We would love to hear from you. Click on the ‘Contact Us’ link to the right and choose your favorite way to reach-out!

wscdsdc

media/speaking contact

Jamie Johnson

business contact

Victoria Peterson

Contact Us

855.ask.wink

Close [x]
pattern

Industry News

Categories

  • Industry Articles (17,774)
  • Industry Conferences (3)
  • Industry Job Openings (3)
  • Moore on the Market (207)
  • Negative Media (139)
  • Positive Media (73)
  • Sheryl's Articles (656)
  • Wink's Articles (265)
  • Wink's Inside Story (238)
  • Wink's Press Releases (99)
  • Blog Archives

  • November 2021
  • October 2021
  • September 2021
  • August 2021
  • July 2021
  • June 2021
  • May 2021
  • April 2021
  • March 2021
  • February 2021
  • January 2021
  • December 2020
  • November 2020
  • October 2020
  • September 2020
  • August 2020
  • July 2020
  • June 2020
  • May 2020
  • April 2020
  • March 2020
  • February 2020
  • January 2020
  • December 2019
  • November 2019
  • October 2019
  • September 2019
  • August 2019
  • July 2019
  • June 2019
  • May 2019
  • April 2019
  • March 2019
  • February 2019
  • January 2019
  • December 2018
  • November 2018
  • October 2018
  • September 2018
  • August 2018
  • July 2018
  • June 2018
  • May 2018
  • April 2018
  • March 2018
  • February 2018
  • January 2018
  • December 2017
  • November 2017
  • October 2017
  • September 2017
  • August 2017
  • July 2017
  • June 2017
  • May 2017
  • April 2017
  • March 2017
  • February 2017
  • January 2017
  • December 2016
  • November 2016
  • October 2016
  • September 2016
  • August 2016
  • July 2016
  • June 2016
  • May 2016
  • April 2016
  • March 2016
  • February 2016
  • January 2016
  • December 2015
  • November 2015
  • October 2015
  • September 2015
  • August 2015
  • July 2015
  • June 2015
  • May 2015
  • April 2015
  • March 2015
  • February 2015
  • January 2015
  • December 2014
  • November 2014
  • October 2014
  • September 2014
  • August 2014
  • July 2014
  • June 2014
  • May 2014
  • April 2014
  • March 2014
  • February 2014
  • January 2014
  • December 2013
  • November 2013
  • October 2013
  • September 2013
  • August 2013
  • July 2013
  • June 2013
  • May 2013
  • April 2013
  • March 2013
  • February 2013
  • January 2013
  • December 2012
  • November 2012
  • October 2012
  • September 2012
  • August 2012
  • July 2012
  • June 2012
  • May 2012
  • April 2012
  • March 2012
  • February 2012
  • January 2012
  • December 2011
  • November 2011
  • October 2011
  • September 2011
  • August 2011
  • July 2011
  • June 2011
  • May 2011
  • April 2011
  • March 2011
  • February 2011
  • January 2011
  • December 2010
  • November 2010
  • October 2010
  • September 2010
  • August 2010
  • July 2010
  • June 2010
  • May 2010
  • April 2010
  • March 2010
  • February 2010
  • January 2010
  • December 2009
  • November 2009
  • October 2009
  • August 2009
  • June 2009
  • May 2009
  • April 2009
  • March 2009
  • November 2008
  • May 2008
  • February 2008
  • August 2006
  • Budget Surgeons Might Harvest Your Clients’ Lifespan

    April 26, 2017 by Allison Bell

    Many economists say they see a growing gap in life expectancy between high-income U.S. residents and low-income U.S. residents.

    Click HERE to view the original story via ThinkAdvisor.

    Some are starting to talk about the possibility of changing Social Security, Medicare and other government retirement benefits programs to adjust for that gap.

    Those economists hope a life expectancy gap adjustment can ease the programs’ funding problems. They hope to extract some of the benefits cash now going to higher-income people and transplant it into the wallets of lower-income people with shorter life expectancies.

    A group of 13 economists has published a working paper about that idea, “How the Growing Gap in Life Expectancy May Affect Retirement Benefits and Reforms,” on the website of the National Bureau of Economic Research, behind a paywall.

    The group includes Peter Orszag, an investment banker at Lazard who served as director of the White House Office of Management and Budget from January 2009 through June 2010, under former President Barack Obama.

    The group also includes several economists from the University of California, Berkeley; the University of Southern California; and the Brookings Institution.

    For insurance agents and financial advisors, one reason to pay attention to this issue is that, from the perspective of an economist interested in performing budget surgery on government retirement programs, your typical client is probably a high-income individual with a long life expectancy. Any program changes based on adjustments for a life expectancy gap could eat into the total value of your clients’ Social Security or Medicare benefits.

    Public program reformers’ thinking about life expectancy could also influence how managers of commercial longevity-related insurance programs, such as annuity programs or long-term care insurance programs, think about managing their exposure to longevity risk.

    Here’s a look at what some of the economists say in the paper.

    1. Higher-income U.S. residents seem to be hogging longevity gains.

    Some economists question how big the longevity gap really is, or how long any gap that does exist will last. The authors of one recent study found, for example, that the gap in life expectancy between the rich and poor at birth is narrowing rapidly.

    The authors of the new NBER paper present data suggesting that life expectancy inequality for 50-year-old U.S. men increased dramatically between 1930 and 1960.

    The authors divided life expectancy data for 50-year-old men into five categories, or “quintiles,” based on income.

    The authors found that, in 2010, the 50-year-old men in the top income quintile could expect to live 38.8 more years, to 88.8 years. In 1980, 50-year-old men could expect to live just 31.7 more years.

    Life expectancy moved in the other direction for 50-year-old men in the bottom income quintile.

    Their life expectancy dropped to 26.1 more years of life in 2010, from 26.6 years in 1980.

    Here’s how life expectancy changed for the 50-year-old men in the other quintiles:

    • Lower Middle Quintile: From 27.2 years to 28.3 years
    • Middle Quintile: From 28.1 years to 33.4 years
    • Upper Middle Quintile: From 29.8 years to 37.8 years

    2. Living longer boosts the amount of time the higher-income people have to collect Social Security and receive care covered by Medicare.

    The authors of the new NBER paper found that the low-income men who were 50 in 1980 were on track to collect large amounts of benefits aimed at poor people and people with disabilities over the course of their relatively short lives. This tended to compensate for the limited amount of time they would collect Social Security benefits and receive care covered by Medicare.

    By 2010, the growing life expectancy gap widened the gap between the haves and the have-nots.

    In 1980, for example, the inflation-adjusted present value of government entitlement program benefits for the 50-year-old men in the bottom income quintile was $402,000. The inflation-adjusted present value of entitlement program benefits for the 50-year-old men in the top income quintile was also $402,000.

    In 2010, the inflation-adjusted present value of benefits from the same programs was $391,000 for people in the bottom income quintile, and $522,000 for people in the top income quintile.

    3. Adjusting the longevity effect for taxes changes the gap but does not eliminate it.

    The authors of the NBER paper acknowledged that higher-income people pay more taxes.

    They adjusted the tables showing the present value of entitlement program benefits for 50-year-old men by subtracting the value of taxes paid after age 50 from the benefits totals.

    The tax adjustment changed the nature of the gap, but it still left a gap.

    In 1980, the tax-adjusted present value of entitlement benefits for 50-year-old men was $319,000 for those in the bottom quintile, $202,000 for those in the upper middle quintile, and $189,000 for those in the top quintile.

    In 2010, the comparable tax-adjusted present values were $310,000 for the 50-year-old men in the bottom quintile, $266,000 for the lower middle quintile, $301,000 for the middle quintile, and $331,000 for the men in the upper middle quintile, and $306,000 for the men in the top quintile.

    The men in the upper middle quintile were on track to collect $65,000 more in benefits than the men in the lower middle quintile.

    4. The economists who developed the latest study assume high-income people’s longevity is baked in.

    For high-income people who may face Social Security or Medicare benefits changes as a result of adjustments related to life expectancy, one limitation of the NBER study may be that the authors assume, as a given, that higher-income people have and will continue to have a longer life expectancy than lower-income people.

    The economists do not allow for the possibility that changes in health care or living conditions could narrow the gap, and they do not discuss the reality that some high-income people have known medical conditions that reduce their life expectancy.

    5. The economists give several examples of ways to cut Social Security in ways that would favor low-income people with shorter life expectancies over high-income people with longer life expectancies.

    The authors of the paper include a table on the last page that shows how an adjustment for the life expectancy shift that occurred between 1980 and 2010 might interact with six different types of proposals for cutting government retirement entitlement program spending.

    Raising the Medicare eligibility age to 67, for example, would have a much bigger effect on the total value of entitlement program benefits for 50-year-old men in the bottom income quintile than for those in the top quintile. That move could cut the value 1.4% for the men in the bottom quintile, and just 0.5% for those in the top quintile, according to the table.

    A change in the way Social Security calculates benefits for higher-income recipients could cut total entitlement benefits value 1.1% for the men in the bottom quintile and 3.4% for the men in the top quintile, according to the table.

    Originally Posted at ThinkAdvisor on April 25, 2017 by Allison Bell.

    Categories: Industry Articles
    currency