Social Security reductions ahead?
 

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

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......"

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.

"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

Right on the money!!

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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: