No, Medicare Recipients Haven’t Earned All Their Benefits

In his interview with 60 Minutes that aired Sunday night, Speaker of the House Paul Ryan made a compelling case for reforming Medicare. But in trying to make a political point about the need to maintain the status quo for beneficiaries in retirement, Speaker Ryan actually understated the problems the program faces:

We have to make sure that we shore this program up. And the reforms that we’ve been talking about don’t change the benefit for anybody who is in or near retirement. My mom’s now enjoying Medicare. She’s already retired. She earned it. But for those of us, you know, the X-Generation on down, it won’t be there for us on its current path. So we have to bring reform to this program for the younger generation, so that it’s there for us when we retire, and so that we can keep cash flowing to current generations’ commitments. And the more we kick the can down the road, the more we delay, the worse it gets.

There’s just one problem with this explanation: the benefits Ryan claimed his mother’s generation “earned” don’t begin to match the money paid into the system.

Money In Doesn’t Equal Money Out

In its 2015 document highlighting the long-term budget outlook, the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) conducted an analysis of average payroll taxes paid and benefits received. It found the latter exceeded the former by a wide margin—a margin that will grow over time:

Under the assumption that all scheduled benefits are paid, real average lifetime benefits (net of premiums paid) for each birth cohort as a percentage of lifetime savings will generally be greater than those for the preceding cohort. For example, benefits received over a lifetime are projected to equal about 7 percent of lifetime earnings for people born in the 1940s, on average, but 11 percent for people born in the 1960s. By contrast, real average lifetime payroll taxes relative to lifetime earnings will rise from 2 percent in the 1940s cohort to almost 3 percent for the 1960s cohort.

Both the text and accompanying chart (below) come with a significant caveat: Medicare payroll taxes fund only a share of overall Medicare spending, and that share has declined significantly in recent years—from 67 percent in 2000 to about 40 percent last year. General revenue covers a growing (currently about 47 percent) percentage of Medicare’s finances; individuals do pay a portion of the federal government’s general revenue through income taxes, but it’s harder to differentiate what portion of an individual’s income taxes fund Medicare in any given year.

jacobs1

image2

 

image3

We Have To Fix Our Medicare System

No matter the details, the fact that most seniors receive more in benefits than they paid in payroll taxes speaks to the urgent need to right-size our entitlements. Regardless of how we do it, our nation will be much better off if we confront these problems sooner rather than later. Because continuing our Lake Wobegon system—in which everyone receives more than they paid in—will guarantee a fiscal crisis of epic proportions.

This post was originally published at The Federalist.

Our Entitlement Problem for the Next Generation, in One CBO Chart

 

The Congressional Budget Office released its annual update last week regarding the long-term budget outlook. In that document, one chart in particular demonstrated the financial difficulties caused by an entitlement system that has promised Americans more in benefits than it can deliver.

Figure 2-5, on Page 47 of the CBO report, analyzes the average lifetime Medicare benefits and taxes for cohorts of the population based on their decades of birth. Individuals born in the 1940s will receive, on average, Medicare benefits equal to about 7% of their lifetime earnings. Those born in the 1960s will receive lifetime Medicare benefits equal to about 11% of their average lifetime earnings, and those born in the 1950s get benefits equal to about 9% of their earnings. In all three cases, the lifetime benefits received from Medicare will vastly exceed the lifetime taxes paid in. Most cohorts, CBO said, will pay about 2% of taxes relative to their lifetime earnings.

These findings echo reports by Eugene Steuerle and colleagues at the Urban Institute analyzing Social Security and Medicare benefits over a lifetime. Their most recent series of estimates, released in November 2013, found that a two-earner couple in which both make average wages and turn 65 in 2015 will receive more than three times as much in lifetime Medicare benefits ($427,000) as they paid over their career in Medicare taxes ($141,000).

