IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/ntj/journl/v70y2017i1p111-132.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Means Testing Social Security: Income Versus Wealth

Author

Listed:
  • Alan L. Gustman
  • Thomas L. Steinmeier
  • Nahid Tabatabai

Abstract

A Social Security means test targeting benefit recipients in the top quarter of the income distribution will have substantially different distributional effects from a means test targeting the top quarter of wealth holders. Only 14.5 percent of individuals fall in the top quarters of both the income and wealth distributions. A means test based on income will reduce benefits for 10.5 percent of individuals who fall outside the top quarter of wealth holders, while a means test based on wealth will have similar consequences for those who fall outside the top quarter of the income distribution.

Suggested Citation

  • Alan L. Gustman & Thomas L. Steinmeier & Nahid Tabatabai, 2017. "Means Testing Social Security: Income Versus Wealth," National Tax Journal, National Tax Association;National Tax Journal, vol. 70(1), pages 111-132, March.
    • Handle: RePEc:ntj:journl:v:70:y:2017:i:1:p:111-132
    DOI: 10.17310/ntj.2017.1.04
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://doi.org/10.17310/ntj.2017.1.04
    Download Restriction: Access is restricted to subscribers and members of the National Tax Association.
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.17310/ntj.2017.1.04?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Andrew A. Samwick, 2018. "Means Testing Federal Health Entitlement Benefits," Tax Policy and the Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 32(1), pages 173-210.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:ntj:journl:v:70:y:2017:i:1:p:111-132. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: The University of Chicago Press (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.ntanet.org/ .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.