Retirement Security: Shorter Life Expectancy Reduces Projected Lifetime Benefits for Lower Earners
Published: 2016-03-25T00:00:00

Fast Facts:

Highlights:
section_title: Why GAO Did This Study
paragraphs: An increase in average life expectancy for individuals in the United States is a positive development, but also requires more planning and saving to support longer retirements. At the same time, as life expectancy has not increased uniformly across all income groups, proposed actions to address the effects of longevity on programs and plan sponsors may impact lower-income and higher-income individuals differently. GAO was asked to examine disparities in life expectancy and the implications for retirement security.
In this report, GAO examined (1) the implications of increasing life expectancy for retirement planning, and (2) the effect of life expectancy on the retirement resources for different groups, especially those with low incomes. GAO reviewed studies on life expectancy for individuals approaching retirement, relevant agency documents, and other publications; developed hypothetical scenarios to illustrate the effects of differences in life expectancy on projected lifetime Social Security retirement benefits for lower-income and higher-income groups based on analyses of U.S. Census Bureau and Social Security Administration (SSA) data; and interviewed SSA officials and various retirement experts.
GAO is making no recommendations in this report. In its comments, SSA agreed with our finding that it is important to understand how the life expectancy in different income groups may affect retirement income.
section_title: What GAO Found
paragraphs: The increase in average life expectancy for older adults in the United States contributes to challenges for retirement planning by the government, employers, and individuals. Social Security retirement benefits and traditional defined benefit (DB) pension plans, both key sources of retirement income that promise lifetime benefits, are now required to make payments to retirees for an increasing number of years. This development, among others, has prompted a wide range of possible actions to help curb the rising future liabilities for the federal government and DB sponsors. For example, to address financial challenges for the Social Security program, various options have been proposed, such as adjusting tax contributions, retirement age, and benefit amounts. Individuals also face challenges resulting from increases in life expectancy because they must save more to provide for the possibility of a longer retirement.
Life expectancy varies substantially across different groups with significant effects on retirement resources, especially for those with low incomes. For example, according to studies GAO reviewed, lower-income men approaching retirement live, on average, 3.6 to 12.7 fewer years than higher-income men. GAO developed hypothetical scenarios to calculate the projected amount of lifetime Social Security retirement benefits received, on average, for men with different income levels born in the same year. In these scenarios, GAO compared projected benefits based on each income groups' shorter or longer life expectancy with projected benefits based on average life expectancy, and found that lower-income groups' shorter-than-average life expectancy reduced their projected lifetime benefits by as much as 11 to 14 percent. Effects on Social Security retirement benefits are particularly important to lower-income groups because Social Security is their primary source of retirement income.
Social Security's formula for calculating monthly benefits is progressive—that is, it provides a proportionally larger monthly earnings replacement for lower-earners than for higher-earners. However, when viewed in terms of benefit received over a lifetime, the disparities in life expectancy across income groups erode the progressive effect of the program.

section_title: Letter
paragraphs: The increase in average national life expectancy over the past several  decades is a positive development, but also requires more planning and  saving to support longer retirements with effects on the government,  employers, and individuals. However, life expectancy has not increased  uniformly across all income groups. People who have lower incomes, for  example, can expect to have shorter lives, on average, compared to  those with higher incomes. As a result, some proposed actions to address  the fiscal effects of longevity on retirement programs and plan sponsors  may impact lower-income and higher-income individuals differently. In  light of this situation, you asked us to examine disparities in life  expectancy and the implications for our nation’s policies with respect to  retirement security. This report provides information on the following:  1.  The implications of increasing life expectancy for retirement planning.  2.  The effect of life expectancy on the retirement resources for different  groups, especially those with low incomes.
To explore the implications of increasing life expectancy for retirement  planning, we reviewed existing publications, including federal agency  documentation and studies on life expectancy for individuals around  retirement age conducted by various researchers and federal agencies.  We also interviewed agency officials and retirement experts, including  researchers and academics we identified through our review of longevity  studies and through expert referral. In addition, to examine the effect of  life expectancy on the retirement resources for different groups,  especially those with lower incomes, we developed scenarios to illustrate  how disparities in average life expectancy by income group can affect the  average amount of lifetime Social Security retirement benefits received by  different income groups. To determine our scenario assumptions, we  reviewed relevant longevity studies. For our life expectancy estimates,  we relied primarily on a 2007 Social Security Administration (SSA) study  by Hilary Waldron. To inform the income groupings in our scenarios  (based on the 25th and 75th individual income percentiles), we analyzed  2015 data from the U.S. Census Bureau’s (Census) Current Population  Survey. We obtained estimated monthly Social Security benefits using  SSA’s quick calculator, and we estimated average lifetime Social  Security benefits by applying life expectancy estimates from SSA and  Waldron. While our report discusses various forms of retirement  resources, for our scenarios we compare only lifetime Social Security  retirement benefits against current income. We do not factor in other  retirement resources, which could include, but are not limited to, future  payments from employer-sponsored defined benefit plans, retirement  savings accounts, or housing equity. (For details on the methodology for  our scenarios, see appendix II.) We assessed the reliability of the data we  used in our scenarios by reviewing relevant documentation and  interviewing knowledgeable agency officials. We found the data to be  reliable for the purposes used in this report.
We conducted this performance audit from December 2014 to March  2016 in accordance with generally accepted government auditing  standards. Those standards require that we plan and perform the audit to  obtain sufficient, appropriate evidence to provide a reasonable basis for  our findings and conclusions based on our audit objectives. We believe  that the evidence obtained provides a reasonable basis for our findings  and conclusions based on our audit objectives.
subsections: section_title: Background
subsections: section_title: Demographic Shifts and Life Expectancy
paragraphs: Because Americans are, on average, living longer and having fewer  children, the average age of the population is rising and that trend is  expected to continue. As of 2015, people age 65 and over accounted for  15 percent of the population, but by 2045 they are expected to comprise  more than 20 percent of the population.
Life expectancy is the average estimated number of years of life for a  particular demographic or group of people at a given age. Life  expectancy can be expressed in two different ways: (1) as the average  number of years of life remaining for a group, or (2) as the average age at  death for a group. Life span for a particular individual within a group may  fall above or below this average. Researchers use a variety of statistical  methods and assumptions in making their estimates, such as how  longevity trends are expected to change in the future. Researchers also  may use different data sources to develop life expectancy estimates. For  example, some may use death data maintained by SSA, while others may  use Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) mortality data or  Census data.
