Download entire publication - Social Security

not necessarily the largest gains and losses as a shareof income. 17 For example, average per capita familyincome among winners in the last wave of boomers isprojected to increase by about $5,800 for those withthe highest incomes, but by only about $800 for thosewith the lowest incomes. In comparison, average percapita family income among losers in the last waveof boomers is projected to decline by about $8,000for those with the highest incomes, but by only about$700 for those with the lowest incomes.What is Driving the Outcomes?Retirement incomes may increase under the U.K.scenario for several reasons. First, some workers mayincrease their DC contributions or earn above averagereturns on their DC retirement accounts, boostingtheir wealth relative to what they would accrue in DBplans. Second, some workers increase accruals in DBaccounts because they become vested when plans arefrozen. 18 Third, some workers whose DB plans arefrozen or who never acquire DB coverage may delayretirement and work longer because DC pensions,unlike DB pensions, do not encourage early retirement(Butrica and others 2006). Indeed, we find thatwinners are projected to have higher per capita familyearnings and slightly higher Social Security benefitsunder the U.K. scenario than under the baselinebecause of delayed retirement (Table 10).Overall, winners among first- and second-waveboomers experience increases in income from bothDB pensions and DC retirement accounts. In contrast,winners among third- and last-wave boomers experiencelosses in their DB pensions and increases in theirDC retirement accounts, with income losses in DBpensions being much smaller than income gains in DCretirement accounts.For those whose family incomes decline under theU.K. scenario, the reduction is driven almost totallyby a reduction in DB benefits. Losers experience muchlarger DB pension losses under the U.K. scenario thanwinners, but have very modest increases in incomefrom retirement account balances, compared withwinners. Losers, compared with winners, also havemuch more retirement wealth under the baseline andthus have much more to lose from a change in pensioncoverage. Their average per capita family DB pensionsrange from 1.4 to 2.5 times higher than those ofTable 10.Mean family income per person at age 67 for winners and losers, by income source (in thousands of 2007dollars)Income sourceFirstboomers(1946–1950)BaselineSecondboomers(1951–1955)Thirdboomers(1956–1960)Lastboomers(1961–1965)Difference between baseline and U.K. scenariosFirstboomers(1946–1950)Secondboomers(1951–1955)Thirdboomers(1956–1960)Lastboomers(1961–1965)WinnersIncome from assets 8.6 7.9 7.9 7.3 0.0 0.0 -0.1 -0.1Earnings 19.4 14.1 11.8 13.3 0.5 0.5 0.6 1.3SSI payments 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0Imputed rental income 3.7 3.5 3.2 2.9 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0Social Security benefits 14.4 14.4 13.9 13.7 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.1DB pension benefits 8.3 4.9 4.1 2.9 1.1 0.5 -0.1 -0.6Retirement accounts 9.4 9.1 9.7 9.5 0.4 0.8 1.3 2.1Total income 63.9 53.8 50.6 49.5 2.1 1.8 1.8 2.8LosersIncome from assets 7.6 8.0 8.4 9.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 -0.1Earnings 14.8 11.0 10.7 11.3 0.0 -0.1 -0.1 -0.1SSI payments 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0Imputed rental income 3.7 3.5 3.4 3.6 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0Social Security benefits 15.4 15.8 15.3 15.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0DB pension benefits 11.6 10.2 8.4 7.2 -2.6 -3.8 -4.3 -4.3Retirement accounts 11.3 11.8 12.1 12.1 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.2Total income 64.4 60.3 58.3 58.9 -2.6 -3.7 -4.2 -4.2SOURCE: Authors' computations of MINT5 (see text for details).NOTE: Projections exclude individuals with family wealth in the top 5 percent of the distribution. Winners and losers are defined as having atleast a $10 change in income between the baseline and U.K. scenarios.18 Social Security Bulletin • Vol. 69 • No. 3 • 2009