Seniors SS Pay Shrinks

[BLAZER PROPHET]

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/32528090/ns/politics-more_politics/?GT1=43001

It's not going down, but since COLA is not present (2 year freeze), it represents a smaller payout. C'mon, Mr President, step up for the seniors...

 

[yakbladder]

He's trying to with health care for seniors who can't afford it and a guarantee they can receive health care even if they have pre-existing conditions but you won't let him.

"Many also have suffered from declining home values and shrinking stock portfolios" - You mean just like the rest of us?

I think our when we're very young and very old we deserve to be taken care of the best. But seriously, negative inflation and you want to jack up the COLA for a program which has severe financial limitations as it is?

 

[BLAZER PROPHET]

I think seniors on SS should always receive a COLA. Even if it's only 2% or so.

 

[barfo]

I think seniors on SS should always receive a COLA. Even if it's only 2% or so.

Why? If the cost of living doesn't go up, why should they receive a cost of living adjustment?

barfo

 

[Idog1976]

So are the Republicans fighting tooth and nail to extend or increase this "Entitlement Program"? I thought they were always saying it's fatally flawed and underfunded? So it should be increased?

I'm sorry, it's just that I'm so confused. In fact the more I read from Republicans the more confused I get. Reading about SEIU thugs from their news sources and then reading all other news sources and hearing that actually it's heavily armed Republicans that are starting fights and shouting down opposition. Sort of like all the people in 2000 saying Gore was trying to steal the election.

This just in from Fox news "Republican Party is the party of inclusion and Healthcare reform, then after the break, Hannity on how Obama is pandering to minorities and is trying to enslave us with healthcare".

Good lord i'm confused...

 

[Sug]

When I read the title I thought it was talking about paying for mental healthcare. Well if you were to look into the numbers you would find that a majority of seniors have supplemental insurance that does not get totally used. In other words the insurance companies are not having to pay as much as the policy holders currently pay premiums for. I think the seniors should get what they pay for, and the government can take the savings rather than the insurance companies.

 

[yakbladder]

Why? If the cost of living doesn't go up, why should they receive a cost of living adjustment?

barfo

+1

I want seniors to be taken care of, but come on.

 

[maxiep]

Only in the public sector is no increase considered a decrease.

 

[BLAZER PROPHET]

Why? If the cost of living doesn't go up, why should they receive a cost of living adjustment?

barfo

Because many seniors worked hard and have only SS to show for it. And just because the overall cost of living goes down, it doesn't for them. Bus fare, cab fare, food, health care... those prices go up. That's what they pay for.

I have great compassion for the elderly and this, to me, is wrong. Before SS was used for people who ate themselves to obesity or phantom illnesses for women who no longer want to work... it was strictly to assist the elderly. Now they're being shoved aside.

 

[BrianFromWA]

I'm not an economist, but I thought those things you mentioned (food, buses, etc.) were part of the Cost of Living calculation. Am I way off? So if the calculation of all those things doesn't increase, should the cash increase?

 

[BLAZER PROPHET]

I'm not an economist, but I thought those things you mentioned (food, buses, etc.) were part of the Cost of Living calculation. Am I way off? So if the calculation of all those things doesn't increase, should the cash increase?

I think so, but when housing tanks, it draws down the overall figures. But most seniors receiving SS aren't buying houses.

 

[bodyman5001]

Didn't you see the commercials? KFC is lowering prices and that is all that seniors eat so no COLA for you! (soup nazi voice)

 

[yakbladder]

I think so, but when housing tanks, it draws down the overall figures. But most seniors receiving SS aren't buying houses.

From what I read it was reduced energy prices that dropped the COLA off this year, not houses. I could be wrong.

I'm a little confused because you argue their SS should be increased because food and buses have become more expensive but then agree with BFW that those are already factored in the COLA.

Apparently I need to go do some research on this COLA thing.

 

[Denny Crane]

From what I read it was reduced energy prices that dropped the COLA off this year, not houses. I could be wrong.

I'm a little confused because you argue their SS should be increased because food and buses have become more expensive but then agree with BFW that those are already factored in the COLA.

Apparently I need to go do some research on this COLA thing.

http://pepsi.com/

 

[yakbladder]

http://pepsi.com/

Very interesting...

http://pepsi.com/falserumoralert.php

 

[barfo]

Very interesting...

http://pepsi.com/falserumoralert.php

It's amazing the things people find the time to inaccurately complain about.

barfo

 

[Denny Crane]

flag@whitehouse.gov FTW

You might consider a few things. People on SS paid into the system for 45 years, typically (age 20-65). They're getting a fraction of what they deserve back in SS payments, and can't leave it to their kids when they die. What do you think the devastation of home prices has done to reverse mortgages? Maybe a lot of the elderly are in a world of hurt and the pittance they get from SS makes a huge difference to them.

 

[barfo]

You might consider a few things. People on SS paid into the system for 45 years, typically (age 20-65). They're getting a fraction of what they deserve back in SS payments,

"Deserve's got nothing to do with it."

But really, how do you determine what they deserve?

and can't leave it to their kids when they die.

Some of them don't even have kids. Life is unfair.

What do you think the devastation of home prices has done to reverse mortgages?

Honestly, never thought about it. What has it done? Seems like in the typical granny reverse mortgages to get cash to live on while staying in her house scenario, the effect would be zero. Or am I missing something? I guess if granny hadn't yet taken out the reverse mortgage, there would be less to borrow against. Or maybe no one will make a reverse mortgage loan to granny anymore? Am I getting warmer? Can I call a lifeline?

barfo

 

[Denny Crane]

"Deserve's got nothing to do with it."

But really, how do you determine what they deserve?

How about a paltry 2% compounded return on the money they put in?

That's more than they're getting now.

Honestly, never thought about it. What has it done? Seems like in the typical granny reverse mortgages to get cash to live on while staying in her house scenario, the effect would be zero. Or am I missing something? I guess if granny hadn't yet taken out the reverse mortgage, there would be less to borrow against. Or maybe no one will make a reverse mortgage loan to granny anymore? Am I getting warmer? Can I call a lifeline?

barfo

I don't think you can borrow more money than your home is worth. At least banks who do lend up to 125% ended up foreclosing on a lot of people. If $300K in equity was going to be much of a retiree's living expenses, now it's $100K, they're fucked. How fucked? Out on the street or looking for a job at age 75 after not working for 10 years.

 

[BLAZER PROPHET]

flag@whitehouse.gov FTW

You might consider a few things. People on SS paid into the system for 45 years, typically (age 20-65). They're getting a fraction of what they deserve back in SS payments, and can't leave it to their kids when they die. What do you think the devastation of home prices has done to reverse mortgages? Maybe a lot of the elderly are in a world of hurt and the pittance they get from SS makes a huge difference to them.

Agreed.

But it also depends on what SS is really for. Is it a pool for all people to draw from, or a pool of money for just some to draw from. If the latter, then it's really just another tax to soak the "wealthy".

To me, while I am not oppossed to a "means test" in retirement, for those who do live off it, COLA every year should just be part of the equation. Seniors face many challanges and worrying about their SS dropping should not be one of them.

 

[mook]

Here's an interesting perspective on the issue:

Like other Americans, seniors are suffering through the economic downturn. Unlike other Americans, however, most seniors are benefiting from multiple technical quirks of law that protect their income stream.
First, there is the current Social Security COLA. Automatic COLA increases were established in 1975 in an effort to protect seniors' purchasing power. In January, Social Security began paying its largest COLA since 1982, 5.8 percent. But this adjustment has since surpassed national measures of the cost of living.
The 5.8 percent boost was based on the high price increases of last year, especially in food and fuel. Since then, prices have subsided. According to the Congressional Budget Office, the Consumer Price Index subsequently declined by 4 percent. By law, COLAs can never be negative. So benefit payments are exceeding inflation, and seniors will simply pocket this 4 percent increase in real purchasing power for the indefinite future, until prices once again exceed their 2008 levels and further COLAs resume.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/08/24/AR2009082402654.html

Basically, you owe somebody $5 a month. One day you overpay him by $2. Instead of asking for it back, you just tell him to keep it, and actually decide to overpay him again forever that $2. When the next month comes around, you overpay him $2 for a total of $7, as agreed. However, he accuses you of suddenly "cutting back". You overpaid $2 last month, so you should overpay $2 additional this month for a total of $9/month.

I think the guy is an asshole and should count himself lucky he got the original $2 bump once.

 

[yakbladder]

Agreed.

But it also depends on what SS is really for. Is it a pool for all people to draw from, or a pool of money for just some to draw from. If the latter, then it's really just another tax to soak the "wealthy".

To me, while I am not oppossed to a "means test" in retirement, for those who do live off it, COLA every year should just be part of the equation. Seniors face many challanges and worrying about their SS dropping should not be one of them.

Then it shouldn't be called a COLA because you aren't even tying it to cost of living.

