Social Security reductions ahead?

[manaboutown]

Seniors Would See Smaller Social Security Checks Under Obama Budget Due to Chained CPI - Yahoo! Finance (http://finance.yahoo.com/news/seniors-see-smaller-social-security-095900145.html)

[billethkid]

all the new budget does is widen the gap between the continuing rising mediacal coverage premiums. Every year we get a so call cost of living adjustment which it is not. Then we get medicare part b price increase.

All medicare part D providers increase their premium every single year.

The cost of almost all Medical supplemental insurance premiums go up every year.

Just with the above ANY increase of the past few years is completly wiped away, actually leaving one in deficit compared to the prior year.

Add to that the cost of food and gasoline which continues to increase each and every year.

So the proposed future cut makes the hole we are in get a little deeper each year.

All these rising costs and so called cuts also contribute to some using up their retirement nest egg many years sooner than planned when they first retired.

Welcome to the lose, lose age group. Eventually many more will qualify for freebie benefits....if one lives long enough.

btk

[ilovetv]

From the article linked above:

".......The older you get, the bigger the reduction you get,' said Gary Koenig, director of economic security for AARP's Public Policy Institute. "It's hitting at a time when folks can least afford it."

Women could get hit especially hard since they live longer than men and rely more on Social Security, said Joan Entmacher, vice president for family economic security for the National Women's Law Center. For the typical single elderly woman, the switch would reduce her monthly benefit by $56 at age 80, which is equivalent to a week's spending on food per month.

"The typical woman beneficiary is just barely above the poverty line," she said. "She has a really hard time meeting expenses......"

[rubicon]

Not only will those on social security get hit. Middle class earners are also feel the pinch because Obama's budget changes the wage brackets and deductions. However, we can all be comforted in the fact that many Americans are at least well versed on the addictions of Lindsey Lohan thanks to Mr Letterman.

[ilovetv]

Not only will those on social security get hit. Middle class earners are also feel the pinch because Obama's budget changes the wage brackets and deductions. However, we can all be comforted in the fact that many Americans are at least well versed on the addictions of Lindsey Lohan thanks to Mr Letterman.

This sums it ALL up.

[buggyone]

"For the typical single elderly woman, the switch would reduce her monthly benefit by $56 at age 80."

If I read the article correctly, the woman illustrated was in her early 60's and was receiving SS benefits based on her deceased husband's account. She would still be receiving yearly increases to her SS benefits but at a couple of tenths of a percent less than she currently does.

Remember that Social Security was never meant to be the only income for retirement. It is a supplemental income. The individual must take personal responsibility for retirement saving all of their working career.

[rubicon]

"For the typical single elderly woman, the switch would reduce her monthly benefit by $56 at age 80."

If I read the article correctly, the woman illustrated was in her early 60's and was receiving SS benefits based on her deceased husband's account. She would still be receiving yearly increases to her SS benefits but at a couple of tenths of a percent less than she currently does.

Remember that Social Security was never meant to be the only income for retirement. It is a supplemental income. The individual must take personal responsibility for retirement saving all of their working career.

Hi buggyone: glad to see you are well. Social Security for our generation is sacrosant. Many of us pleaded with the government long ago to release our deductions so we could invest our earnings in a manner we felt would meet our future needs. Those pleadings fell on deaf ears because politicians wanted a fund to draw from for their self-interests. Advance to today and now many of these same politicans are criticizing us for defending our investment with terms such as "entitlements" Now they are complaining that social security will go broke while inferring that greedy retirees are responsible when we know that if politicians kept their greedy hands out of the social security fund it would have been well funded. So in the end who suffers? That is obviously a rhetorical question. If the social security fund had been handled as an investment, a very conservative one at that, there would never have been a need to restrict the CPI and benefits could have been better.

Here is another example of what happens with government interference.

The End

[Cantwaittoarrive]

Hi buggyone: glad to see you are well. Social Security for our generation is sacrosant. Many of us pleaded with the government long ago to release our deductions so we could invest our earnings in a manner we felt would meet our future needs. Those pleadings fell on deaf ears because politicians wanted a fund to draw from for their self-interests. Advance to today and now many of these same politicans are criticizing us for defending our investment with terms such as "entitlements" Now they are complaining that social security will go broke while inferring that greedy retirees are responsible when we know that if politicians kept their greedy hands out of the social security fund it would have been well funded. So in the end who suffers? That is obviously a rhetorical question. If the social security fund had been handled as an investment, a very conservative one at that, there would never have been a need to restrict the CPI and benefits could have been better.

Here is another example of what happens with government interference.

The End

Right on the money!!

[buggyone]

Rubicon,
Good to hear from you, too.

While I basically agree with you - you did not mention the personal responsibility of individuals to contribute to their own retirements exclusive of Social Security. As soon as I began working, I saved money every pay period in savings accounts and rolled those into IRA's. It was not a lot of saving each pay period but it added up nicely over the course of 36 years.

Once again, Social Security was never meant to be the only retirement people would have but would be a supplement to their savings.