As noted, life expectancy can be estimated from different initial ages,  such as from birth or from some older age. For a given population, the  earlier the starting age, the greater the remaining years of life expectancy,  but the lower the average age at death. This is because, when projected  from birth, measures of life expectancy reflect the probability of death  over one’s entire lifetime, including from childhood infectious diseases. In  contrast, life expectancy calculated at older ages, such as age 65,  generally predicts that individuals will live to an older age than when life  expectancy is calculated at birth, since the averages for older persons do  not include those who have died before that age. As a result, the average  age that will be reached from birth will be lower than the average age that  will be reached by those who have already reached age 65.
Studies have found various factors associated with disparities in life  expectancy. For example, women tend to live longer than men, although  that gap has been getting smaller, according to SSA data. In addition,  65-year-old men could expect to live until age 79.7 in 1915, on average;  in 2015, they could expect to live until age 86.1—an increase of about 6.4  years. Meanwhile, 65-year-old women could expect to live until age 83.7  in 1915, on average; in 2015, they could expect to live until age 88.7—an  increase of about 5 years. Other factors that have been shown to be  associated with differences in life expectancy include income, race,  education, and geography. A recent study examined trends in life  expectancy at the county level from 1985 to 2010 and found increasing  disparities across counties over the 25-year period, especially in certain  areas of the country. The lowest life expectancy for both men and  women was found in the South, the Mississippi basin, West Virginia,  Kentucky, and selected counties in the West and Midwest. In contrast,  substantial improvements in life expectancy were found in multiple  locations: parts of California, most of Nevada, Colorado, rural Minnesota,  Iowa, parts of the Dakotas, some Northeastern states, and parts of  Florida. The study found that while income, education, and economic  inequality are likely important factors, they are not the only determinants  of the increasing disparity across counties. Certain environmental factors,  such as lack of access to health care, and behaviors such as smoking,  poor diet, and lack of exercise, have also been shown to be associated  with shorter life expectancy.
section_title: The U.S. Retirement System
paragraphs: In the United States, income in retirement may come from multiple  sources, including (1) Social Security retirement benefits, (2) payments  from employer-sponsored defined benefit (DB) plans, and (3) retirement  savings accounts, including accounts in employer-sponsored defined  contribution (DC) plans, such as 401(k) plans; and individual retirement  accounts (IRA).
subsections: section_title: Social Security
paragraphs: Social Security pays retirement benefits to eligible individuals and family  members such as their spouses and their survivors, as well as other  benefits to eligible disabled workers and their families. According to  SSA, in 2014 about 39 million retired workers received Social Security  retirement benefits. Individuals are generally eligible to receive these  benefits if they meet requirements for the amount of time they have  worked in covered employment—i.e., jobs through which they have paid  Social Security taxes. This includes jobs covering about 94 percent of  U.S. workers in 2014, according to SSA. Social Security retirement  benefits offer two features that offset some key risks people face in  retirement: (1) they provide a monthly stream of payments that continue  until death, so that there is no risk of outliving a person’s benefits; and (2)  they are generally adjusted annually for cost-of-living increases, so there  is less risk of inflation eroding the value of a person’s benefits.
Social Security retirement benefits are based on a worker’s earnings  history in covered employment. The formula for calculating monthly  benefits is progressive, which means that Social Security replaces a  higher percentage of monthly earnings for lower-earners than for higher- earners. As we reported in 2015, retired workers with relatively lower  average career earnings receive monthly benefits that, on average, equal  about half of what they made while working, whereas workers with  relatively high career earnings receive benefits that equal about 30  percent of earnings. In 2013, SSA reported that the program provided at  least half of retirement income for 64 percent of beneficiaries age 65 or  older in 2011 and that 35 percent of beneficiaries in this age range  received 90 percent or more of their income from Social Security.
For retired workers, Social Security pays full (unreduced) benefits at the  full retirement age, which ranges from 65 to 67 depending on an  individual’s birth year. Workers can claim Social Security retirement  benefits as early as age 62, resulting in a reduced monthly benefit, or can  delay claiming after they reach full retirement age, resulting in an  increased monthly benefit until age 70 (i.e., no further increases are  provided for delayed claiming after age 70). According to SSA  documentation, the Social Security benefit formula adjusts the amount of  monthly benefits to reflect the average remaining life expectancy at each  claiming age. More specifically, benefits are adjusted up or down based  on claiming age so that, on average, the actuarial present value of a  beneficiary’s total lifetime benefits is about the same regardless of  claiming age. For example, workers currently age 62 who would reach  full retirement age at 66 would receive a monthly benefit about 25 percent  lower if claiming early, at age 62, compared with the benefit that would be  paid at their full retirement age. Those delaying claiming until age 70  would receive about 32 percent more per month than their full retirement  age benefit, according to SSA.
Despite higher monthly benefits for those who delay claiming, in 2014,  age 62 was the most prevalent age to claim Social Security retirement  benefits: About 37 percent of total retired worker benefits awarded were  awarded at age 62. When workers die before reaching age 62, they  may not receive any of the Social Security retirement benefits that they  would have been entitled to receive had they lived longer. In cases  where a worker dies before or during retirement, there are survivors  benefits that provide widows and widowers up to 100 percent of the  deceased spouse’s benefit.
section_title: Defined Benefit Plans
paragraphs: Defined benefit (DB) plans are generally tax-advantaged retirement plans  that typically provide a specified monthly benefit at retirement, known as  an annuity, for the lifetime of the retiree. Qualified private sector DB  plans may be single-employer or multiemployer plans. Single-employer  plans make up the majority of private sector DB plans (about 94 percent)  and cover the majority of private sector DB participants (75 percent of  about 41.2 million workers and retirees in 2014). The amount of the  annuity provided by a DB plan is determined according to a formula  specified by the plan, and is typically based on factors such as salary,  years of service, and age at retirement. Plan sponsors generally bear the  risks associated with investing the plan’s assets and ensuring that  sufficient funds are available to pay the benefits to plan participants as  they come due. As indicated in figure 1, over the past several decades  employment-based retirement plan coverage, especially in the private  sector, has shifted away from DB plans to defined contribution (DC)  plans, which generally require participants to bear the risks of managing  their assets.
Retirement savings accounts can provide individuals with a tax- advantaged way to save for retirement, but, unlike DB plans, they  generally require individuals to manage their own assets. There are two  primary types of retirement savings vehicles: employer-sponsored DC  plans, such as 401(k)s, and individual retirement accounts (IRA). DC  plans’ benefits are based on contributions made by workers (and  sometimes by their employers) and the performance of the investments in  participants’ individual accounts. Workers are generally responsible for  determining their contribution rate, managing their savings and  investments, and deciding how to draw down their assets after  retirement.
There are also tax-advantaged retirement savings accounts that are not  employer-sponsored, such as traditional IRAs and Roth IRAs. Eligible  individuals may make contributions to traditional IRAs with pre-tax  earnings and any savings in traditional IRAs are tax-deferred—that is,  taxed at the time of distribution. Eligible individuals’ contributions to Roth  IRAs are made with after-tax earnings and are generally not taxed at the  time of distribution. Individuals may choose to roll over their employer- sponsored DC plans into an IRA when they leave employment.
section_title: Increasing Life Expectancy Adds to Challenges for Retirement Planning
paragraphs: The projected continuing increase in life expectancy for both men and  women in the United States contributes to longevity risk in retirement  planning. For the Social Security program and employer-sponsored  defined benefit plans, longevity risk is the risk that the program or plan  assets may not be sufficient to meet obligations over their beneficiaries’  lifetimes. For individuals, longevity risk is the risk that they may outlive  any retirement savings they are responsible for managing, such as in a  DC plan.
subsections: section_title: Increasing Life Expectancy Adds to Challenges for Social Security
paragraphs: Increasing life expectancy adds to the long-term financial challenges  facing Social Security by contributing to the growing gap between annual  program costs and revenues. Although life expectancy is only one factor  contributing to this gap, as individuals live longer, on average, each year  there are more individuals receiving benefits, adding to the upward  pressure on program costs.
According to the 2015 report from the Board of Trustees of the Federal  Old-Age and Survivors Insurance (OASI) and Federal Disability Insurance  (DI) Trust Funds, the Social Security OASI trust fund is projected to have  sufficient funds to pay all promised benefits for nearly two decades, but  continues to face long-term financial challenges. In 2010, program costs  for the combined OASI and DI trust funds began exceeding non-interest  revenues and are projected to continue to do so into the future (see fig.  2). The 2015 Trustees Report projected that the OASI trust fund would be  depleted in 2035, at which point continuing revenue would be sufficient to  cover 77 percent of scheduled benefits.
To help address the long-term financial challenges facing the Social  Security retirement program, various changes have been made over the  years. For example, the Social Security Amendments of 1983 established  a phased-in increase in the full retirement age, gradually raising it from  age 65 (for workers born in 1937 or earlier) to age 67 (for workers born in  1960 and later). Also, challenges facing the DI trust fund have affected  OASI. For example, in late 2015, Congress passed a law that reallocates  some tax revenue from the OASI trust fund to the DI trust fund, thus  delaying benefit reductions to DI beneficiaries that were projected to  occur in 2016 until 2022.
In addition, a wide range of options to adjust Social Security further have  been proposed. To illustrate this range of options, table 1 provides  examples from among the options and summarizes their effect according  to SSA’s Office of the Chief Actuary (OCACT). Some options would  reduce benefit costs, such as by making adjustments to the retirement  age. Other options would increase revenues, such as by making  adjustments to payroll tax contributions. The table shows the most  recent OCACT analysis, which is based on the intermediate assumptions  of the 2015 Trustees Report and reflects the impact on both the OASI and  DI trust funds combined over the next 75 years. The trustees estimate  that, using intermediate projections, the shortfall toward the end of their  75-year projections would reach 4.65 percent of taxable payroll for 2089.  The options are based on proposals introduced in Congress or suggested  by experts, but are not exhaustive. Each has advantages and  disadvantages, and GAO is not recommending or endorsing the adoption  of any of the specific options presented.
section_title: Increasing Life Expectancy Adds to Challenges for Defined Benefit Plans
paragraphs: Although there are many factors at play in the decline of defined benefit  (DB) plans, increasing life expectancy adds to the challenges these plans  face by increasing the financial obligations needed to make promised  payments for their beneficiaries’ lifetimes. For example, plan sponsors  and industry experts estimate that the Society of Actuaries’ 2014 revised  mortality tables, if adopted for DB plans, would increase plan obligations  by 3.4 to 10 percent, depending on the characteristics of a plan’s  participants. As of 2012, more than 85 percent of single-employer DB  plans were underfunded by a total of more than $800 billion, according to  the most recent data available from the Pension Benefit Guaranty  Corporation (PBGC). DB plan sponsors have increasingly been taking  steps, known as “de-risking,” to either reduce risk or shift risk away from  sponsors, often to participants. De-risking can be classified as internal or  external.
Internal de-risking approaches include reducing risk by (1) shifting plan  assets into safer investments that better match certain characteristics of a  plan’s benefit liabilities, and (2) restricting growth in the size of the plan by  restricting future plan participation or benefit accruals, such as by  “freezing” the plan (variations of which include closing the plan to newly- hired workers or eliminating the additional accrual of benefits by those  already participating in the plan). In 2012, more than 40 percent of single- employer DB plans were frozen in some form, according to the most  recent data available from PBGC, and many frozen plans are ultimately  terminated, which can shift the risk of ensuring an adequate lifetime  retirement income to individuals, as discussed below.
External de-risking involves closing the plan completely (referred to as  terminating the plan) or reducing the size of the plan by transferring a  portion of plan liabilities, plan assets, and their associated risk to external  parties—typically either to participants or to an insurance company. For  example, an employer may terminate its DB plan, if it can fund all of the  benefits owed through the purchase of a group annuity contract from an  insurance company (sometimes called a “group annuity buy-out”). Short  of termination, an employer can also transfer a portion of plan assets and  liabilities to an insurance company for a certain group of plan participants,  such as former employees with vested benefits. Alternatively, an  employer may, under certain circumstances, terminate its DB plan by  paying all the benefits owed in another form, such as by providing a lump  sum to each participant or beneficiary of the plan, if the plan permits. The  employer could also opt to make a lump sum buy-out offer only to certain  plan participants. When such an offer is made, plan participants have a  specified amount of time, known as the lump sum “window,” to choose  between keeping their lifetime annuity or taking a lump sum. Participants  who accept the lump sum assume all of the risk of managing the funds for  the remainder of their lives.
section_title: Increasing Life Expectancy Adds to Challenges for Individuals’ Retirement Planning
paragraphs: A key reason that individuals face challenges in planning for retirement is  that many people do not understand their life expectancy, the number of  years they will likely spend in retirement, or the amount they should save  to support their retirement. For example, a survey conducted by the  Society of Actuaries showed that there is a greater tendency for retired  respondents to underestimate rather than overestimate their life  expectancy. In addition, many individuals will live beyond their life  expectancy in any case, since it is an average. Further, as we reported in  2015, older workers tend to retire sooner than they expected. Coupled  with increasing life expectancy, this means they will likely spend more  years in retirement than anticipated. In 2015, more than a third of  workers surveyed by the Employee Benefit Research Institute reported  that they expected to retire at age 66 or later and an additional 10 percent  expected to never retire; however, only 14 percent of current retirees  reported that they retired after age 65. Similarly, 9 percent of workers said  they expected to retire before age 60, while 36 percent of current retirees  reported they retired earlier. The median age of retirement reported was  age 62. Additionally, only 48 percent of those surveyed had calculated  how much in savings they would need for retirement.
