Comments for Ruth Marcus Is Outraged by Overly Generous Social Security Checks at http://www.cepr.net , comment 1 to 13 out of 13 comments http://www.cepr.net Tue, 21 May 2013 08:35:01 +0100 FeedCreator 1.7.3 http://www.cepr.net/index.php/blogs/beat-the-press/ruth-marcus-is-outraged-by-overly-generous-social-security-checks#comment-21042 Budget smudget. Investing in SS and the 401Ks has left us with half what we put in over the years because the USD has been inflated via QE and other printing for the finance capitalists to lend out to industrial capitalists and landlords....well maybe. So, no worries. 'Our' economy will be able to export more and gain world market share as the old working class foggies attempt to buy commodities with their eviscerated dollars. - Mike Ballard Wed, 02 Jan 2013 13:52:11 +0100 http://www.cepr.net/index.php/blogs/beat-the-press/ruth-marcus-is-outraged-by-overly-generous-social-security-checks#comment-20919 At the very least, let's chain the cap on eligible income to the CPI-E. We prefer there be no cap or a much higher cap first. But this suggestion, at least, gets the cap in the conversation. - Andy Olsen Fri, 28 Dec 2012 14:06:08 +0100 http://www.cepr.net/index.php/blogs/beat-the-press/ruth-marcus-is-outraged-by-overly-generous-social-security-checks#comment-20890 if chained cpi says you move from Beef to Chicken if steak prices go up, why is that ok - isn't that a loss of living standard ? What if Beef and Chicken go up, and you switch to chili - wouldn't that be a loss of living std So why is chained CPI ok ? I can understand for things like, say, fruit, where there are large seasonal variations, or mabye I'm just not understanding the technical details of how BLS does this - ezra abrams Thu, 27 Dec 2012 07:29:21 +0100 http://www.cepr.net/index.php/blogs/beat-the-press/ruth-marcus-is-outraged-by-overly-generous-social-security-checks#comment-20880 My SS increase is 1.7% and my Medicare premium increase is 5%? Give with one hand and take away with the other! I actually receive less in 2013 per month than in 2012. - Paul Lemmen Thu, 27 Dec 2012 02:00:22 +0100 http://www.cepr.net/index.php/blogs/beat-the-press/ruth-marcus-is-outraged-by-overly-generous-social-security-checks#comment-20877 Up to age 60, wages (which are used to determine benefits) are adjusted by the average wage index, which tends to go up faster than the CPI. CPI adjustments (COLAs) then start at age 62 (I think this is true regardless of when the person actually starts collecting benefits). Therefore, the change in CPI would not affect young people more than those who are now 60 (as far as old-age benefits, the main Social Security program). - Mike B. Thu, 27 Dec 2012 00:41:55 +0100 http://www.cepr.net/index.php/blogs/beat-the-press/ruth-marcus-is-outraged-by-overly-generous-social-security-checks#comment-20874 "would see a 3 percent cut in benefits after 10 years, a 6 percent cut after 20 years and a 9 percent cut after 30 years" Or we do nothing and we get a 25% cut after 20 years. - Joe The Economist Wed, 26 Dec 2012 18:21:12 +0100 http://www.cepr.net/index.php/blogs/beat-the-press/ruth-marcus-is-outraged-by-overly-generous-social-security-checks#comment-20871 Just a thought on inflation adjustments. As a retired couple with Social Security and a modest pension, during the month of December we get notices of annual, CPI-indexed increases in our Social Security benefits an anybody's-guess-based increase in our pension. We also get notice of the premium increases in our Medicare Advantage Plan. This year the sum of all three income increases barely covers the our Medicare Advantage plan premium increases. - Not So Fast Wed, 26 Dec 2012 13:01:00 +0100 http://www.cepr.net/index.php/blogs/beat-the-press/ruth-marcus-is-outraged-by-overly-generous-social-security-checks#comment-20866 My very intuitive take on the CPI is that low and moderate-income households should double the CPI to determine their actual inflation rate--and I've found that to be pretty accurate, oh, since the Reagan Administration started fiddling it in the early '80s. For elders it doesn't take into account the cost of finding housing that is accessible--stairs, bathrooms, and so on--which may be more limited (and costly) than housing for the general population. Finally none of this takes into account the fact that the elders who don't count on Social Security for 90% of their income are either (a)rich or (b)have defined benefit pensions. The first is true for only a small percentage of the population, and the second is gone for the vast majority of future retirees. - PeonInChief Wed, 26 Dec 2012 06:27:58 +0100 http://www.cepr.net/index.php/blogs/beat-the-press/ruth-marcus-is-outraged-by-overly-generous-social-security-checks#comment-20859 Maybe I missed it somewhere, but what I am not hearing in this discussion is the effect this has on the younger people years away from collecting and the effect this will have on their initial benefit calculation when they become eligible. Isn't the more massive savings going to be in this demographic and just keep compounding year after year? If a 90 year old lady loses 9% after 30 years, my kids who would qualify in 50 years would really the ones being screwed right at the start and again each time chained CPI is re-applied thereafter. - andrew Wed, 26 Dec 2012 05:50:27 +0100 http://www.cepr.net/index.php/blogs/beat-the-press/ruth-marcus-is-outraged-by-overly-generous-social-security-checks#comment-20857 And why does Obama not even mention raising the cap, which he was definitely in favor of before his election. When exactly did he decide this was a bad idea? - skeptonomist Wed, 26 Dec 2012 05:15:12 +0100 http://www.cepr.net/index.php/blogs/beat-the-press/ruth-marcus-is-outraged-by-overly-generous-social-security-checks#comment-20856 Once again, why are SS benefits indexed to prices instead of the total economy? The starting point for negotiations anyway should be nominal GDP instead of CPI. The nominal GPD should be averaged or smoothed (in the way that potential GDP is derived) to avoid cyclical fluctuations. When the benefits are indexed to prices the standard of living of retirees is largely frozen at the last absolute level set by Congress, and they get little benefit from productivity increases (productivity increases do decrease some prices, for example those of electronic products, but not so much those of basic commodities such as food and housing). Of course there is a problem in that the income of workers who are actually taxed to pay for SS has not been keeping up with GDP since around 1970 - they also have been getting relatively little benefit from productivity increases. The solution to this - at least for purposes of negotiation - should be to expand the SS tax base so that the entire economy, including high-income people, is tapped for benefits. This would be done by raising or eliminating the cap and including capital gains, interest and dividends in SS taxes. That things like this are never mentioned in the media, or even by Democratic politicians, shows the massive plutocratic bias that is currently in the system. - skeptonomist Wed, 26 Dec 2012 04:55:50 +0100 http://www.cepr.net/index.php/blogs/beat-the-press/ruth-marcus-is-outraged-by-overly-generous-social-security-checks#comment-20855 Mr. Baker points out the dramatic effect a chained COL revision would have on younger workers but this needs to be stressed in the public debate. People in their 20s and 30s are already taking it on the chin in so many ways: unemployment, dead end jobs, student debt, lack of pensions etc. and now Social Security. - James Simmons Wed, 26 Dec 2012 04:16:24 +0100 http://www.cepr.net/index.php/blogs/beat-the-press/ruth-marcus-is-outraged-by-overly-generous-social-security-checks#comment-20853 For many low income Social Security beneficiaries who also receive SNAP benefits, the COLA raise triggers a SNAP benefit cut. A friend of mine here in Florida who currently gets $720 from SS and $123 from SNAP per month has been notified that because of her $12 increase in January for SS, her SNAP benefit will be reduced by $5. The net effect is that her marginal COLA will be 0.8% instead of 1.7%. With all the talk about chained CPI, have you read anything about how millions of dual SS and SNAP beneficiaries already don't really get the full effects of COLA? Or more broadly, where's the discussion about how much of the COLA increase is eaten up by higher Medicare premiums so many SS beneficiaries never really get the full COLA ever? - Robert Salzberg Wed, 26 Dec 2012 03:13:09 +0100