased, since whatever harebrained scheme they come up with, I end up having to code. SS is already a nightmare, because of the way the program blithely assumes that there is no administrative cost to making the calculations complex... Posted by: Joshua Macy at March 17, 2005 10:20 AMPozen's approach is just another way of reducing NPV liabilities by flattening out the benefit structure. In real terms, it's boosting the base and flattening the upper end. I'll have to trust his calculations as I don't have time to track them down and check them--but his own numbers show it's only half a solution. Not that I'm against that--I've argued for the same thing as part of any reform package, namely a better "safety net" benefit at the lower end, and smaller means-tested benefits at the upper end. My beef, if any, is that Pozen's jumping through a lot of complicated hoops to achieve what can be accomplished more simply by other means. Of course, "more simply" is not the same thing as "more easily" in politics. Pozen's putting a complicated formulaic face on a simple idea in order to make it more politically palatable, and I applaud him for the attempt. But I hear Joshua's cry of pain as well.... Posted by: Tully at March 17, 2005 10:22 AMYou can buy a lot of code for 1.8 trillion dollars. Especially since it only has to be done once because it impacts benefits calculated by the Social Security Administration. Posted by: ROA at March 17, 2005 10:27 AMEr, no. Just about every employer with a defined benefit plan has to do its own SS estimates (or hire a firm like the one I work for), even if the plan doesn't have an SS offset. It would be nice if we could just let the SSA do all the heavy lifting, but despite the fact that lately they've actually been publishing their code via the net (which has made testing a lot easier), it just doesn't work that way. Posted by: Joshua Macy at March 17, 2005 11:00 AMAm I understanding this correctly ... we shouldn't consider this proposal because it will change some computer program? Posted by: EG at March 17, 2005 12:30 PMRight, and that's coming from a guy who gets paid to do it. Go figure. Posted by: WHQ at March 17, 2005 02:26 PMBe nice to your number guys and they will be nice to you. Posted by: c3 at March 17, 2005 04:32 PMWell, maybe here's another reason for outsourcing ... Posted by: EG at March 17, 2005 05:17 PMEG; *sigh* Yeah, this proposal would be good for buttering my bread, if that's all I cared about. Posted by: Joshua Macy at March 18, 2005 11:26 AM |
Archives
March 2006
February 2006 January 2006 December 2005 November 2005 October 2005 September 2005 August 2005 July 2005 June 2005 May 2005 April 2005 March 2005 February 2005 January 2005 December 2004 November 2004 October 2004 September 2004 August 2004 July 2004 June 2004 May 2004 April 2004 March 2004 February 2004 January 2004 December 2003 November 2003 October 2003 September 2003 August 2003 July 2003 June 2003 May 2003 April 2003
Recent Entries
Dubai Out
Why So Long Between Democracies? Round One, Centrism Rock Lobster? Blackwell Releases "Worst-Treated" List "IRV" used in Burl., VT for mayor election. Great idea! Random Thread Election 2006: Round One A Proper Multiculturalism Bush proposes line item veto act - what's changed?
|
