When the Social Security Administration released its annual report Wednesday, most news accounts focused on two key dates: 2017, when the system will begin paying out more than it takes in; and 2041, when the trust fund used to make up that shortfall will be empty.

Each date was a year earlier than in last year’s report. In all, the system will collect $4 trillion less than it will need over the next 75 years to pay benefits at the levels promised today.

But the document had some much more interesting figures that got little attention.

They described what it would take to fix the system’s long-term problems right now:

15 percent would do it

“Social Security could be brought into actuarial balance over the next 75 years in various ways, including an immediate increase of 15 percent in the amount of payroll taxes or an immediate reduction in benefits of 13 percent (or some combination of the two).”

Practically no one advocates cutting benefits paid to today’s retirees, or to those near retirement. What a dirty trick: to collect payroll taxes for decades, then break your promise about the size of benefit that level of taxation would buy.

But many of today’s Social Security proposals would do virtually the same thing. President Bush proposes private accounts accompanied by a cut in guaranteed benefits.

Other people suggest raising the retirement age, reducing benefits or setting future benefits according to price increases rather than wage increases.

None of these approaches envisions cutting the payroll tax – 12.4 percent of wages, split between employer and employee.

At their heart, all these mean continuing to tax at today’s level while giving the future retiree less than current ones get.

Granted, our children would have time to skimp and save to make up the difference.

But isn’t it ironic that Social Security’s harshest critics, conservatives who complain the system gives retirees a poor return on contributions, embrace a plan – the president’s – that could make the guaranteed return even lower?

What about the trustees’ other point – that the system could be brought into balance with an immediate 15 percent increase in payroll taxes?

How it would work

It would mean raising the payroll tax by 1.92 percentage points, to about 14.3 percent. Employer and employee each would pay 7.15 percent of wages, up from today’s 6.2 percent.

I don’t want my son and grandchildren stuck with a standard of living in 2080 that’s 75 years out of date. I’d hate to think a lack of money for medical care would mean he dies at 90 when other people are living to 110.

So I’d happily pay a few dollars a week more today to make sure that doesn’t happen.

Jeff Brown is a business columnist for The Philadelphia Inquirer.

Inquirer.

Visit Philadelphia Online, the Inquirer’s World Wide Web site, at http://www.philly.com/

Distributed by Knight Ridder/Tribune Information Services.

AP-NY-03-28-05 0625EST