[784caroline]

Your current social security check would not go down...... if you read the article and I Quote

it would also mean that seniors would get smaller increases in their Social Security payments each year.

Smaller increases mean if you get $100 today rather than getting $105 next year you would get a smaller increase say $104 because the rate of annual adjustment would be lowered. (Numbers for easy example only)

No one is "technically" losing money you are just getting less each year....along with anyone else who receives annual increase in payments based on the revised CPI caculation

[Golfingnut]

Your current social security check would not go down...... if you read the article and I Quote

it would also mean that seniors would get smaller increases in their Social Security payments each year.

Smaller increases mean if you get $100 today rather than getting $105 next year you would get a smaller increase say $104 because the rate of annual adjustment would be lowered. (Numbers for easy example only)

No one is "technically" losing money you are just getting less each year....along with anyone else who receives annual increase in payments based on the revised CPI caculation

And if that is what is needed, I am all for it.
If decreasing by 10 or 15 % would put us back in the black, then do that also. Anyone living in the Villages is benefiting from America's bounty.

[Geewiz]

If you don't like big government get set for less government benefits. The chained CPI will not really hit you until the economy improves..when the Fed lets interest rates increase and inflation - which is a product of an improved economy - kicks in and your SSA benefits will get hammered.

Want a for-shadow?...Now the sequester is starting to rear it's head. The first to notice are connected to the military, FAA, Medicare (tough luck if you need cancer meds) and education (ta-ta Headstart).

People hate paying taxes until it affects them.

[JourneyOfLife]

I don't think many people are keen on the idea of reducing SS payments... except of course, those that are paying for it.

I am convinced that some changes will be needed. I wouldn't worry about SS too much.

If SS payments changes, it will be done in a way to not dramatically affect those at the poverty level. Remember, There is now Medicare Part D. That caused many to get an unexpected boost back in 2006, by reducing out of pocket expenses. This meant a lot to those at the poverty level.

Medical costs... Including Medicare is likely to be a much larger issue.

[Moderator]

Just a reminder.... the topic is the proposed budget that changes how future Social Security COLA's are calculated.

Please refrain from partisan political statements and other off topic comments.

[justjim]

If you don't like big government get set for less government benefits. The chained CPI will not really hit you until the economy improves..when the Fed lets interest rates increase and inflation - which is a product of an improved economy - kicks in and your SSA benefits will get hammered.

Want a for-shadow?...Now the sequester is starting to rear it's head. The first to notice are connected to the military, FAA, Medicare (tough luck if you need cancer meds) and education (ta-ta Headstart).

People hate paying taxes until it affects them. Get ready...bend over..you are about to get the government you selected. Elections have consequences...

As others have pointed out---S.S. was never intended to be the only retirement a retiree receives. Unfortunately, many depend just on S.S. as their only source of income as they reach retirement age. There are many reasons, but perhaps none greater is just the lack of personal initiative to take advantage of all the opportunities that are available in this great country we call The United States of America. Bottom line: When for years, you spend more than you receive, there are real consequences to pay. Like it or not and regardless of the "spin" anybody wants to put on it----"Our chickens have come home to roost". :Screen_of_Death:

[Geewiz]

As others have pointed out---S.S. was never intended to be the only retirement a retiree receives. Unfortunately, many depend just on S.S. as their only source of income as they reach retirement age. There are many reasons, but perhaps none greater is just the lack of personal initiative to take advantage of all the opportunities that are available in this great country we call The United States of America. Bottom line: When for years, you spend more than you receive, there are real consequences to pay. Like it or not and regardless of the "spin" anybody wants to put on it----"Our chickens have come home to roost". :Screen_of_Death:

Agreed...and we need to stop paying benefits to those who never paid in...like spouses who stayed at home and didn't pay FICA...ladies..get out your tin cups. BTW - I am not advocating that this is compassionate...it's just the logical outcome to a non-partisan discussion -- we shouldn't fear the truth nor ignore it. - even on TOTV. Cheers!

[Bucco]

As others have pointed out---S.S. was never intended to be the only retirement a retiree receives. Unfortunately, many depend just on S.S. as their only source of income as they reach retirement age. There are many reasons, but perhaps none greater is just the lack of personal initiative to take advantage of all the opportunities that are available in this great country we call The United States of America. Bottom line: When for years, you spend more than you receive, there are real consequences to pay. Like it or not and regardless of the "spin" anybody wants to put on it----"Our chickens have come home to roost". :Screen_of_Death:


Agree with most of your post...however, in regards to...

" Like it or not and regardless of the "spin" anybody wants to put on it----"Our chickens have come home to roost".

We are not even close to the chickens coming home to roost. Stay tuned.....

[gomoho]

Geewiz - I'm thinking those ladies that stayed home as moms and didn't pay into FICA are diminishing at a rapid rate. They are not the problem, they raised the kids that kept this country going and in turn paid into the fund. Bye the way - I worked and have my own ss so this doesn't apply to me - just thinks it is unfair to call them out. They sacrificed while their husbands went off to war and worked in the factories and mines that probably ended up killing them so I don't begrudge them for a minute. I know you said it wasn't compassionate - I would take it a step further and say it isn't even reasonable.