It’s noteworthy that the dedicated Medicare payroll tax is not the program’s only source of financing. While Medicare Part A (hospital insurance) is largely funded through the direct payroll tax, general government revenues fund Medicare Part B coverage of physician services and Part D coverage of prescription drugs. In other words, most individuals fund Medicare through revenue sources beyond their payroll taxes—namely the income tax— even if quantifying the size of that contribution proves more difficult.

Still, the CBO chart illustrates two major forces squeezing Medicare: Rising health costs and longer life spans are increasing the benefits paid, and average promised benefits do not remotely equate to average contributions made—undermining the principle of a social insurance model. With about 10,000 baby boomers on track to retire every day for a generation, these two trends will define our fiscal future. Policy makers would do well to address them sooner rather than later.

This post was originally published at the Wall Street Journal Think Tank blog.

The Case for Medicare Reform in One Chart

Last week’s release of the annual long-term budget outlook by the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) illustrates the need to control federal spending, and spending on health entitlements in particular. One chart from the report explains why the Medicare Part A trust fund could “be exhausted just beyond the coming decade,” according to CBO. Figure 2-4 demonstrates in visual form that the level of Medicare benefits being paid out vastly exceeds the taxes being paid into the system.

CBO_Medicare2-4

As the text accompanying the graph states:

Over their lifetime, beneficiaries born in the 1940s would, on average, receive about $160,000 in benefits (net of premiums paid) and pay about $45,000 in payroll taxes (both figures are expressed in 2013 dollars). Those born in the 1950s would receive, on average, about $205,000 in benefits and pay about $60,000 in payroll taxes, CBO estimates. And those born in the 1960s would receive, on average, about $270,000 in benefits and pay about $65,000 in payroll taxes.

To be sure, the CBO analysis comes with a major caveat. Medicare is funded directly—by the payroll tax—and indirectly—by general federal revenues that come from a variety of sources, most notably the income tax. The analysis above examines only the payroll taxes individuals “paid in” to the Medicare system, and does not include the portion of individuals’ income taxes used to fund Medicare, because, as CBO notes, those amounts “cannot be easily traced.”

That drawback notwithstanding, the CBO chart confirms prior Heritage analysis: The Medicare benefits most baby boomers are projected to receive vastly exceed the amount of taxes being used to fund the program. That fact, coupled with the growth in projected benefits for current and future generations of beneficiaries, illustrates why Medicare needs structural reforms in order to make the program sustainable in the long term.

This post was originally published at The Daily Signal.

No Magic Bullet to Control Entitlements

Speaking at an event this morning regarding the Center for American Progress’ new health and entitlement manifesto (about which more later), former Obama Administration official Zeke Emanuel claimed that controlling health costs by itself would cure America’s fiscal woes: “I think this is the legacy for the president because if he can get healthcare costs under control, everything changes….This really is the big kahuna for his legacy going forward.”

It’s a nice assertion – but it’s also flat wrong.  The Congressional Budget Office’s long-term budget outlook includes a chart (attached below) demonstrating that, over the next 25 years, demographics count for at least half – and as much as three-quarters – of projected increases in spending on Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security, and Obamacare insurance subsidies:

What this analysis means is that, even if the growth of health costs does manage to slow (both CBO and the Medicare actuary think Obamacare’s cost reductions will not be sustainable in the long-term), slowing health costs alone won’t solve Medicare’s financial problems.  Put another way, Medicare needs structural reform NOW – because nothing else can save the program.  Emanuel’s incorrect comments notwithstanding, it’s a lesson policy-makers in both parties would be wise to heed.

Ezra Klein’s Incomplete and Misleading Claims on Obamacare Taxes

Liberal blogger Ezra Klein this morning drafted a post that claims Obamacare is only the 10th largest tax increase in American history, because it raises “only” 0.49 percent of GDP.  The problem is that this claim only focuses on the first ten years of the law – which gives a misleading impression.  In its 2010 long-term budget outlook, here’s what the Congressional Budget Office said would be the fiscal impact in the longer term (page 61):

Under the extended-baseline scenario, the impact of the legislation on the revenue share of GDP would rise over time, CBO estimates, boosting revenues by about 1.2 percent of GDP in 2035 and by a larger amount after 2035; most of the increase that is projected to occur after 2035 is attributable to the excise tax on high-premium health insurance plans.

All tax increases are subject to some “bracket creep,” but in this case CBO estimates that Obamacare’s tax increases will more than double as a share of GDP between 2019 and 2035 – and will continue to grow thereafter.  That’s because the law’s biggest tax increases are designed to grow larger and larger over time:

  • The “Cadillac tax” on high-cost health plans isn’t scheduled to take effect until 2018.  But because the tax is linked to general inflation, and not medical inflation, it will hit more and more health plans over time – not just “Cadillac” insurance plans, but “Chevy” plans and even “Yugo” health plans.  That’s why CBO projects the impact of the Cadillac tax will continue to grow even after 2035, as noted above.
  • The “high-income” surtax is not indexed for inflation at all – it’s designed to hit more and more middle-income families every year.  Page 87 of the 2010 Medicare trustees report notes that the tax will hit only 3 percent of workers next year, when the tax takes effect – but a whopping 79 percent of all workers by 2080.

There’s certainly an argument to be made that, just as the President Obama avoided calling the individual mandate a tax for political reasons, the law was deliberately structured to back-load the major “pay-fors” – including the tax increases – to have them implemented on some future President’s watch.  The law’s Cadillac tax on health benefits doesn’t take effect until 2018; the law reduces spending on Exchange subsidies, but only beginning in 2019; and the Congressional Budget Office and Medicare actuary both believe the law’s Medicare spending reductions will be unsustainable after 2022 and 2019, respectively.  Does anyone believe the fact that all these onerous “pay-fors” will kick in just a few years after a putative Obama second term is a coincidence?

Therein lies the fundamentally misleading nature of Klein’s claims.   Just last week he noted as “fact” the claim that “As time goes on, the savings are projected to grow more quickly than the spending, and CBO expects that the law will cut the deficit by around a trillion dollars in its second decade.”  Do you see what he’s doing?  He’s citing the low tax increase number NOW to claim the law isn’t the largest tax increase in history.  But he’s using the deficit reduction LATER to claim the law is a major fiscal saver.  But the only way the law will get the purported deficit savings LATER is by implementing the largest long-term tax increase in history – if the tax increases get even slightly scaled back, Obamacare will raise the deficit.

Go back to the chart Klein uses to make his point.  That chart assumes the law raises taxes by “only” about 0.5% of GDP.  But if you use CBO’s longer-term estimate of 1.2% of GDP, then Obamacare’s tax increases are outmatched only by revenue measures enacted during the Korean war – several of which were temporary in nature.  That would make Obamacare the largest tax increase in modern history; the largest peacetime tax increase in history; and the largest permanent tax increase in history.

Klein has a history in recent weeks of cherry-picking facts to support his liberal positions, and side-stepping those that undermine his philosophical views.  But ultimately, he can’t have it both ways.  At minimum, Obamacare is either the largest tax increase in history, or will raise the deficit by significant sums.  Pick one, and be honest and up-front about it.

On Entitlements, It’s the Demographics, Stupid

Included in the Congressional Budget Office’s long-term budget outlook yesterday was one chart that should have significant consequences for upcoming debates over reforms to Medicare and entitlements.  The chart on page 15 of the report demonstrates that, over the next 25 years, demographics count for at least half – and as much as three-quarters – of projected increases in spending on Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security, and Obamacare insurance subsidies.  Here’s a copy of the chart:

What this analysis means is that, even if the growth of health costs does manage to slow (both CBO and the Medicare actuary think Obamacare’s cost reductions will not be sustainable in the long-term), slowing health costs alone won’t solve Medicare’s financial problems.  Put another way, Medicare needs structural reform NOW – because nothing else can save the program.  That’s the major lesson from yesterday’s report.  And it’s a lesson policy-makers in both parties would be wise to heed.