There SHOULD be a means test to receive Social Security, IMHO. If you're making more than 500K a year as a retiree and drawing Social Security while you aren't defeating the word, you are defeating the spirit of the program.

 

[Idog1976]

The rate of inflation is one of the most rigged government statistics in a sea of rigged statistics.

 

[BLAZER PROPHET]

Then it shouldn't be called a COLA because you aren't even tying it to cost of living.

There SHOULD be a means test to receive Social Security, IMHO. If you're making more than 500K a year as a retiree and drawing Social Security while you aren't defeating the word, you are defeating the spirit of the program.

I agree about a means test.

But what about the person who put money in all those years? Too bad?

 

[yakbladder]

I agree about a means test.

But what about the person who put money in all those years? Too bad?

Too bad. Social security, not social bank of investment.

If they're making that much money are they really going to gripe because they aren't getting a SS check? More than likely they'll be griping about something and/or everything then.

 

[maxiep]

The age of 65 was put in when the life expectancy was 64 years. It needs to be raised to either 70 or 72. No one every promised you a 10-20 year vacation at the end of your life.

 

[mook]

We've always planned the growth of life expectancy to be linear. Give or take, we've been adding about one more year of life expectancy about every 6-8 years: http://www.data360.org/dsg.aspx?Data_Set_Group_Id=195

So if you look at that chart, it predicts life expectancy to be 82 years in 2039.

The interesting thing to me, though, is that we added a year of life expectancy in just 4 years this last go around (2003, 2004, 2005, 2006). What if the rate of life expectancy continues at that pace? What if it actually increases? Not impossible, given how many fields of science and medicine have been doing lately.

What if it increases so fast that by 2039 our life expectancy is 90? 100? 120?

The chart I link to sources the US census. I assume that's the data our government looks at when projecting future requirements for things like Medicare and Social Security. I suspect it's drastically underestimating what our lifespans will be in 20 or 30 years.

 

[elcap15]

The age of 65 was put in when the life expectancy was 64 years. It needs to be raised to either 70 or 72. No one every promised you a 10-20 year vacation at the end of your life.

This. Im delighted that someone else knows this fact. Social Security was implemented as a support mechanizim for the very elderly. Most people never even got to collect.

What it was not meant to be, was a 20 yr pension for senior citizens, which it has become.

I am almost positive that at some point it will become means tested, which pisses me off. Why should those who have paid the most into SocSec, not be entitled to the benefits of the program?

 

[Denny Crane]

We've always planned the growth of life expectancy to be linear. Give or take, we've been adding about one more year of life expectancy about every 6-8 years: http://www.data360.org/dsg.aspx?Data_Set_Group_Id=195

So if you look at that chart, it predicts life expectancy to be 82 years in 2039.

The interesting thing to me, though, is that we added a year of life expectancy in just 4 years this last go around (2003, 2004, 2005, 2006). What if the rate of life expectancy continues at that pace? What if it actually increases? Not impossible, given how many fields of science and medicine have been doing lately.

What if it increases so fast that by 2039 our life expectancy is 90? 100? 120?

The chart I link to sources the US census. I assume that's the data our government looks at when projecting future requirements for things like Medicare and Social Security. I suspect it's drastically underestimating what our lifespans will be in 20 or 30 years.

Ponzi schemes rely on there being more people at the bottom of the pyramid to keep selling the scam to.

When SS was enacted, people had a very different kind of view toward welfare and charity. Nobody wanted it. In order to foist SS on the people, the program was a promise to everyone equally - you pay in, you get an annuity. Annuity isn't welfare. It isn't charity. People pay in to get something out. It's a sacred pact between the people and govt.

No way should Bill Gates be denied his $1400/month after all he's paid in. It's not like he's paying in $1B and getting $2B out, it's progressive and fair, given the pact.

 

[mook]

Ponzi schemes rely on there being more people at the bottom of the pyramid to keep selling the scam to.

When SS was enacted, people had a very different kind of view toward welfare and charity. Nobody wanted it. In order to foist SS on the people, the program was a promise to everyone equally - you pay in, you get an annuity. Annuity isn't welfare. It isn't charity. People pay in to get something out. It's a sacred pact between the people and govt.

No way should Bill Gates be denied his $1400/month after all he's paid in. It's not like he's paying in $1B and getting $2B out, it's progressive and fair, given the pact.

I got no problem with anything you wrote.

I just wonder how it'll all work if we screw up by living to 100 instead of 84. It's underfunded as it is now with the current longevity calculations. It's going to be totally fucked if people live an extra ten or twenty years more than planned.