Beyond underestimating life expectancy, individuals preparing for  retirement face a number of additional challenges in accumulating  retirement savings sufficient to sustain them for their lifetime. In previous  work we found that many households near or in retirement have little or  no retirement savings (see table 2). Nearly 30 percent of households  headed by individuals age 55 and older have neither retirement savings  nor a DB plan.
About half of private sector employees do not participate in any employer- sponsored retirement plan. In previous work, we found that among  those not participating, 84 percent reported that their employer did not  offer a plan or they were not eligible for the program their employer  offered. Those that do participate in employer-sponsored retirement  plans are increasingly offered access only to DC plans, which—unlike DB  plans—do not typically provide a guaranteed monthly benefit for life. For  many of these participants, the level of savings accumulated in their DC  retirement accounts at the time they leave the workforce will not be  sufficient to sustain their retirement. Moreover, employer-sponsored DC  plans typically offer only an account balance at retirement, leaving  participants to identify longevity risks and manage how they will draw  down their funds over the course of their retirement.
To help address individuals’ difficultly in estimating their life expectancy  and the resources needed to avoid outliving their savings, the federal  government, plan sponsors, and others have developed certain tools to  aid with retirement planning. For example, benefits calculators assist  participants in translating their savings into potential annual retirement  income. One such calculator, available on the U.S. Department of Labor’s  website, assumes survival to age 95, which is beyond the average life  expectancy for individuals currently age 65. To encourage saving  among those who lack access to employer-sponsored plans, in  November 2015, myRA, a federal government-managed retirement  savings program, was opened to individuals below a certain income  threshold. Also, as we reported in 2015, a number of states are  exploring strategies to expand private sector coverage for people who  otherwise do not have access to a plan. In addition, for those with  employer-sponsored plans, the Pension Protection Act of 2006 included  provisions that made it easier for certain DC plan sponsors to implement  automatic enrollment and automatic escalation so that workers can be  defaulted into plan participation with rising contributions over time.  Default investment arrangements, including target date funds which  invest according to length of time until retirement, can also help  participants to maintain a balanced investment portfolio with a level of risk  that is appropriate to their retirement dates. Moreover, to provide greater  assurance that individuals with DC plans will not outlive their savings,  some plan sponsors are adding an annuity option at retirement. In  addition, Internal Revenue Service (IRS) regulations that went into effect  in July 2014 allow for a Qualified Longevity Annuity Contract whereby  participants in 401(k) and other qualified DC plans and traditional IRAs  may use a portion of their accounts to purchase annuities that begin  payout no later than age 85.
In sum, despite the efforts by the federal government, plan sponsors, and  others to encourage greater retirement savings, many individuals may not  be adequately prepared for retirement. The trend toward increasing life  expectancy may mean that more individuals outlive their savings, with  only their Social Security benefits to rely on.
section_title: Life Expectancy Disparities Negatively Affect Retirement Resources for Lower- Income Groups
paragraphs: Lower-income individuals have shorter-than-average life expectancy,  which means that they can expect to receive Social Security retirement  benefits for substantially fewer years than higher-income individuals who  have longer-than-average life expectancy. As a result, when disparities in  life expectancy are taken into account, our analysis indicates that, on  average, projected lifetime Social Security retirement benefits are  reduced for lower-income individuals but are increased for higher-income  individuals, relative to what they would have received if they lived the  average life expectancy for their cohort. Also, our analysis indicates that  one frequently suggested change to address Social Security’s financial  challenges, raising the retirement age, would further reduce projected  lifetime benefits for lower-income groups proportionally more than for  higher-income groups.
subsections: section_title: Lower-Income Groups’ Life Expectancy Has Not Increased as Much as Higher-Income Groups’ Life Expectancy
paragraphs: People with lower incomes can expect to live substantially fewer years as  they approach retirement than those with higher incomes, on average,  according to studies we identified and reviewed. For example, these  studies estimate that lower-income men approaching retirement live  between 3.6 and 12.7 fewer years than those in higher-income groups, on  average, depending on birth year and other factors such as whether  income groups were calculated by top or bottom half, quartile, quintile, or  decile (see table 3). Similarly, studies we reviewed found that lower- income women also live fewer years than higher-income women, on  average, with the differences ranging more widely, from 1.5 years to 13.6  years. However, there are factors that make projecting life expectancy  for women by income more difficult than for men. It is not unexpected  for life expectancy estimates to vary as they depend, among other things,  on the particular data sources, populations, and age ranges analyzed.  While the studies we reviewed found a range of life expectancy  differences by income, each of them finds that disparities exist.
Moreover, disparities in life expectancy by income have grown, according  to the studies that examined trends over time (see table 3). Specifically,  all of the six studies we reviewed that examined trends over time found  growth in life expectancy differences, ranging from 0.9 to 7.6 years for  men, depending on the age, birth years, and measure of income used.  For example, a 2007 study by SSA’s Hilary Waldron found that for men  age 65 who were born in 1912, there was only a 0.7 year difference in  expected years of life remaining between top and bottom earners, but for  those born in 1941, the expected difference grew to 5.3 years (see fig.  3). Similarly, for women, the studies we reviewed found differences in  life expectancy by income were greater in more recent years, and the  range in years was wider than for men. This is perhaps unsurprising, as  some analysts have noted that disparities in household income also  increased over time. According to a 2014 Congressional Budget Office  (CBO) report, between 1979 and 2011, average real after-tax earnings for  the top one percent of households grew about four times as fast as those  in the lowest fifth.
