2014 raise in SS benefit....what raise?
 

Since the great announcement of the 1.5% increase effective 1/2014 I have received notices for my Medicare supplemental care premiums increasing 2.7%...my medicare part D increased 7.8%....my long term care premium increased 5.3%.

The net, again, is more being spent each year than the previous just based on these three elements. Not even attempting to account all the other increases in living costs.

1.5% increase in SS = :jester: = government not in touch with the real world, again, as in previous years as well:sigh:

btk.

But I am sure that they will get their normal raises in 2014.

Z

Live with it. I find it fair. The increase is based on a formula. A couples of years there was no increase; one year it was like 5-6%.

I understand your general concern.

But SS is not intended to be the complete solution for funding retirement.

Regarding the inflation increase... that is in the cross-hairs for deficit/debt reduction. So you are unlikely to see any improvement in the future.


BTW; I applaud your effort to plan for LTC.

interesting to read posts from people who rail against the government giving money to those on the lower socio-economic rungs, money to survive or have a roof over their head. If you don't like the way the increase in SS is calculated now, wait until the GOP insists that decreasing the rate by going to chained CPI be part of any bargain and Obama has indicated his willingness to accept chained CPI as part of a grand bargain.

Social Security Cut Would Put More Money In Seniors' Pockets, GOP Claims

I'm not sure if you're suggesting that Federal employees will get their normal raises in 2014, but if so, consider that Federal employees have not received a cost of living increase since 2009. Their COLA for 2014 will be only 1 percent. and not the 1.5 Soc Sec COLA. Each year since 2009 health insurance premiums for Federal employees have gone up and the premium increase for 2014 alone are 4 percent higher on average. Everyone is taking a hit right now, not just retirees on Social Security.

George

Shush now George. Don't confuse the discussion with your silly obsession with facts.

the intent of my post was to not complain about or seek parity from SS....but merely point out that in today's health care escalations alone there is no gain.

Indexes are indexes just like polls. The most accurate for me is my own personal budget which is what I measure against....money availabel + money in - money out leaves a smaller and smaller balance each and every year.

Unlike the government, I MUST live within my finite means.

btk

I took the original post as a statement of how the SS benefit increase is cancelled out by the other accompanying increases.

There are many concepts to consider about the program. One is that the program has always been conceptually formed and funded as "insurance", to wit:

In the United States, Social Security is primarily the Old-Age, Survivors, and Disability Insurance (OASDI) federal program. The original Social Security Act (1935) and the current version of the Act, as amended, encompass several social welfare and social Insurance programs.

Social Security is funded through payroll taxes called Federal Insurance Contributions Act tax (FICA) and/or Self Employed Contributions Act Tax (SECA). Tax deposits are collected by the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) and are formally entrusted to the Federal Old-Age and Survivors Insurance Trust Fund, the Federal Disability Insurance Trust Fund, the Federal Hospital Insurance Trust Fund, or the Federal Supplementary Medical Insurance Trust Fund which comprise the Social Security Trust Funds........

......Total Social Security expenditures in 2013 were $1.3 trillion, 8.4% of the $16.3 trillion GNP (2013) and 37% of the Federal expenditures of $3.684 trillion.

Income derived from Social Security [Insurance] is currently estimated to keep roughly 20% of all Americans, age 65 or older, above the Federally defined poverty level......

Social Security (United States) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia)

I am suggesting that the great one and the senate and the house will get their raises. All they care about is themselves. The rest of us are on the lower end of the totem pole.

Z

"For all the talk you hear from Capitol Hill about running government more like a business, Congress has a retirement plan that would make any Fortune 500 executive blush. Members can retire younger, having contributed fewer of their own dollars, than almost any worker in the country — even more than the generous terms other federal workers get.

At a time when traditional pensions are disappearing and many workers are struggling to save for retirement, the Federal Employees' Retirement System (FERS), an old-school defined benefit pension program, pays 215 former congressmen and women an average of $39,576, for an average of 16 years of service, according to a recent Congressional Research Service report.

That's about what the average private-sector worker makes in retirement from all sources after a lifetime of work, according to the Employees Benefits Research Institute. The average income that worker gets from a pension is about $8,800 — if they have one. In 2010, fewer than 15 percent of private sector employees were enrolled in a defined-benefit pension...."

How Your Retirement Package Compares to Members of Congress:
How Your Retirement Package Compares to Members of Congress

There is not supposed to be a gain!

If they were accurate, which is near impossible, the adjustment would make your SS payments yield the same spending power as the previous year.

Not much again at 1.5% and the last one was 1.7%.