CBO Report Exposes New Facet of Obamacare’s Unsustainable Spending

The Congressional Budget Office released its long-term budget outlook today, and the results can be summed up in two words: We’re broke.

According to CBO, federal spending on health care will reach 10.7 percent of GDP in 2037 – and 18.3 percent of GDP by 2087, up from 5.4 percent this year.  In other words, within one generation, one in ten dollars in the American economy will be devoted to federal government spending on health care programs – and that number will rise to nearly one in five dollars within the lifetimes of children born today.  These projections are based on CBO’s alternative fiscal scenario – which in many respects represents a more realistic version of long-term fiscal outcomes, as it follows Stein’s Law and assumes policies that “might be difficult to sustain over a long period” won’t be.

CBO had already assumed that several policies in Obamacare – notably, the productivity adjustments to hospitals and the payment reductions to be implemented by a board of unaccountable bureaucrats – would not be sustained over the longer term.  But in a paragraph located on page 57 of today’s report, CBO outlines yet another way Obamacare’s spending will be unsustainable:

CBO assumed that two policies that affect the number of people receiving different amounts of subsidies and that might be difficult to sustain over a long period would be altered in the extended alternative fiscal scenario.  First, CBO assumed that the eligibility thresholds would be modified after 2022 such that the shares of the population with incomes corresponding to the various ranges of subsidies remained constant.  Second, CBO assumed that the additional indexing factor described above would have no effect after 2022, so federal subsidies would cover a constant share of the premiums per enrollee over time.

To put it in plain English:  According to CBO, if Obamacare is not repealed or amended, virtually all Americans will be forced to buy health insurance – but fewer and fewer individuals will qualify for insurance subsidies over time, and those subsidies will pay a smaller and smaller share of overall insurance premiumsCBO’s alternative fiscal scenario therefore assumes that spending on Obamacare insurance subsidies will be GREATER than current law projections – because CBO presumes that policy-makers will not be able to tolerate individuals being forced to buy health insurance who will not be able to afford the premiums given the subsidy regime scheduled to take effect under current law.

In its prior writings, CBO had assumed that spending on subsidies will eventually have to rise above current law projections, because the level of subsidies themselves would prove insufficient.  However, today is the first time CBO has stated publicly that Obamacare will cause what amounts to a new form of “bracket creep” – whereby smaller and smaller shares of the population will be eligible for subsidies.  The revelation in today’s report represents just the newest way in which Obamacare’s actual level of spending has proven to be far greater than initially advertised – a fiscal “bait and switch” that will cripple future generations of taxpayers with crushing debt.

CBO, CLASS, and Obamacare’s Fiscal Sustainability

Since the demise of CLASS, analysts on both sides of the political spectrum have weighed in on whether and how the fiscal disaster that is the CLASS Act has broader implications for Obamacare’s sustainability.  For instance, last week liberal blogger (and Obamacare apologist) Ezra Klein said the motto is “trust CBO,” and that because CBO says the law will reduce the deficit, it will.  (Of course, CBO also said last year that CLASS would reduce the deficit in its first ten years, so that may not mean much.)

Before looking at the granular details, it’s first worth comparing CLASS to Obamacare at a macro level.  The HHS report on CLASS contains the word “uncertain” no fewer than 16 times in a 50-page document – it discusses “inherently uncertain” CLASS modeling, the “great uncertainty around the existing estimates,” and a “very high level of uncertainty around assumptions in the actuarial models.”  Likewise, CBO in its score of Obamacare said that “the range of uncertainty” surrounding estimates of the budgetary impact of the legislation “is quite wide.”  CBO’s most extensive analysis of Obamacare’s long-term projections – in last year’s long-term budget outlook – included a whole section regarding uncertainty and sustainability, which I’ve pasted below.  The sum total of the passage would lead one to believe that the uncertainty surrounding implementation of the rest of the law is nearly as great as that surrounding CLASS.

