TAYLOR

federal government become that type of lender.

If a not-yet-retired individual decided to take a $5,000 check now from the government, the authors suggest, the borrower could pay that loan back at retirement age by simply delaying owed benefits until the loan is repaid.

Part of the benefit to borrowers, Biggs and Rauh argue, is that the federal government could offer extremely low interest rates, knowing that it can recoup the money at the individual's retirement date. This low rate helps the individual who could not otherwise borrow cheaply. In addition, warming the cockles of an economist's heart, this cash infusion can be made budget neutral. Money paid out today during the crisis will be repaid by the worker at retirement.

In their scenario analysis, Biggs and Rauh show that most workers 45 or older who borrowed this way would likely only delay taking their Social Security benefits by three months, based on a $5,000 loan from the government made today.

In simplest terms, Biggs proposes a mechanism for financially strapped workers during the COVID recession to access their Social Security benefits early. This has the obvious implication that the worker will receive less in retirement.

If enacted, this form of preretirement loan would affect the most vulnerable folks — people who have no savings.

In general, I like considering any so-crazy-it's-possibly-good, wonky financial idea. But this is more like a so-crazy-it's-possibly-terrible financial idea. I can't endorse robbing future Peter to pay present Peter as a humane way to solve a short-term financial crisis.

When I am declared National Personal Financial Benevolent Dictator (NPFBD) sometime in the future, I have a few different plans for Social Security. Different from both the current plan, and Biggs' suggestions.

My plan eliminates the need for complicated math and indexing as mentioned in Biggs' first paper. In my plan, everyone basically gets the same amount of money. It doesn't matter what your average 35 best earning years are. And you don't have to index for wages, or adjust for cost-of-living. That's a simplified description of the current complicated math.

Instead, in my simple plan, you get, say, $32,000 a year. Or whatever flat amount we choose. Everyone gets the same amount. No math. Congratulations, you're 67. Here's $32,000 per year. End of story.

If your lifestyle is above that cost, so be it. You should save some money now so you can maintain your lifestyle. If your lifestyle is below that cost, so be it. You'll feel rich in retirement.

The math we currently do for Social Security benefits is a very convoluted way to express a couple of wrong ideas. By wrong ideas, I specifically mean:

1. We “earned” our benefits by a lifetime of working, and

2. If we worked more or harder or got paid more, then we should get a bigger chunk of cash in retirement.

I understand the implications of not doing any tailoring of benefits to individual workers and retirees. I understand why the current system “feels fair” to many. I just think the benefits of simplicity outweigh those feelings, and lead to actually fairer outcomes overall. Also, remember, I'm a benevolent dictator. I don't care about your wrong feelings.

Katrina Bledsoe, a spokeswoman for the Dallas office of the Social Security Administration, said they do not comment on projections or proposed policies, so she declined to respond to my query about Biggs' ideas.

Biggs responded to my query that he is very confident about the math behind his warning about the cohort of near-retirees born in 1960. His biggest doubt is whether the national wage index will actually fall by the estimated 15 percent — a sharp decline — or whether that's too steep an assumption. At this point, not yet halfway through 2020, we just don't know yet.