[glgene]

I saw on CNBC a couple of nights ago (if it's accurate) that the newly-proposed "chained" CPI adjustment for Social Security recipients, veteran retirement benefits, etc, would amount to approx. 0.25% a year.

Thus, if a Social Security adjustment would be (say) 2.5% due to CPI increase in 2013, the new hike would amount to 2.25%. Thus, still an increase (just less).

This is only a proposal. Not a done deal, but ultimately could be approved by Congress. Stay tuned.

Gene

[Geewiz]

Chained CPI is not significant unless inflation kicks in. If inflation is 5 -7 percent, chained CPI is a real reduction and the government is counting on this. How do you can know this? Because - the pols wouldn't be suggesting it as the they are paying/risking an unnecessary cost to float the idea unless it cuts the budget log term.

Again, wanna decrease in government benefits then vote that way.

This is a non-partisan way to say...if you got it...keep it and enjoy it..; however, if you rely on entitlements and if you decide to choose those who advocate cutting SSA and Medicare...then don't whine when your living standard decreases.

My point is non-political..but, it's logical. The great thing about a democracy is you get to make choices...but, the trade off is to accept the consequence.

[JourneyOfLife]

Here is a related article about SS and funding. It focuses on the upswing in claims for SSI for disability.

All told, the federal government spent nearly $250 billion in 2011 paying more than 23 million Americans some type of disability claim. That's about 7% of the overall population, and 16% of the workforce.

Disability claims skyrocket: Here's why - Apr. 11, 2013 (http://money.cnn.com/2013/04/11/news/economy/disability-payments/index.html?iid=HP_LN)

[buggyone]

"Quote:
All told, the federal government spent nearly $250 billion in 2011 paying more than 23 million Americans some type of disability claim. That's about 7% of the overall population, and 16% of the workforce."

I am sure all of you have seen the television ads for the lawyers specializing in Social Security and VA disability claims. They even brag about all the types of questionable disabilities that they are able to get approved by Social Security and VA. I am not saying all the disabilities mentioned are phony but how many of us worked for many years with some minor disability ourselves and did just fine?

These lawyers know all the buzz words to put in the claims and most likely know the doctors to say the disabilities are chronic and the person cannot work. Of course, the buzz words and doctor exams are not free and a healthy chunk of the disability settlement goes to the lawyer and doctor.

This is where the crackdown on the fraud should begin.

[railroadman]

Rubicon,
Good to hear from you, too.

While I basically agree with you - you did not mention the personal responsibility of individuals to contribute to their own retirements exclusive of Social Security. As soon as I began working, I saved money every pay period in savings accounts and rolled those into IRA's. It was not a lot of saving each pay period but it added up nicely over the course of 36 years.

Once again, Social Security was never meant to be the only retirement people would have but would be a supplement to their savings.

Buggyone, your so correct - Social Security should only supplement your income in retirement.

Having worked my entire life, at the railroad, I have never paid any Social Security, only railroad retirement. Retiring in 14 months, at 58 and will receive (2) retirement checks. One from railroad retirement board and one from the railroad, I work at. 37 years will be long enough.
the railroad itself.

[buggyone]

In order to respond to the quote of a different thread, I am quoting it here.

"We came up with hundreds of billions $$$ to bail out the banks but need to take food out of the mouths of people that worked hard their whole lives."

Take food out of the mouths of people that worked hard their whole lives?? If someone worked hard their whole life, they would not be living only on Social Security. They would have saved money for retirement and would be using Social Security as a SUPPLEMENT for their retirement savings.

Secondly, it seems as though the poster was saying that TARP (bank bailouts) was the idea of the current administration.

Remember, also, that the proposed Social Security "reduction" is only a fraction of a percent less in the Cost of Living Adjustment made each year. SS recepients will still get an increase each year.

[twinklesweep]

So often, depending on the situation, people will say “But I have no choice.”

I venture to guess that in many (most?) instances when people say this, the truth is that they DO have choice, but the alternatives are distasteful and they simply prefer the easy way out. A good example are those, to use the old and trite expression, who insist on having their cake and eating it too!

And, there are a handful of instances when people truly do NOT have a choice. In many (most?) of these instances it may result from choices they made in the past that are now set in concrete in the present. The same good example applies about insisting on having their cake and eating it too, likely in the more distant past.

And to make a specific statement, Social Security is NOT an entitlement or a form of welfare! In most instances people paid Social Security taxes through their working years and, though indirect, in retirement they are receiving back what they put in.

Additionally, Social Security was structured to be a social net for workers who became disabled during their working years and for underage children of disabled or deceased workers. Those who became disabled during their working years have paid in up to that point. Deceased workers, when still alive, paid into the system before passing, so Social Security support of their orphans is similarly NOT an entitlement.

So, those born disabled or becoming disabled before beginning their working years are the ONLY ones who might be considered to be receiving an entitlement in the Social Security system. And for those who object to society having some responsibility for fellow citizens who fall into situations like these, we can always remember that there ARE other solutions.