Social Security reductions ahead?

» Site Navigation
Home Page The Villages Maps The Villages Activities The Villages Clubs The Villages Book Healthcare Rentals Real Estate Section Classified Section The Villages Directory Home Improvement Site Guidelines Advertising Info Register Now Video Tutorials Frequently Asked Questions
» Newsletter Signup
» Premium Tower
» Advertisements
» Trending News
» Tower Sponsors




















» Premium Sponsors
» Banner Sponsors
» Advertisements
Closed Thread
Thread Tools
  #16  
Old 04-10-2013, 04:01 PM
Geewiz's Avatar
Geewiz Geewiz is offline
Eternal Member
Join Date: Dec 2011
Posts: 449
Thanks: 0
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by justjim View Post
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".
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!
__________________
________________
R.I.P. Gary...you will be sorely missed

When the going gets weird, the weird turn pro.
Hunter S. Thompson
  #17  
Old 04-10-2013, 04:17 PM
Bucco Bucco is offline
Sage
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 7,172
Thanks: 156
Thanked 1,433 Times in 484 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by justjim View Post
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".

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.....
  #18  
Old 04-10-2013, 05:37 PM
gomoho's Avatar
gomoho gomoho is offline
Sage
Join Date: May 2012
Posts: 4,339
Thanks: 0
Thanked 1 Time in 1 Post
Default

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.
  #19  
Old 04-10-2013, 09:15 PM
glgene's Avatar
glgene glgene is offline
Veteran member
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: TV-Village of Sanibel. Formerly Cincinnati, Ohio.
Posts: 612
Thanks: 0
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Default Chained CPI calculation

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
  #20  
Old 04-10-2013, 10:08 PM
Geewiz's Avatar
Geewiz Geewiz is offline
Eternal Member
Join Date: Dec 2011
Posts: 449
Thanks: 0
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Default

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.
__________________
________________
R.I.P. Gary...you will be sorely missed

When the going gets weird, the weird turn pro.
Hunter S. Thompson
  #21  
Old 04-11-2013, 11:39 AM
JourneyOfLife JourneyOfLife is offline
Veteran member
Join Date: Mar 2013
Posts: 705
Thanks: 0
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Default

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

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.
Disability claims skyrocket: Here's why - Apr. 11, 2013
  #22  
Old 04-11-2013, 11:54 AM
buggyone's Avatar
buggyone buggyone is offline
Sage
Join Date: Aug 2011
Posts: 5,360
Thanks: 0
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Default

"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.
  #23  
Old 04-11-2013, 12:20 PM
railroadman railroadman is offline
Member
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: CHARLOTTE, NC -NEXT TV
Posts: 92
Thanks: 0
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Default SS

Quote:
Originally Posted by buggyone View Post
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.
  #24  
Old 04-12-2013, 03:24 PM
buggyone's Avatar
buggyone buggyone is offline
Sage
Join Date: Aug 2011
Posts: 5,360
Thanks: 0
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Default

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.

Last edited by Moderator; 04-15-2013 at 06:38 AM. Reason: edited out political reference
  #25  
Old 04-15-2013, 01:14 AM
twinklesweep twinklesweep is offline
Senior Member
Join Date: Apr 2011
Posts: 356
Thanks: 0
Thanked 11 Times in 8 Posts
Default Reading this thread led me to some general thoughts

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.

Last edited by Moderator; 04-15-2013 at 06:36 AM. Reason: Removed off-topic, inflammatory comment
Closed Thread

Thread Tools

You are viewing a new design of the TOTV site. Click here to revert to the old version.

All times are GMT -5. The time now is 12:11 PM.