General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsDoubling down on theft of benefits from seniors....
The current argument to steal from seniors by switching to chained CPI from CPI-W completely ignores the fact that the government already has an actual more accurate measurement of of the cost of living for social security recipients known as CPI-E.
http://www.newyorkfed.org/research/current_issues/ci9-5/ci9-5.html
Some argue that social security benefits should be adjusted using a price index that reflects the spending habits of the elderly rather than those of workers. This study suggests that if such an index were adopted today, over the next forty years benefit levels would increase and the social security trust fund could become insolvent up to five years sooner than projected. snip
We argue that increases in benefits resulting from CPI-E indexation would in fact be significant. This assertion is based on our calculation of what average OASI benefits would be today if the index had been adopted in 1984, our first year of data. We find that overall, benefits in 2001 would have been 3.84 percent higher. This percentage corresponds to an average monthly benefit of $912, as opposed to the current $878, which sums to $408 annually per beneficiary.7 Thus, assuming that the CPI-E reasonably represents the spending patterns of the elderly, seniors have experienced a nontrivial drop in their spending power since 1984.
We find that inflation as measured by the index for the elderly has been consistently higher than inflation as measured by the index for wage earners, with a 0.38 percent average annual difference since 1984. Much of the difference can be attributed to medical care, which constitutes a much larger share of total expenditures for the typical senior. snip
Accordingly, we estimate that if inflation for the elderly continued to be higher than inflation for workers, and if reindexing of benefits were to start today, the effect over the next forty years would be to increase social security expenses and move the trust fund as much as five years closer to insolvency than currently projected. The actual outcome would depend on how persistent higher inflation for seniors is in the future. The trade-off facing policymakers, therefore, is between prolonging the solvency of the social security trust fund and maintaining the purchasing power of seniors over time. snip
Given seniors are already being cheated of an honest COLA why are we discussing robbing them more?
dkf
(37,305 posts)Once the trust fund goes dry all the extra funds contributed to care for the baby boomers is gone.
As it is, the trust fund is expected to only last til the middle of the baby boomers hits 65.
It's funny how "fairness" will actually cause difficulties sooner for more people.
The biggest fear of retirees is that they will outlive their funds. That is why they may decided to spend less in order to ensure their funds will be there at the end. Chained CPI is trying to extend the life of those funds whereas other types of measurements will spend it down faster. Is that really what people want?
catnhatnh
(8,976 posts)I would never suspect that you would support robbing seniors rather than suggesting we raise revenue going into the fund.
dkf
(37,305 posts)This type of rhetoric will only crash it faster. I guess it doesn't matter to me anyway because there won't be any trust fund by the time I retire.
Letting people believe SS will pay full benefits once the funds deplete without any legislation designed to fix things is the height of irresponsibility.
There is no disclosure as to the downside that comes with depleting the trust funds. That is the big lie that is continually perpetrated.
socialist_n_TN
(11,481 posts)Confiscate the wealth of the 1% and put that money toward programs that help the ENTIRE population, including seniors.
dkf
(37,305 posts)It's to be expected you would support that.
You just need to convert a majority of voters.
Egalitarian Thug
(12,448 posts)and that was the excuse for doubling contributions almost 30 years ago.
TheProgressive
(1,656 posts)Just remove the cap and you will not have to worry about anything.
The idea is to solve the issue at the source and insure retirees get their earned benefits and
their proper COLAs.
If we are lucky - we all get old someday.
newfie11
(8,159 posts)Sirveri
(4,517 posts)Take it out of the war budget, I'm sure we can do without having a 13th nuclear powered long deck aircraft carrier. Or another 300 tanks...
forestpath
(3,102 posts)empty all the sudden concern for children and the middle class is.
Hint: If politicians want to rob you when you're old and poor, they don't really give a shit about you when you're young and poor, or middle aged and barely hanging on, either.
dkf
(37,305 posts)So it doesn't really matter about scapegoats. In the end if there are not enough funds, they will just cut.
And social security isn't as vulnerable as Medicare where seniors only contribute 25% of their premium for doctors, outpatient services and drugs. That is where people haven't paid into a trust fund and therefore have no claim that they should get back what they contributed.
Most don't understand they only paid into the hospital trust fund, not for doctors services or drugs.
shraby
(21,946 posts)medicare, and over 7 hundred per year for our prescription drug plan. This is for 2 people..me and Mr. Shraby.
dkf
(37,305 posts)If this country is cutting education and housing and food stamps and research, how long do you think you will get that $14,000+ plus annual gift plus medical inflation that outpaces most other types of inflation?
shraby
(21,946 posts)come anywhere near that amount..we are both relatively healthy. (Knock on wood)
An amount came out of every check to help pay for medicare in our old age and also we have a premium taken out of our social security checks every month to pay for our medical care.
For many on social security, the costs for insurance eats up a huge chunk of their social security. Not only health insurance, but home-owners insurance, and car insurance. Not to mention real estate taxes, license plates (they cost more every year for a little sticker). Social security only can stretch so far.
dkf
(37,305 posts)Last edited Sun Feb 17, 2013, 10:00 PM - Edit history (1)
So multiply your payment by 3 and that's how much is being paid by the taxpayer.
On edit...no need to calculate your co pay in the Govt's expense.
Yes your costs suck, but the government pays several times what you pay.
And yes your portion of Medicare represents other people's bills too. It's the per person cost of the pool.
All I'm saying is its unrealistic to think this will be untouched when everything else gets cut and health costs rise faster than CPI.
annabanana
(52,791 posts)And that was a long time ago.
dkf
(37,305 posts)In the beginning they didn't adjust for inflation at all.
HiPointDem
(20,729 posts)1954: 13%
1959: 7%
1965: 7%
1968: 13%
1970: 15%
1971: 10%
1972: 20%
1974: 11%
http://www.ssa.gov/history/briefhistory3.html
Egalitarian Thug
(12,448 posts)An unavoidable confiscatory inheritance tax. No more generational elite class.
SoCalDem
(103,856 posts)They looted real estate values
They looted 40ks
They killed pensions (after they were looted mostly)
They have looted the labor force (by lowering wages/offshoring/downsizing)
What's left?
regular infusions of cash via FICA payments from the drones