While higher-income groups have experienced significant growth in their  life expectancy at older ages, lower-income groups have either  experienced less growth or declines in recent decades, according to  studies we reviewed. For example, Waldron’s 2007 study projected that  65-year-old men born in 1941 with below-median earnings would live 1.3  years longer than their counterparts born in 1912, while 65-year-old men  born in 1941 with above-median earnings would live 6 years longer than  their counterparts born in 1912. Some other studies estimate that life  expectancy declined for those in the bottom of the income distribution.  For instance, a 2015 study by the National Academy of Sciences found  that life expectancy at age 50 has declined for both men and women in  the bottom income quintile. Specifically, men and women in the bottom  income quintile saw life expectancy decreases of 0.5 and 4 years,  respectively, when comparing the 1930 and 1960 cohorts. While the  studies we reviewed do not all agree about whether life expectancy is  decreasing or increasing slightly for the lowest earners, they all agree that  the higher-income groups are gaining more years than the lower-income  groups.
Some studies show that there are disparities in life expectancy by other  characteristics that have been linked with income, such as race and  education. For example, the CDC reported that the life expectancy for 65- year-old black individuals was 1.2 years less than for their white  counterparts in 2013. Other studies have also examined links with  education and found that individuals with a high school degree or less  tend to have shorter lives than those with a college education. However,  because the primary focus of our analysis was on life expectancy for  adults approaching retirement by income group, we did not conduct a  complete review of the studies related to other characteristics.
section_title: Differences in Life Expectancy Result in Reduced Projected Lifetime Social Security Benefits for Lower-Income Groups
paragraphs: Lower-income individuals generally rely on Social Security as their  primary source of retirement income, so their retirement security is  affected most by how that program is structured. We found that when  differences in life expectancy by income are factored in, the amount of  projected lifetime benefits received by lower-income individuals is  reduced, while the amount of projected lifetime benefits received by  higher-income individuals is increased. As a result, although the formula  for calculating monthly Social Security retirement benefits is  progressive—replacing a greater percentage of a lower-income than a  higher-income worker’s pre-retirement income on a monthly basis— differential life expectancy reduces the progressivity of Social Security  benefits received over a lifetime.
subsections: section_title: Lower-Income Groups Rely Primarily on Social Security
paragraphs: Social Security is the largest determinant of lower-income individuals’  retirement security because, for most such individuals, it is the main  source of their retirement income. In a previous report, we analyzed data  from the 2013 Survey of Consumer Finances and estimated that 86  percent of recent retiree households in the lowest income quintile rely on  Social Security for the majority of their income. About half of recent  retiree households in the lowest income quintile rely on Social Security for  more than 90 percent of their income. Overall, in that report we found that  those with lower incomes have more limited resources for retirement  aside from Social Security.
Recent retiree households in the lowest income quintile are much less  likely to have retirement savings and DB plans than those in higher  quintiles. Specifically, as we previously found, only 9 percent have any  retirement savings (compared to 84 percent in the top income quintile)  and 19 percent have a DB plan (compared to 65 percent in the top  income quintile), which typically provides a monthly stream of retirement  income for life. Households without retirement savings have few other  resources, we found, which puts them at a high risk of outliving their non- Social Security resources. One reason for the lack of retirement savings  among lower-income individuals is their lack of access to employer- sponsored retirement savings plans. As we reported in 2015, coverage by  and participation in workplace retirement savings programs are also lower  among lower-income workers. Specifically, workers in the lowest income  quartile were nearly four times less likely than workers in the highest  income quartile to work for an employer that offers a retirement savings  program, after controlling for other factors. Similarly, we found that  approximately 14 percent of workers in the lowest income quartile  participated in a workplace retirement savings program compared to 76  percent of those in the highest income quartile.
section_title: Shorter Life Expectancy Results in Lower Projected Lifetime Benefits
paragraphs: According to our analysis, shorter-than-average life expectancy for lower- income individuals results in a projected reduction in lifetime Social  Security benefits received. We calculated the projected lifetime Social  Security benefits that would be received for men in various hypothetical  scenarios to illustrate the effect of lower-than-average life expectancy on  lower-income groups (which we defined as those with individual annual  incomes at the 25th percentile, or about $20,000, according to Census  data). Our analysis indicates that, on average, the projected lifetime  benefits for these lower-income individuals would be reduced by as much  as 11 to 14 percent due to their shorter-than-average life expectancy (or  “differential” life expectancy) when compared to what they would receive  if they had an average life expectancy (see fig. 4).
For example, our calculations show that for a hypothetical 62-year-old  man in the lower-income group:  If he were to claim Social Security benefits now, and live to age 83  (the average life expectancy for men age 62 in the United States),  he would receive an estimated $156,000 over his lifetime, or about 7.8  times his current income.
If he were to claim Social Security benefits now, and live to age 80  (the differential life expectancy for 62-year-old men in his income  group), he would receive an estimated $138,000 over his lifetime, or  about 6.9 times his current income, a reduction of 11 percent.
However, if a man in the lower-income group delayed claiming Social  Security until age 70, the maximum age that will result in increased  monthly benefits, and then lived until age 83 (the differential life  expectancy for 70-year-old men in his income group), he would receive  an estimated $185,000, or a 14 percent reduction in his lifetime benefits  when compared to what he would receive if he lived until age 85 (the  average life expectancy for 70-year-old men).
We also calculated the projected lifetime Social Security benefits that  would be received for men in the same hypothetical scenarios to illustrate  the effects of differential life expectancy on higher-income groups (which  we defined as those with individual annual incomes at the 75th percentile,  or about $80,000, according to Census data). In contrast to lower-income  individuals, higher-than-average life expectancy for higher-income  individuals results in an increase in lifetime Social Security benefits  received when compared to average life expectancy—as much as 16 to  18 percent (see fig. 5).
For example, our calculations show that for a hypothetical 62-year-old  man in the higher-income group:  If he were to claim Social Security benefits now and live to age 83  (the average life expectancy for men age 62 in the United States),  he would receive an estimated $355,000 over his lifetime, or about 4.4  times his current income.
If he were to claim Social Security benefits now and live to age 86  (the differential life expectancy for 62-year-old men in his income  group), he would receive an estimated $411,000 over his lifetime, or  about 5.1 times his current income, an increase of 16 percent.
However, if a man in the higher-income group delayed claiming Social  Security until age 70, the maximum age that will result in increased  monthly benefits, and then lived until age 88 (the differential life  expectancy for 70-year-old men in his income group), he would receive  an estimated $595,000, or an 18 percent increase in his lifetime benefits  when compared to what he would receive if he lived until age 85 (the  average life expectancy for 70-year-old men).
