Research by Author & Topic

Publications by Karen E. Smith on Retirement/Pensions

Urban Institute projections suggest the stock market collapse will have small effects on most Americans' retirement incomes. It's estimated that 37 percent of Americans born between 1941 and 1965 owned no stocks when the market crashed in 2008 and that income from assets will account for a small share of retirement income, even for those with stocks. For most retirees, Social Security provides the majority of income. Had Social Security been invested in private accounts with equities, the impact of the crash would have been much larger—positive or negative, depending on one's birth cohort and on future market performance.

The one-third drop in the S&P 500 index between year-end 2007 and 2008 raises concerns about retirement security since Americans now hold more equities through their retirement plans. Those near retirement will fare the worst because they have no time to recoup their losses. Midcareer workers will fare better because they have more time to rebuild their wealth. They may even gain income if they buy stocks at low prices and get above-average rates of return. High-income groups will be the most affected because they are most likely to have financial assets and to be invested in the stock market.

This report compares projections of income and assets from the Model of Income in the Near Term (MINT) with data from the Survey of Income and Program Participation (SIPP), the Health and Retirement Study (HRS), the Survey of Consumer Finances (SCF), and the Current Population Survey (CPS). The comparison reveals a fair amount of variability in population characteristics and reported income and assets among these data files. There is no "right" answer, but rather a range of possible answers. For most statistics we compare, MINT's projected values fall between the highest and lowest values among the survey data.

Over the last three decades there has been a steady shift from DB to DC pensions. The Pension Protection Act of 2006 may accelerate this trend. This paper examines the impact of an accelerated freeze on the retirement income of boomers. Simulations suggest that such a scenario would produce more losers than winners and reduce average retirement incomes. Income changes will be substantial among high-income workers, who have the highest DB coverage and pension incomes. Late boomers will experience the largest impacts, as they lose their high DB accrual years and have inadequate time to accumulate DC wealth before retirement.

Income tax provisions affect the buildup of retirement assets during workers' careers and after-tax income following retirement. This paper uses the Urban Institute's DYNASIM model to simulate how potential changes in the tax treatment of retirement saving, Social Security benefits, and income from assets outside retirement accounts may affect boomers' retirement incomes. Changes in the income thresholds for taxing Social Security benefits have the largest impact on middle-income boomers, while changes in contribution limits for retirement saving plans and tax rates on capital gains and dividends have the largest impact on the highest-income boomers.

This report describes the work the Urban Institute performed to generate the Model of Income in the Near Term, Version 5 (MINT5). MINT is a tool developed for The Division of Policy Evaluation (DPE) of the Social Security Administration (SSA) to analyze the distributional consequences of Social Security reform proposals. MINT is a micro-level data file of individuals born between 1926 and 2018. It starts with a rich set of income and demographic characteristics from the 1990 to 1996 Survey of Income and Program Particpation (SIPP) data linked to SSA data on earnings and benefits. MINT then projects these characteristics until death or the year 2099.

(Brief) Workers who delay retirement can save more and contribute more to the economy. Using the Urban Institute's Dynamic Simulation of Income model (DYNASIM3), this brief shows that someone who works an extra five years could increase retirement spending by more than half. Also, work-inducing reforms—rather than reforms that simply reduce benefits—help close the Social Security funding gap.

Encouraging work at older ages is a crucial policy goal for an aging society, but many features of the benefits and tax system discourage work. This study computes the implicit tax rate on work at older ages, broadly defined to include standard income and payroll taxes as well as changes in future Social Security benefits, employer-provided pension benefits, and health benefits associated with an additional year of employment. The results show that the implicit tax rate on work increases rapidly with age, rising from 14 percent at age 55 for a typical man to nearly 50 percent at age 70.

The choice of retirement age is the most important portfolio choice most workers will make. Drawing on the Urban Institute's Dynamic Simulation of Income model (DYNASIM3), this report examines how delaying retirement for nondisabled workers would affect individual retiree benefits, the solvency of the Social Security trust fund, and general revenues. The results suggest that delaying retirement by itself does not generate enough additional revenue to make Social Security solvent by 2045. Benefit cuts or supplementary funding sources will be necessary to achieve solvency. However, the size of the benefit cuts or tax increases could be minimized if individuals worked longer. This additional work also substantially increases worker's retirement well-being.

Most workers do not contribute the maximum allowable amount to employer-sponsored tax-deferred retirement plans. The share of maximum contributors increased between 1990 and 2003, as did the percentage of participants who contribute the maximum or at least 10 percent of earnings. But virtually all the growth in maximum contributors came from groups with high shares of maximum contributors in 1990. Recent increases in contribution limits can be expected to reduce shares of maximum contributors, but raise relative shares of maximum contributors among high-earning and education groups. Increases in contribution limits do little to increase retirement preparedness among lower-income groups.