To examine it more closely:  The Administration now claims that since CLASS’ demise, Obamacare will reduce the deficit by an estimated $124 billion over the next ten years.  What does that mean?  If…

  1. Medicare provider payment reductions that will take Medicare rates below Medicaid payment levels – and cause up to 40 percent of providers to become unprofitable – are implemented as scheduled; AND
  2. Medicare Advantage cuts that the Administration already felt the need to mitigate in the short-term for political reasons can be implemented, causing millions of seniors to lose their current coverage; AND
  3. Someone finds a spare $370 billion to avert a 30 percent reduction in Medicare physician payment fees scheduled to take effect this coming January; AND
  4. A future Administration is willing to implement a 40 percent tax on insurance policies so unpopular unions forced its delay until 2018, well after President Obama will have left office; AND
  5. Democrats are willing to allow a new “high-income” tax not indexed to inflation to become the “new AMT,” hitting more and more middle-class families until nearly 80 percent are being hit with this surcharge; AND
  6. A scheduled reduction in insurance subsidies in 2019 goes through, despite liberal advocates already calling for the subsidies to be increased; AND
  7. Employers do not drop coverage en masse, despite the numerous studies, papers, briefs, reports, employer questionnaires, consultant presentations, surveys, op-eds, interviews, and quotes suggesting that employers will drop coverage in much higher numbers than CBO first anticipated…

Then the Administration will have reduced the deficit by about $12 billion a year for the next decade – or less than 1% of the whopping $1.3 trillion deficit the federal government ran over the past 12 months.  In other words, at best the law will “reduce” the deficit by an amount so small some may consider it microscopic.  And, as illustrated above, the number of assumptions needed to arrive at that conclusion may be so great as to beggar belief – just as the Medicare actuary knew from Day One that CLASS wouldn’t work, despite all the Administration’s rhetoric.  Their claims notwithstanding, I haven’t seen Ezra Klein or other Obamacare advocates willing to make actual wagers that the law will actually end up reducing the deficit – and given what’s needed to make that prediction come true, with good reason.

 

Questions About Sustainability

One challenge that arises in projecting federal outlays for health care over the long term is that the recent legislation either left in place or put into effect a number of procedures that may be difficult to sustain over a long period.  For example, the legislation did not alter the sustainable growth rate mechanism used for determining updates to Medicare’s payment rates for physicians; under that mechanism, those rates are scheduled to be reduced by about 21 percent in 2010 and then decline further in subsequent years.  Since that mechanism was enacted in 1997, its provisions have usually been modified to avoid scheduled reductions in payment rates, and legislation was just enacted to delay cuts in those payment rates until December 2010 (a development that is not reflected in the projections).  At the same time, the legislation includes provisions that will constrain payment rates for other providers of Medicare’s services.  In particular, increases in payment rates for many providers will be held below the rate of increase in the average cost of providers’ inputs.

Taking all the provisions of the legislation together, CBO expects that, adjusted for inflation, Medicare spending per beneficiary will increase at an average annual rate of less than 2 percent during the next two decades—compared with a roughly 4 percent annual growth rate during the past two decades (a calculation that excludes the effect of establishing the Medicare prescription drug benefit).  It is unclear whether that lower rate of growth can be sustained and, if so, whether it will be accomplished through greater efficiencies in the delivery of health care or will instead reduce access to care or diminish the quality of care (relative to the situation under prior law).

Another provision that may be difficult to sustain will slow the growth of federal subsidies for health insurance purchased through the insurance exchanges.  For enrollees who receive subsidies, the amount they will have to pay depends primarily on a formula that determines what share of their income they have to contribute to enroll in a relatively low-cost plan (with the subsidy covering the difference between that contribution and the total premium for that plan).  Initially, the percentages of income that enrollees must pay are indexed so that the subsidies will cover roughly the same share of the total premium over time.  After 2018, however, an additional indexing factor will probably apply; if so, the shares of income that enrollees have to pay will increase more rapidly, and the shares of the premium that the subsidies cover will decline.

Medicare and Medicaid Turn 45

The Medicare and Medicaid programs turn 45 today; benefits for these entitlement programs started on July 1, 1966.  While the programs’ current structure may have been sufficient for a year when disposable diapers were invented and Star Trek first appeared on television, today’s deficit crisis shows how both entitlements need comprehensive reform to last through the 21st century:

  • At the time of its enactment in 1965, actuaries for the House Ways and Means Committee projected that in 1990, Medicare Part A would spend $9.1 billion on hospital services and related administration.  In reality, spending in 1990 totaled nearly $67 billion – more than seven times the original estimates.
  • Prior to its enactment, the Medicare Part B program for physician services was projected to be funded through a $3 monthly premium, supplemented by “federal appropriations of about $500 million a year from general tax revenues.”  In 2009, Medicare Part B relied upon $162.8 billion in federal general revenues – an increase of more than 4800 percent in inflation-adjusted spending.
  • According to the Medicare trustees report, the program is scheduled to run a $39 billion deficit this fiscal year, and is NEVER projected to achieve balance.  By comparison, the entire Greek government ran a deficit of only about $35 billion last year.
  • At a time when states face budget deficits totaling a collective $175 billion, Obamacare is imposing unfunded mandates on state Medicaid programs totaling at least $118 billion.
  • Table 3-1 of CBO’s long-term budget outlook confirms that from 1975-2007 and 1990-2007, excess cost growth in Medicare exceeded that of Medicaid and all other health spending (including from private sources), raising doubts about Medicare’s ability to function as a leader in controlling health care costs.
  • CBO also estimates that between now and 2035, 64% of the growth in entitlement spending, and 48% of the growth in health care entitlement spending, will be driven by demographic factors associated with the retirement of the Baby Boomers and general aging of the American population.  In other words, Medicare and Medicaid need fundamental reforms; even if health care costs were brought under control, entitlement programs face significant structural difficulties, as nearly half of the growth in entitlement spending over the next generation comes from demographics, NOT rising costs.
  • According to CBO’s alternative fiscal scenario – which presumes (among other things) that physicians will not receive a 30% reimbursement cut in January 2012 – Medicare alone is projected to nearly double over the next 25 years, from 3.7% of GDP to almost 7 percent by 2035.
  • Between now and 2035, CBO projects that federal spending on health care will total $41.3 trillion.  By comparison, according to the International Monetary Fund, the combined gross domestic product of the world’s top ten economies in 2010 was $41.4 trillion.  So in other words, over the next generation, the United States will spend on its health care entitlements about as much as all the goods and services that the United States, China, Japan, Germany, France, the United Kingdom, Brazil, Italy, Canada, and India combined produced last year.

All these facts point to one central conclusion:  Both Medicare and Medicaid are unsustainable in their current form.  Republicans have put forward solutions to address these concerns.  Where are the Democrat proposals?

Federal Health Care Spending Is a $425 TRILLION Problem

The release of CBO’s long-term budget outlook yesterday was accompanied by a supplemental series of spreadsheets that serve as the basis for the graphs in the report.  Among the interesting data points are estimates of total mandatory health care spending – including Medicare, Medicaid, SCHIP, and the insurance subsidies created in the health care law – under the alternative fiscal scenario.  This scenario assumes that Medicare physician payments are not reduced by nearly 30 percent next year under the sustainable growth rate mechanism, and that several savings provisions in the health care law that CBO believes will be “difficult to sustain for a long period” – such as the productivity adjustments for providers and IPAB spending reductions – are not fully implemented. (Unfortunately, CBO does NOT provide separate programmatic assumptions for Medicare and/or Medicaid spending under the alternative fiscal scenario, so it’s impossible to calculate these – or to calculate the long-term spending effects of the health care law in isolation from other provisions.)

The spending levels in the charts are expressed as a percentage of GDP.  However, CBO also includes yearly GDP estimates in calculating its long-range economic assumptions.  So it’s fairly simple to multiply estimated federal health care spending as a percentage of GDP by estimated GDP amounts in dollars and arrive at a dollar-figure estimate of federal health care spending for each year through 2085.

The results are below – and they’re shocking.  Between now and 2085, CBO projects that the federal government will spend $425,959,000,000,000 on health care programs.  That’s $425 TRILLION dollars.  And as CBO points out in its chart, those estimates are in today’s money.

Even in the shorter term, spending on health care entitlements will grow at astounding levels.  Between now and 2035, CBO projects that federal spending on health care will total $41.3 trillion.  By comparison, according to the International Monetary Fund, the combined gross domestic product of the world’s top ten economies in 2010 was $41.4 trillion.  So in other words, over the next generation, the United States will spend on its health care entitlements about as much as all the goods and services that the United States, China, Japan, Germany, France, the United Kingdom, Brazil, Italy, Canada, and India combined produced last year.

If ever any set of statistics could convince you that Washington doesn’t have a taxing problem, it has a spending problem, it’s this one.

 

Fiscal Year Medicare, Medicaid, CHIP, and Exchange Subsidies Real GDP (Fiscal Year, in Billions of 2011 dollars) Federal Health Spending (Billions of  2011 dollars)
       
2011 5.6 15,000 840
2012 5.4 15,500 837
2013 5.5 16,000 880
2014 5.8 16,500 957
2015 6.1 17,100 1,043
2016 6.3 17,700 1,115
2017 6.5 18,200 1,183
2018 6.6 18,600 1,228
2019 6.7 19,000 1,273
2020 6.9 19,500 1,346
2021 7.1 19,900 1,413
2022 7.4 20,400 1,510
2023 7.6 20,800 1,581
2024 7.8 21,200 1,654
2025 8.0 21,700 1,736
2026 8.3 22,100 1,834
2027 8.5 22,500 1,913
2028 8.7 23,000 2,001
2029 9.0 23,500 2,115
2030 9.2 24,000 2,208
2031 9.5 24,500 2,328
2032 9.7 25,000 2,425
2033 9.9 25,600 2,534
2034 10.1 26,100 2,636
2035 10.3 26,700 2,750
2036 10.6 27,300 2,894
2037 10.8 27,800 3,002
2038 11.0 28,400 3,124
2039 11.2 29,100 3,259
2040 11.4 29,700 3,386
2041 11.5 30,400 3,496
2042 11.7 31,100 3,639
2043 11.9 31,800 3,784
2044 12.1 32,500 3,933
2045 12.2 33,300 4,063
2046 12.4 34,000 4,216
2047 12.6 34,800 4,385
2048 12.7 35,500 4,509
2049 12.9 36,300 4,683
2050 13.0 37,100 4,823
2051 13.2 37,900 5,003
2052 13.4 38,700 5,186
2053 13.5 39,500 5,333
2054 13.7 40,400 5,535
2055 13.9 41,300 5,741
2056 14.0 42,200 5,908
2057 14.2 43,100 6,120
2058 14.4 44,000 6,336
2059 14.6 44,900 6,555
2060 14.8 45,900 6,793
2061 14.9 46,900 6,988
2062 15.1 48,000 7,248
2063 15.3 49,000 7,497
2064 15.5 50,100 7,766
2065 15.7 51,200 8,038
2066 15.9 52,300 8,316
2067 16.1 53,500 8,614
2068 16.3 54,700 8,916
2069 16.4 55,800 9,151
2070 16.6 57,100 9,479
2071 16.8 58,400 9,811
2072 17.0 59,700 10,149
2073 17.2 61,100 10,509
2074 17.4 62,500 10,875
2075 17.6 63,900 11,246
2076 17.8 65,400 11,641
2077 18.0 66,900 12,042
2078 18.1 68,300 12,362
2079 18.3 69,800 12,773
2080 18.5 71,300 13,191
2081 18.7 72,800 13,614
2082 18.8 74,400 13,987
2083 19.0 75,900 14,421
2084 19.2 77,600 14,899
2085 19.4 79,300 15,384