Rather than claiming benefits when first eligible at age 62, it is often  beneficial for individuals to delay claiming Social Security benefits  because it results in larger monthly benefits. However, lower-than- average life expectancy may reduce the value of delayed claiming of  benefits for lower-income individuals. For example, in our scenarios,  shorter life expectancy reduces the added lifetime benefit of delaying  claiming until age 70 (compared to early claiming at age 62) by nearly  two-thirds of one year’s earnings for a lower-income man. In addition, it  may be more difficult for a low-income individual to delay claiming, for  example, after a job loss or a depletion of retirement savings. While  many factors may influence someone’s decision about when to claim  benefits—such as when a spouse claims—deciding when to claim  benefits may be particularly important for women, who tend to have lower  earnings but longer lives than men.
section_title: Lower Projected Lifetime Benefits Result in Reduced Progressivity
paragraphs: Social Security’s formula for calculating monthly benefits is progressive— that is, it provides a proportionally larger monthly earnings replacement  for lower-earners than for higher-earners. However, our analysis of SSA  data indicates that life expectancy differences reduce the size of this  progressivity over a beneficiary’s lifetime (see fig. 6). Specifically,  differential life expectancy results in reduced projected lifetime benefits  for lower-income groups and increased projected lifetime benefits for  higher-income groups, relative to average life expectancy, thereby  decreasing the lifetime progressivity of the program. Moreover, studies  we reviewed suggest the gap in life expectancy has grown. If the gap  continues to grow, the progressivity in Social Security’s lifetime benefits  will likely continue to decrease.
Although present value adjustments are an important economic tool to  account for the time value of money, we chose to use unadjusted figures  in our scenarios for several reasons, but primarily because of our focus  on the effects of differential life expectancy, including the importance of  benefits at older ages. Our analysis shows that it is at these older ages  when life expectancy differences predict that some income groups will  receive, on average, more or fewer years of benefits. However, in  appendix II, we also provide calculations with adjustments for present  value. These present value adjusted figures are consistent with our basic  findings—that differential life expectancy reduces the lifetime  progressivity of Social Security retirement benefits—though the  magnitude of the reduction in progressivity is somewhat smaller because  the adjustments discount the value of money received in the future.
Six studies we reviewed also examined the impact of life expectancy  differences by income group, and they also generally found that  differences in life expectancy by income erode the lifetime progressivity of  Social Security benefits. For example, the 2015 National Academy of  Sciences study found that the lifetime retirement benefits advantage of  the top income quintile over the bottom income quintile had grown by  $70,000 (on a present value basis) because of increases in life  expectancy differences between 1930 and 1960. Moreover, when  considering lifetime benefits from additional government programs, the  study found that the change in life expectancy has made these programs  less progressive. Another study, conducted for the National Bureau of  Economic Research in 2011, indicated that when differences in life  expectancy are taken into account, Social Security retirement benefits  may have become regressive for some groups. For example, the study  found that men in the 75th income percentile earned a higher rate of  return from Social Security (based on benefits received compared to  taxes paid) than do men in the 25th income percentile.
section_title: Raising the Retirement Age May More Negatively Affect Lower-Income Groups
paragraphs: One frequently-cited option to address increasing average life expectancy  and Social Security’s long-term financial challenges is increasing the  early and full retirement ages. While other options exist, such as  changing payroll tax contributions or the structure of benefits , raising the  retirement age can be considered a direct response to increasing life  expectancy.  We adjusted our hypothetical scenario calculations to  illustrate the effect of increasing these retirement ages and found that  taking such action could more negatively affect lower-income individuals  because of their shorter life expectancy. Specifically, we calculated the  effect of increasing all retirement ages by 2 years and found that the  overall projected lifetime benefit is reduced more for lower-income men  than for higher-income men, given their different life expectancy. For  example, compared to the amount of benefits received under current  program requirements, if retirement ages were increased by 2 years:
A man in the lower-income group retiring at the increased full  retirement age would receive lifetime benefits that are reduced by the  equivalent of over two-thirds of his current annual income,  assuming he lived to the average age expected for his income group.
A man in the higher-income group retiring at the increased full  retirement age would receive lifetime benefits that are reduced by the  equivalent of nearly half of his current annual income, assuming  he lived to the average age expected for his income group.
A 2014 CBO study also examined the effect of raising the full and early  retirement ages and found that it would reduce lifetime benefits more for  lower-income groups than for higher-income groups, relative to payroll  taxes paid. While the CBO study found that raising the early and full  retirement ages together resulted in a slight benefit decrease both for  lower- and higher-income individuals, it also found that, if life expectancy  disparities continue to increase, raising the retirement ages would lead to  larger declines in lifetime benefits for lower-income individuals than for  higher-income individuals, relative to the Social Security taxes they pay.
The 2015 National Academy of Sciences study similarly found that raising  the full retirement age would lead to proportionately lower lifetime benefits  for lower-income groups because of life expectancy differences.  Specifically, the study found that raising the full retirement age to 70  resulted in reducing lifetime benefits for men with income in the bottom  quintile by 25 percent, while reducing lifetime benefits for men with  income in the top quintile by 20 percent. The National Academy of  Sciences study further reported that raising the early retirement age  together with the full retirement age would lead to similar results (a larger  benefit decrease for lower-income groups than higher-income groups).
While researchers sometimes suggest that workers could adjust to an  increased retirement age by working longer, our prior work has shown  that this may not be feasible for many who are low-income workers. In a  2014 report, we concluded that people who claim Social Security benefits  early, such as those with physically-demanding blue collar jobs, may have  done so because they faced challenges continuing to work at older  ages. Similarly, in a 2010 report, we noted that many older workers  could face health or physical challenges that would prevent them from  working longer. For example, in that report we found that the workers  who report more difficulty working longer and postponing retirement due  to work-limiting health conditions tend to have less education and lower  household income than those who do not report health limitations. For  these individuals, raising the early or full retirement age could erode an  important safety net.
Some policies have been proposed to mitigate the potential adverse  effects of raising the early or full retirement age on those with lower  incomes and shorter life expectancies. For example, some researchers  have suggested making early or full retirement ages lower for those with  lower lifetime earnings, though others have suggested that this may be  difficult to implement. Some experts we spoke with also suggested that  eligible, lower-income individuals could receive Disability Insurance to  bridge the gap created by raising the early retirement age, though the  Disability Insurance program is also under financial pressure.
As we reported in 2009, concerns about vulnerable populations have led  to proposals to restructure Social Security benefits to help these groups.  For example, we reported on proposals to guarantee a minimum benefit,  supplement benefits for low-income single workers, or increase survivors  benefits. Another identified proposal would provide an additional Social  Security benefit to those over the age of 80 or 85, which may be  particularly helpful for low-income women. These proposals could have  a negative effect on the projected long-term solvency of Social Security,  although compensating revisions could help moderate costs.
Therefore, in sum, proposals to address Social Security’s financial  challenges may affect different groups differently. Lower-income groups,  in particular, may be more adversely affected by certain proposed  changes because they are more reliant on Social Security retirement  benefits and because they have shorter-than-average life expectancy. It  is important that any proposals to change the Social Security program  take into account how disparities in life expectancy affect the total  benefits received by different groups over their lifetimes.
section_title: Agency Comments
paragraphs: We provided a draft of this report to the U.S. Department of Labor, the  U.S. Department of the Treasury, the Internal Revenue Service, and the  Social Security Administration for their review and comment. SSA  provided comments, reproduced in appendix IV, agreeing with our finding  that it is important to understand how the life expectancy in different  income groups may affect retirement income. SSA also provided  technical comments, as did each of the other agencies, which we  incorporated as appropriate.
As agreed with your office, unless you publicly announce the contents of  this report earlier, we plan no further distribution until 30 days from the  report date. At that time, we will send copies to appropriate congressional  committees, the Secretary of Labor, the Secretary of the Treasury, the  Commissioner of the Internal Revenue Service, the Acting Commissioner  of Social Security, and other interested parties. In addition, the report will  be available at no charge on the GAO website at http://www.gao.gov.
If you or your staff have any questions about this report, please contact  me at (202) 512-7215 or jeszeckc@gao.gov. Contact points for our  Offices of Congressional Relations and Public Affairs may be found on  the last page of this report. GAO staff who made key contributions to this  report are listed in appendix V.
section_title: Appendix I: List of Selected Studies on Life Expectancy Differences, by Income
paragraphs: To examine the effect of life expectancy on the retirement resources for  different groups, especially those with low incomes, we analyzed 11  studies that estimated life expectancy or mortality for different income  groups and 9 studies that described the effect of these differences  regarding Social Security retirement benefits, and in some cases, the  studies also included Social Security disability benefits. These studies are  listed in table 4 below. We selected these studies based on our review of  longevity studies identified through expert referral and an Internet search,  focusing on those that were published in the past 10 years and that  included an analysis of effects by income groups. We limited our review  to those that were published by government agencies, research  organizations, or other scholarly publications, used data from accepted  sources (such as the University of Michigan Health and Retirement Study  or SSA administrative data), and had findings we determined were valid  for our purposes.
section_title: Appendix II: Scenario Calculation Methodology and Additional Examples
paragraphs: To examine the effect of life expectancy on the retirement resources for  different groups, especially those with low incomes, we developed  scenarios to illustrate how disparities in average life expectancy by  income group affect the average amount of lifetime Social Security  retirement benefits received. While our report discusses various forms of  retirement resources, for our scenarios we compare only projected  lifetime Social Security benefits against current income. We do not factor  in other resources that an individual may draw upon in retirement, which  could include (but are not limited to) future payments from employer- sponsored defined benefit plans, retirement savings accounts, or housing  equity. Scenarios that included these other retirement resources could  show different outcomes. However, we focused on Social Security  because it is the primary source of income for most people with lower- incomes. Moreover, other retirement resources are much less prevalent  in this population. We reviewed relevant studies and U.S. Census  Bureau (Census) data to determine our scenario assumptions, such as  life expectancy by income group, and we calculated monthly Social  Security benefits using the Social Security Administration’s (SSA) quick  calculator. We chose to use the quick calculator because it is  transparent, publicly available, and produces quick, approximate  estimates using a methodology developed by SSA actuaries.
These scenarios are illustrative in nature and should not be used to  determine future outcomes for a particular individual. In addition to  gathering input from internal experts, we sought and incorporated  feedback on our methodology from one of the co-chairs for a recent study  on life expectancy by income by the National Academy of Sciences. All  figures are in 2015 dollars. We assessed the reliability of the data we  used by reviewing relevant documentation and interviewing  knowledgeable agency officials. We found the data to be reliable for the  purposes used in this report.
subsections: section_title: Life Expectancy Estimates by Income
paragraphs: We made several assumptions in our scenario calculations, the most  important of which is the life expectancy estimate for income groups. We  identified and reviewed 11 relevant studies published in the past decade  (see app. I) and ultimately used the life expectancy estimates from a 2007  study by SSA’s Hilary Waldron. We chose this study primarily because it  produced cohort life expectancy estimates at a number of ages at which  an individual can claim Social Security retirement benefits. Other  advantages of the 2007 Waldron study are that it relies on comprehensive  data on Social Security-covered workers that is not generally available to  other researchers, it describes patterns over several decades, and it  measures earnings over a multi-year period rather than just over a single  year. Moreover, the study’s life expectancy estimates are in-line with  other estimates and they are used in two of nine studies we identified  that describe the effects of life expectancy disparities.
Although we found it sufficient for our purposes, the 2007 Waldron study  had some notable drawbacks. First, it produces estimates only for Social  Security-covered men. Despite this drawback, we believe the estimates  are appropriate for our purposes because the vast majority (94 percent)  of workers are covered by Social Security, according to SSA, and  because a number of researchers have raised questions about the  reliability of life expectancy estimates by income group for women.
Second, the estimates are broken-out by those in the top and bottom half  of the earnings distribution. While it would have been useful to have a  finer break-out by earning groups, the estimates were sufficient for our  purposes to describe the effects on individuals with income at the 25th  and 75th percentiles (which we describe as lower- and higher- income,  respectively). One final drawback is that the study produces life  expectancy estimates for individuals born in 1941, who are now past  retirement age. It is possible that this cohort is different than past or future  cohorts. In particular, given that most studies we reviewed found  increasing disparities in life expectancy, our use of this study may  underestimate the effect of life expectancy differences for more recent  cohorts.
section_title: Hypothetical Individuals’ Characteristics and Analysis
paragraphs: In order to calculate lifetime benefits using SSA’s quick calculator, we  assumed a set of characteristics for two hypothetical individuals, both  men (given the limitations of life expectancy estimates for women). One  individual was assumed to have an income in the bottom half of the  individual income distribution, and the other an income in the top half. For  the mid-point of each half of the income distribution (i.e., the 25th and  75th percentiles), we estimated income for men approaching retirement  age using Census’s 2015 Current Population Survey, the most recent  available. Based on this, we used $20,000 annual income for our lower- income group and $80,000 annual income for the higher-income group,  using income as a proxy for earnings. The SSA quick calculator  assumes a prior earnings history based on current earnings covered by  Social Security, which we did not alter for transparency. Similarly, we  assumed no future change in earnings. For both individuals, we assumed  a birthday of 12/1/1953, which makes them 62 years old as of  12/1/2015. Finally, for both individuals, we assumed a retirement date of  December for a series of years beginning at age 62, the Social Security  early retirement age.
In order to further understand the effects of life expectancy differences on  income groups, we compared outcomes with and without taking life  expectancy differences into account. Specifically, we further calculated  lifetime benefits using SSA’s actuarially assumed (average) life  expectancy and compared them to the benefits based on the life  expectancies by lifetime earnings group from Waldron’s 2007 study. We  describe the difference between these two outcomes as the change in  benefits due to differential life expectancy.
section_title: Lifetime Benefit Figures Adjusted for Present Value
paragraphs: For simplicity and in order to focus on the effects of life expectancy  differences in the report, we did not adjust the lifetime Social Security  benefits for present value. Present value calculations reflect the time  value of money, based on the assumption that a dollar in the future is  worth less than a dollar today because the dollar today can be invested  and earn interest. While present value adjustments are an important  economic tool, we chose instead to report unadjusted figures for several  reasons: for simplicity; so that average lifetime benefits could be viewed  as a multiple of current income; and in order to focus on the effects of  differential life expectancy, including the importance of benefits at older  ages. It is at these older ages when life expectancy differences predict  that some income groups will receive, on average, more or fewer years of  benefits, which is the crux of our analysis. Further, present value  adjustments were not incorporated by all of the studies we reviewed, and  one expert we consulted suggested that it would be valuable to show both  unadjusted and adjusted figures.
However, as a check on our analysis, and in order to provide more  complete information, we also performed our calculations with  adjustments for present value. The results of these calculations are  consistent with our basic finding—that differential life expectancy reduces  the progressivity of projected lifetime Social Security retirement benefits.  The lifetime benefit figures adjusted for present value are presented  below. The present value adjustments are based on an assumed real  (i.e., inflation-adjusted) interest rate of 2.9 percent, which is what SSA  used as the intermediate long-range assumption for the Social Security  trust funds in its 2015 Trustees Report.
section_title: Appendix III: Trend in the Cap on Social Security Taxable Earnings
paragraphs: Workers pay a payroll tax of 6.2 percent of their covered earnings into the  Social Security trust funds. Their employers pay an equal amount, for a  combined total rate of 12.4 percent. This tax only applies to workers’  earnings up to an annual limit; for 2016, it is $118,500. This cap is  technically known as the “contribution and benefit base” because the  same cap is used to limit the amount of earnings subject to the payroll  tax, as well as the amount of earnings used in the formula to determine  benefit levels.
The cap on taxable earnings has changed over time. The maximum  annual earnings subject to the payroll tax was $3,000 in 1937. However,  in 1937, 97 percent of all covered workers had total earnings below that  level. In recent years, about 94 percent have had total earnings below the  taxable maximum. Meanwhile, the percentage of covered earnings that  are subject to the payroll tax has fluctuated before generally declining  since the mid-1980s, according to the most recent data available. In  1983, this figure was more than 90 percent, but it has declined since then  and, in 2013, about 83 percent of earnings fell below the taxable  maximum (see fig. 10). This percentage has declined because earnings  among higher earners (those earning above the maximum) have grown  faster than earnings among the rest of the working population.
section_title: Appendix IV: Comments from the Social Security Administration
section_title: Appendix V: GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments
subsections: section_title: GAO Contact
section_title: Staff Acknowledgments
paragraphs: In addition to the contact named above, Margie K. Shields (Assistant  Director), Margaret Weber (Analyst-in-Charge), Laura Hoffrey, and  Vincent Lui made key contributions to this report. Also contributing to this  report were Susan Aschoff, Deborah Bland, Mindy Bowman, Alicia  Puente Cackley, Sarah Cornetto, John Dicken, Jennifer Gregory, Kathy  Leslie, Sheila McCoy, Drew Nelson, Mimi Nguyen, Susan Offutt,  Rhiannon Patterson, Oliver Richard, Max Sawicky, Joseph Silvestri,  Frank Todisco, and Walter Vance.
section_title: Related GAO Products
paragraphs: Retirement Security: Better Information on Income Replacement Rates  Needed to Help Workers Plan for Retirement. GAO-16-242. Washington,  D.C.: March 1, 2016.
Social Security’s Future: Answers to Key Questions. GAO-16-75SP.  Washington, D.C.: October 2015.
Retirement Security: Federal Action Could Help State Efforts to Expand  Private Sector Coverage. GAO-15-556. Washington, D.C.: September 10,  2015.
Retirement Security: Most Households Approaching Retirement Have  Low Savings. GAO-15-419. Washington, D. C.: May 12, 2015.
Private Pensions: Participants Need Better Information When Offered  Lump Sums That Replace Their Lifetime Benefits. GAO-15-74.  Washington, D.C.: January 27, 2015.
Retirement Security: Challenges for Those Claiming Social Security  Benefits Early and New Health Coverage Options. GAO-14-311.  Washington, D.C.: April 23, 2014.  401(K) Plans: Improvements Can Be Made to Better Protect Participants  in Managed Accounts. GAO-14-310. Washington, D.C.: June 25, 2014.
Retirement Security: Annuities with Guaranteed Lifetime Withdrawals  Have Both Benefits and Risks, but Regulation Varies across States,  GAO-13-75. Washington, D.C.: December 10, 2012.
Retirement Security: Women Still Face Challenges. GAO-12-699.  Washington, D.C.: July 19, 2012.
Unemployed Older Workers: Many Experience Challenges Regaining  Employment and Face Reduced Retirement Security. GAO-12-445.  Washington, D.C.: April 25, 2012.
Retirement Income: Ensuring Income throughout Retirement Requires  Difficult Choices. GAO-11-400. Washington, D.C.: June 7, 2011.
Private Pensions: Some Key Features Lead to an Uneven Distribution of  Benefits. GAO-11-333. Washington, D.C.: March 30, 2011.
Social Security Reform: Raising the Retirement Ages Would Have  Implications for Older Workers and SSA Disability Rolls. GAO-11-125.  Washington, D.C.: November 18, 2010.
Social Security: Options to Protect Benefits for Vulnerable Groups When  Addressing Program Solvency. GAO-10-101R. Washington, D.C.:  December 7, 2009.