Search

A potential role of social security is to protect individuals who have accumulated little or no assets for retirement. Yet, this type of social safety net could reduce human capital formation by making the life-cycle financial rewards from education less attractive. For example, social security tax rates are correlated negatively with tertiary educational attainment across OECD countries. We construct a continuous-time overlapping-generations model with endogenous school duration that can account for this correlation, and we use the model to compute the social security tax rate that maximizes steady-state social welfare in general equilibrium. Social security in the model provides protection for retirees who arrive at retirement with no assets, and it can also redistribute wealth toward those with low earnings, but the program distorts the level of human and physical capital accumulation. In the presence of these characteristics, the social security tax rate that maximizes steady-state welfare is approximately 10%, which is about half of the average rate of 21% across the OECD. This result is robust to whether the social security program is redistributive or earnings based. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Typical neoclassical life-cycle models predict that Social Security has a large and negative effect on private savings. We review this theoretical literature by constructing a model where individuals face uninsurable longevity risk and differ by wage earnings, while Social Security provides benefits as a life annuity with higher replacement rates for the poor. We use the model to generate numerical examples that confirm the standard result. Using several benefit and tax changes from the 1970s and 1980s as natural experiments, we investigate the empirical relationship between Social Security and private savings and find little evidence to support the predictions from the theoretical model. We explore possible reasons for the lack of strong empirical findings. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Edward C. Prescott has argued that mandatory saving is socially desirable because it solves the problem of people intentionally free riding and becoming a welfare burden. Inspired by Prescott's argument, we develop a model in which rational individuals choose between saving and free riding. We find that free riding is a robust outcome for a significant share of the population and that everyone, including the free riders, benefits from the elimination of free riding through mandatory saving. Our results strengthen Prescott's position that free riding is a serious problem and that mandatory saving is socially desirable. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Abstract: Contrary to the usual presumption that welfare in markets is maximized if consumers behave rationally, we show in a two-period overlapping generations model that there always exists an irrational consumption rule that can weakly improve upon the lifecycle/permanent-income rule in general equilibrium. The market-clearing mechanism introduces a pecuniary externality that individual rational households do not consider when making decisions but a publically shared rule of thumb can exploit. For typical calibrations, the improvement of the welfare of irrational households is robust to the introduction of rational agents. Although transitions to the optimal irrational steady state are not Pareto improving, transitions do exist that will improve a Pareto social welfare function with a sufficiently small generational discount rate. Generalizing to a more realistic lifecycle model, we find that the Save More Tomorrow™ (SMarT) Plan, if properly parameterized, can confer higher lifetime utility than the permanent-income rule. [Copyright &y& Elsevier]