There's something to be said for pre planning, in terms of builing a nest egg. :smiley: I don't think SS, was ever meant to be the sole source of retirement funds. It would be nice if some companies didn't cut out their pension benefits, like IBM, "I've Been Moved", or "Italian Bread Man".

They care about themselves AND those who put them there by support/money. They are employees too...

Throughout one's working life Social Security is an ONEROUS tax of about 15% of one's gross earned income. Workers are further taxed because even though the money is taken from their paychecks and they never see it and cannot spend it their Social Security deductions are not deductible from US or state income tax. Their Social Security deductions are taxed as income! The way I look at it whether I wanted to or not, I had no choice; I paid in a lot (and still am contributing from my earned income). A contract exists. It is only fair I receive distributions.

The most ridiculous part of it is the Medicare deduction from one's social security distribution. It goes up as one's taxable income goes up. An analogy would be going into a McDonald's and ordering a hamburger. If you make $20K/year it cost you $5; if you make in the neighborhood of $100K or more it costs you some multiple of $5.00, say $20!

Congressional Pay Raise for 2014 will be Zero Again
 

2014 will be the 5th straight year, and 6th off the last 8, that congressional pay has been frozen.

Pay raise would be wide-reaching, but exclude members of Congress

Snarky.:doh:

IMO So you really think most Congressman that's been in Washington for decades become millionaire's 10 times over by collecting they're GOV pay check??? IMO they don't go to congress for the paid so they could care less if they get pay raise. IMO they learn how make the under the table Lobbyist money. THAT'S WERE THE REAL MONEY IS TO BE MADE. Ever notice when term limits come up it immediately rejected! Amazing how certain senator for western state children are all Lobbyists. One would think that somehow that would be illegal?

I, for one, intend to collect far more from Social Security benefits than I ever personally contributed. Just do the math. :doh:

Social Security Calculator | Privatization account vs. S&P 500

The math is shown in this illustration. At age 67 a median income earner ends up with perhaps $1300/mo from Social Security which ends when he dies versus $4,000/mo and $1.25M in an investment portfolio from investing in the S & P which he could leave to his heirs. Social Security is a very, very bad deal!

You may have overlooked the "insurance value" of your Social Security investment. If you died or became disabled earlier in life, your family would have been entitled to monthly survivor benefits or in the case of your disability, a monthly disability benefit for you and your family.

You're witnessing an unusual market phenomenon at the moment. Suppose you needed to cash out of the market in 2008-2010 when things were not pretty on Wall Street? And don't forget being successful in the market means timing things perfectly, a feat very few of us are capable of doing.

Talk to the experts and very few will tell you that you could have gotten a better deal from private investments to provide the same coverage as SS, plus indefinite COLA increases, however small. It's also doubtful that your employer would have graciously forked over the employer's share of FICA taxes so that you could add it to your investment portfolio.

Right On! Getting better increases on CSRS than when I worker. Took early out.

Never have been able to understand why anyone would be irritated by a small increase in Social Security benefits instead of being thankful that Social Security exists and significantly benefits all of us at retirement age.

Just because big business is gouging us as usual, I don't feel the government should take the tax payers money to compensate us for their greed.

If we get a government controlled medical insurance program disparities like this will be less harmful to all of us. I.e the affordable care act.

interpretations are running amok.....eh??

My post does not indicate nor did it intend to express irritation.

Nor did the post ask for, intimate or express a compensation from the government.

It was and remains NOTHING more than an expression of accumulated costs far out weigh any increases. Nothing between the lines....no oblique message....no agenda......disappointing as these may be......

So many keystrokes wasted on word smithing:sigh:

btk

So why is a program enacted in 1935 termed an "insurance plan" then but an "entitlement now? That is a rhetorical question.

So why is an "insurance plan" advertised as a safety net still subjected to taxes by retirees? that is a rhetorical question Even when doing a mandatory RMD simply to pay the deferred taxes from a defer plan (401k) causes a taxable event.

So why is it that the CPI doe not realistically reflect the monetary affect of inflation on the middle class? That is a .......

So why is it that politicians can get increases , carve outs, insider trader information without penalty ,boondoggles, cheat on their tax returns....and yet continue to harass taxpayers?

btk post was only to illustrate reality and the mathematical insanity of politicians patting themselves on the back for giving retirees a 1.5% increase

But the most offending aspect is that taxpayers had no opportunity to vie for personal savings vis a vis social security and now we have politicians and others who chide the rest of us for not be grateful

Will you get you money's worth? Depends on how long you live and/or any changes that politicians may make because they used our trust fund as their slush funds

:BigApplause::BigApplause: