HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Main » General Discussion (Forum) » Doubling down on theft of...
Introducing Discussionist: A new forum by the creators of DU

Sun Feb 17, 2013, 11:42 AM

Doubling down on theft of benefits from seniors....

The current argument to steal from seniors by switching to chained CPI from CPI-W completely ignores the fact that the government already has an actual more accurate measurement of of the cost of living for social security recipients known as CPI-E.

http://www.newyorkfed.org/research/current_issues/ci9-5/ci9-5.html

Some argue that social security benefits should be adjusted using a price index that reflects the spending habits of the elderly rather than those of workers. This study suggests that if such an index were adopted today, over the next forty years benefit levels would increase and the social security trust fund could become insolvent up to five years sooner than projected. snip

We argue that increases in benefits resulting from CPI-E indexation would in fact be significant. This assertion is based on our calculation of what average OASI benefits would be today if the index had been adopted in 1984, our first year of data. We find that overall, benefits in 2001 would have been 3.84 percent higher. This percentage corresponds to an average monthly benefit of $912, as opposed to the current $878, which sums to $408 annually per beneficiary.7 Thus, assuming that the CPI-E reasonably represents the spending patterns of the elderly, seniors have experienced a nontrivial drop in their spending power since 1984.

We find that inflation as measured by the index for the elderly has been consistently higher than inflation as measured by the index for wage earners, with a 0.38 percent average annual difference since 1984. Much of the difference can be attributed to medical care, which constitutes a much larger share of total expenditures for the typical senior. snip

Accordingly, we estimate that if inflation for the elderly continued to be higher than inflation for workers, and if reindexing of benefits were to start today, the effect over the next forty years would be to increase social security expenses and move the trust fund as much as five years closer to insolvency than currently projected. The actual outcome would depend on how persistent higher inflation for seniors is in the future. The trade-off facing policymakers, therefore, is between prolonging the solvency of the social security trust fund and maintaining the purchasing power of seniors over time. snip

Given seniors are already being cheated of an honest COLA why are we discussing robbing them more?

20 replies, 1433 views

Reply to this thread

Back to top Alert abuse

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum
Replies to this discussion thread
Arrow 20 replies Author Time Post
Reply Doubling down on theft of benefits from seniors.... (Original post)
catnhatnh Feb 2013 OP
dkf Feb 2013 #1
catnhatnh Feb 2013 #2
dkf Feb 2013 #3
socialist_n_TN Feb 2013 #6
dkf Feb 2013 #7
Egalitarian Thug Feb 2013 #9
TheProgressive Feb 2013 #10
newfie11 Feb 2013 #12
Sirveri Feb 2013 #19
forestpath Feb 2013 #4
dkf Feb 2013 #5
shraby Feb 2013 #13
dkf Feb 2013 #14
shraby Feb 2013 #17
dkf Feb 2013 #18
annabanana Feb 2013 #8
dkf Feb 2013 #15
HiPointDem Feb 2013 #20
Egalitarian Thug Feb 2013 #11
SoCalDem Feb 2013 #16

Response to catnhatnh (Original post)

Sun Feb 17, 2013, 11:53 AM

1. So if the trust fund runs out 5 years earlier and benefits drop 25% then no one gets robbed?

 

Once the trust fund goes dry all the extra funds contributed to care for the baby boomers is gone.

As it is, the trust fund is expected to only last til the middle of the baby boomers hits 65.

It's funny how "fairness" will actually cause difficulties sooner for more people.

The biggest fear of retirees is that they will outlive their funds. That is why they may decided to spend less in order to ensure their funds will be there at the end. Chained CPI is trying to extend the life of those funds whereas other types of measurements will spend it down faster. Is that really what people want?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to dkf (Reply #1)

Sun Feb 17, 2013, 12:00 PM

2. What a Shock!

I would never suspect that you would support robbing seniors rather than suggesting we raise revenue going into the fund.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to catnhatnh (Reply #2)

Sun Feb 17, 2013, 12:08 PM

3. CPI wasn't even in the original SS. Stolen indeed.

 

This type of rhetoric will only crash it faster. I guess it doesn't matter to me anyway because there won't be any trust fund by the time I retire.

Letting people believe SS will pay full benefits once the funds deplete without any legislation designed to fix things is the height of irresponsibility.

There is no disclosure as to the downside that comes with depleting the trust funds. That is the big lie that is continually perpetrated.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to dkf (Reply #3)

Sun Feb 17, 2013, 12:36 PM

6. Here's a novel idea.......

Confiscate the wealth of the 1% and put that money toward programs that help the ENTIRE population, including seniors.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to socialist_n_TN (Reply #6)

Sun Feb 17, 2013, 12:38 PM

7. Well you are a socialist...

 

It's to be expected you would support that.

You just need to convert a majority of voters.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to dkf (Reply #1)

Sun Feb 17, 2013, 01:13 PM

9. The so-called trust fund was created to be expended. It was supposed to account for the baby boomers

 

and that was the excuse for doubling contributions almost 30 years ago.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to dkf (Reply #1)

Sun Feb 17, 2013, 01:16 PM

10. The idea is to insure seniors get their earned benefits AND cost of living adjustments

Just remove the cap and you will not have to worry about anything.

The idea is to solve the issue at the source and insure retirees get their earned benefits and
their proper COLAs.

If we are lucky - we all get old someday.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to TheProgressive (Reply #10)

Sun Feb 17, 2013, 01:48 PM

12. Agreed, just remove the cap. Nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to dkf (Reply #1)

Tue Feb 19, 2013, 02:54 AM

19. We could just decide to fund the benefit shortfall from the general fund also.

Take it out of the war budget, I'm sure we can do without having a 13th nuclear powered long deck aircraft carrier. Or another 300 tanks...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to catnhatnh (Original post)

Sun Feb 17, 2013, 12:12 PM

4. Seniors have become the new scapegoats. It's disturbing yet throws into sharp relief how

 

empty all the sudden concern for children and the middle class is.

Hint: If politicians want to rob you when you're old and poor, they don't really give a shit about you when you're young and poor, or middle aged and barely hanging on, either.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to forestpath (Reply #4)

Sun Feb 17, 2013, 12:34 PM

5. When Greece ran out of money they didn't blame it on seniors, they just cut their pensions.

 

So it doesn't really matter about scapegoats. In the end if there are not enough funds, they will just cut.

And social security isn't as vulnerable as Medicare where seniors only contribute 25% of their premium for doctors, outpatient services and drugs. That is where people haven't paid into a trust fund and therefore have no claim that they should get back what they contributed.

Most don't understand they only paid into the hospital trust fund, not for doctors services or drugs.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to dkf (Reply #5)

Sun Feb 17, 2013, 01:53 PM

13. And it costs us 4 thousand dollars per year to pay for that 20% that isn't covered by

medicare, and over 7 hundred per year for our prescription drug plan. This is for 2 people..me and Mr. Shraby.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to shraby (Reply #13)

Sun Feb 17, 2013, 02:05 PM

14. That is a $14,000+ gift from the American income tax payer to you every year (47% don't pay)

 

If this country is cutting education and housing and food stamps and research, how long do you think you will get that $14,000+ plus annual gift plus medical inflation that outpaces most other types of inflation?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to dkf (Reply #14)

Sun Feb 17, 2013, 07:52 PM

17. How do you figure it's a $14,000 gift? Our meds and hospital costs haven't

come anywhere near that amount..we are both relatively healthy. (Knock on wood)
An amount came out of every check to help pay for medicare in our old age and also we have a premium taken out of our social security checks every month to pay for our medical care.
For many on social security, the costs for insurance eats up a huge chunk of their social security. Not only health insurance, but home-owners insurance, and car insurance. Not to mention real estate taxes, license plates (they cost more every year for a little sticker). Social security only can stretch so far.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to shraby (Reply #17)

Sun Feb 17, 2013, 08:01 PM

18. The amount you pay for your medicare premium is 25% of the cost.

 

Last edited Sun Feb 17, 2013, 09:00 PM - Edit history (1)

So multiply your payment by 3 and that's how much is being paid by the taxpayer.

On edit...no need to calculate your co pay in the Govt's expense.

Yes your costs suck, but the government pays several times what you pay.

And yes your portion of Medicare represents other people's bills too. It's the per person cost of the pool.

All I'm saying is its unrealistic to think this will be untouched when everything else gets cut and health costs rise faster than CPI.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to catnhatnh (Original post)

Sun Feb 17, 2013, 01:00 PM

8. The instant the CPI was adjusted to adjust for "volatility".. we were screwed.. .

And that was a long time ago.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to annabanana (Reply #8)

Sun Feb 17, 2013, 02:09 PM

15. They only started using CPI for SS in 1975.

 

In the beginning they didn't adjust for inflation at all.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to dkf (Reply #15)

Tue Feb 19, 2013, 06:39 AM

20. Congress repeatedly raised benefits however. In 1950, by 77%. In 1952 by 12.5%.

 

1954: 13%
1959: 7%
1965: 7%
1968: 13%
1970: 15%
1971: 10%
1972: 20%
1974: 11%

http://www.ssa.gov/history/briefhistory3.html

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to catnhatnh (Original post)

Sun Feb 17, 2013, 01:16 PM

11. The solution few dare mention.

 

An unavoidable confiscatory inheritance tax. No more generational elite class.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to catnhatnh (Original post)

Sun Feb 17, 2013, 02:10 PM

16. Because crooks go where the money is

They looted real estate values
They looted 40ks
They killed pensions (after they were looted mostly)
They have looted the labor force (by lowering wages/offshoring/downsizing)
What's left?

regular infusions of cash via FICA payments from the drones

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Reply to this thread