General Discussion

FogerRox

(13,211 posts)

39. Absolutely untrue

Mon May 14, 2012, 01:29 PM

May 2012

Job creation, GDP growth of 2.8% or more, and wage growth are cited in the Trustees low cost scenario, where SS is good thru 2090. The current income cap is 110k, about the 83rd percentile, historically that cap has been at 90%. If we adjusted the cap to 90% that would be in effect a COLA benefit increase of about $5,000 per year .

There is a chart I used that is from the CBO SS projections of 2011 that shows different ways we can pay for increased benefits.

http://journals.democraticunderground.com/FogerRox/53

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

65 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

Sweeping Social Security changes for women, caregivers and same-sex couples proposed [View all] eridani May 2012 OP

Sounds like good policies to implement Autumn May 2012 #1

some really good ideas. hopefully, they will at least be considered. northoftheborder May 2012 #2

Uh uh danbeee46 May 2012 #3

Which amounts to a huge motivation for me to change that n/t eridani May 2012 #4

+1,000. Giving in to the GOP by not voting is voting for misery. freshwest May 2012 #6

I agree with that but will just add that it also matters what kind of Democrats we elect. limpyhobbler May 2012 #16

If you stop spending money and save half your income, invested not even aggressively RB TexLa May 2012 #5

Hard to do when your full time job pays you below the poverty line. Scuba May 2012 #7

Many California residents pay more than 1/3 of their income on rent varelse May 2012 #10

I don't know anybody who can do that. Everybody is struggling to make it to the next paycheck. limpyhobbler May 2012 #14

That may be, cheapdate May 2012 #15

Save half your income?? Really? That is impossible for most people. nt Cass May 2012 #19

You don't understand how the majority of people live, do you? Matariki May 2012 #20

That's an opinion, alright etherealtruth May 2012 #21

Yeah, I hear a lot of especially affluent people say that Lydia Leftcoast May 2012 #24

Stop spending money on what? lunatica May 2012 #27

really dear annabanana May 2012 #35

Dear???? There is no reason to use a sexist term toward me. Using a racist or sexist term toward RB TexLa May 2012 #36

Yeah... Okey dokey. FogerRox May 2012 #41

Dude, my RENT is almost half my income. Hell Hath No Fury May 2012 #43

...said Mitt Romney to the homeless man CreekDog May 2012 #61

These are excellent ideas, and they need to be shouted from the rooftops. CaliforniaPeggy May 2012 #8

Ken Wright has some might fine ideas. Auntie Bush May 2012 #9

K&R varelse May 2012 #11

Is all this retroactive? For instance the survivor benefits. n/t vaberella May 2012 #12

If people advocating that are loud and visible during the process of negotiating the details-- eridani May 2012 #17

K&R....n/t unkachuck May 2012 #13

Eliminating the cap creates the first 16k monthly benefits check FogerRox May 2012 #18

Nope. There is a cap on benefits now eridani May 2012 #22

There is no benefit cap, that max of you cite is based on payments FogerRox May 2012 #23

There most assuredly is a benefit cap eridani May 2012 #25

And you know what, I'd be willing to raise the benefit cap Lydia Leftcoast May 2012 #26

There's no need. Mariana May 2012 #29

just by raising the cap from 106,800 to 110k this year FogerRox May 2012 #32

"This figure is based on earnings" from the link you provided. FogerRox May 2012 #31

The cap on earnings leads to a de facto cap on benefits eridani May 2012 #33

The cap on earnings leads to a de facto max benefit FogerRox May 2012 #38

That would certainly be a good first step n/t eridani May 2012 #49

I should say a 5k increase for those who get the max benefit, FogerRox May 2012 #56

So write the legislation to include a maximum monthly benefit. Mariana May 2012 #28

If we cap benefits, we introduce a means test, administratively making SS welfare FogerRox May 2012 #40

It's only welfare if you refuse any payouts to those at the top eridani May 2012 #46

Raising survivor benefits has to be balanced out by cutting elsewhere. lumberjack_jeff May 2012 #30

Not if you Scrap the Cap n/t eridani May 2012 #34

Absolutely untrue FogerRox May 2012 #39

Nothing you said negated anything I said. lumberjack_jeff May 2012 #44

Since benefits are computed by an earnings formula (AIME) FogerRox May 2012 #45

the max benefit is immaterial to this topic. lumberjack_jeff May 2012 #47

You don't have to cut if you increase or scrap the cap eridani May 2012 #48

Why not give that money to retirees? lumberjack_jeff May 2012 #51

You mean raising kids and taking care of sick elders is not work? eridani May 2012 #52

It's not employment, no. lumberjack_jeff May 2012 #53

That is utterly trivial compared to the actual work of raising kids eridani May 2012 #54

You're confused. lumberjack_jeff May 2012 #55

$265/month is not adequate, and puts you into the disposable human garbage category eridani May 2012 #57

It is certainly not enough for the work jwirr did. lumberjack_jeff May 2012 #58

Look--most women who take time out for kids are not Ann Romney eridani May 2012 #59

Women who worked have their own SS earnings history. lumberjack_jeff May 2012 #60

What I mean is that caring for kids and managing households is WORK eridani May 2012 #65

it's always a zero sum game for you Jeff CreekDog May 2012 #62

Inventing money isn't a very rational way to think. lumberjack_jeff May 2012 #63

inventing money is what capitalism is all about CreekDog May 2012 #64

These very good ideas will NOT be broadcast. So we must annabanana May 2012 #37

Good provision. Especially the care providers issue. I took care of my daughter for 45 years saving jwirr May 2012 #42

Excellent--all good ideas librechik May 2012 #50