Age typically is associated with maturity, with maturity being associated with taking on adult responsibilities like providing for one’s self and one’s family. Yet in his Chicago Daily Observer column, Don Rose demands that as our population ages, our politicians should take the expedient 10–15 year time frame, rather than acting as stewards for lasting financial security. Whatever his reason, it’s clear he doesn’t want to address the underlying actuarial problems of Social Security.

This is the equivalent of US retirees throwing a big party and then flying out of town at the end of the party, leaving friends and family to clean up the mess. Or, really, just the younger friends and family.

If you know anything about mathematics, you know that Social Security is a demographic time bomb. It will begin to run a deficit at some point within the next 10 years. Even if Congress could figure out how to redeem the IOUs in the Trust Fund (a fund which contains no real assets), those funds will be completely exhausted by 2040.

The problem is that Social Security is not a funded system, but a “pay-as-you-go” system, which worked fine in the 1950s when there were 15 workers paying in to the system for each retiree collecting benefits. Today, there are around three workers per retiree. By the 2030s, there will only be two workers per retiree and taxes will need to rise from the current 12.4 percent rate to over 18 percent to pay the benefits the current program has promised.

With an actuarial problem like this, the sooner it’s corrected, the better. The longer we ignore it, the more massive the problem becomes.

The solution to this problem is personal accounts.

The concept is simple. Younger workers would have the option to invest part of their Social Security taxes in an account holding diversified, low-cost mutual funds of stocks and bonds, which would build value over time. At retirement, workers could draw on their account assets to help pay their monthly Social Security benefits.

These accounts would be building real assets, which means real savings. Unlike the Trust Fund, which is endlessly “raided” to pay for other government programs, personal accounts would be legal property of the worker. The government could not touch them, and workers who died before using up their account—primarily low-wage workers—could pass it on to their spouse, children, or a chosen charity. Compared to the current system, personal accounts give greater choice, security, ownership, and control.

America is not alone in facing this demographic crisis. Other countries have already reformed their pension programs, and the most successful have used personal accounts. It began in Chile in 1981, when the country’s bankrupt pay-as-you-go program was transformed into a system of individually owned accounts.

Australia reformed its pension system 15 years ago by moving from a pay-as-you-go plan to a funded system. The Australian Superannuation program is based on investing in real assets run under contract with private money managers. Every time you pay the toll on the Chicago Skyway and the Indiana Tollway, you are contributing to the Australian retirement system since their money is the major funding behind the 99 year lease deals on those two infrastructure entities.

This plan has served them well—a recent study rated Australia as the developed country best prepared for future population aging. Isn’t it time Americans start to use real assets to fund our Social Security system?

**

Bob Costello is the President of the Sam Adams Alliance, and was previously President of Social Security Choice, a group dedicated to Social Security reform.