U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Economics
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
View Poll Results: What are your thoughts on Social Security COLA regarding true inflation and current payout not keepi
Social security payments should INCREASE substantially and regularly - to reflect true inflation and COLA amounts for Vets and seniors 47 74.60%
Social security payments should STAY THE SAME – regardless of the fact cost of living has increased substantially and these people served and paid in 6 9.52%
Social security payments should BE DECREASED – regardless of the fact cost of living has increased substantially and these people served and paid in 10 15.87%
Voters: 63. You may not vote on this poll

Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 07-13-2018, 03:27 PM
 
360 posts, read 190,640 times
Reputation: 421

Advertisements

Please read this thread in full before voting

I am considering starting a petition to get a significant Cost of living increase adjustment to Social Security for our seniors and veterans and change the way COLA is calculated on Social Security to more accurately reflect true costs and inflation for these people.

Here is why:

Some excerpts from Reuters article: "The COLA crunch: Why Social Security is not keeping up with seniors costs"
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-c...0IC1DP20141023

"By law, the COLA is determined by a formula that ties it to the Consumer Price Index for Urban Wage Earners and Clerical Workers (CPI-W), which is compiled by the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS)."

"Many economists and policymakers say the CPI-W doesn’t measure retiree inflation accurately."

"Other research by the group, based on BLS data, shows that Social Security beneficiaries have lost 31 percent of their buying power since 2000. Among big-ticket items, the largest price hikes were for property taxes (104 percent), gasoline (160 percent), some types of food and healthcare expenses."

"A more generous COLA would come via the CPI-E (for “elderly”), an alternative, experimental index maintained by the BLS that is more sensitive to retirees’ spending. That index generally rises two-tenths of a percent faster than the CPI-W."

"Congress has been gridlocked on Social Security, but public opinion is clear. The National Academy of Social Insurance (NASI) released a national poll Thursday that shows 72 percent support raising benefits."

- End article excerpts

Cost of living has increased substantially. Unfortunately, COLA adjustments to our vulnerable have not.

Our veterans and elderly paid into the system with their hard work, time and money. Is it not time we get them get them to where they should be based on inflation over the years and from this point on, start ensuring that their compensation is adjusted regularly to truly reflect true cost of living/inflation increases?

Remember, while it may not affect you now, most of us will eventually be in this group eventually. So will our children. Time and age do not regress. Buying power from under adjusted programs does. Do we want our children to deal with our problems if we kick the can down the road?

Is it societies responsibility to ensure our elderly and veterans are not rich nor poor but adequately funded to meet reasonable needs for the hard work, time, money (and in some cases blood) put into the system? Will we and our children eventually become elderly?

If you agree or disagree, please vote and reply to explain your answer why.

Last edited by txbullsfan; 07-13-2018 at 03:46 PM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 07-13-2018, 07:40 PM
 
Location: Ohio
17,998 posts, read 13,238,246 times
Reputation: 13786
Quote:
Originally Posted by txbullsfan View Post
If you agree or disagree, please vote and reply to explain your answer why.
The article is total crap.

Since year 2000, Inflation has increased an average of 2.4% per year, while COLA increases have averaged 2.2% per year.

The difference of 0.2% is negligible.

The "study" (and I use the term loosely) to which Reuters refers is fatally flawed and totally useless.

This claim...

This trend is eroding the buying power of more than 60 million Social Security beneficiaries.

...is false.

As of May 2018 (the latest published data) there are only 44,984,000 age 65 and older receiving benefits, plus another 6,487,000 between ages 62 and 64, including a very small percentage of minor children receiving benefits because one or both parents are dead.

"Take home heating oil, for example."

The "study" laments the cost of home heating oil.

Are you for real? According to the EIA, there are only 5.7 Million households that use home heating oil. There are 126 Million households in the US in 2017, according to the Census Bureau. That's 4.5% of all households. How many of those households are retirees?

The "study" then laments the rising costs of propane gas, used by only 10 Million households or 7.9%.

The "study" then goes on to whine about the rising costs of pet services and veterinary care.

It's obvious the "study" has an agenda and skewed the data to create the results necessary to support its agenda.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-13-2018, 07:46 PM
 
Location: Prepperland
13,116 posts, read 9,202,467 times
Reputation: 8988
In Helvering v. Davis and Flemming v. Nestor, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that Social Security taxes are simply taxes and convey no property or contractual rights to Social Security benefits. And that benefits are entirely at the discretion of Congress.

Is that clear? There is no "Trust Fund". There is no "right" to benefits. You didn't "pay into" Social Security. You volunteered to pay a tax and you surrendered your endowment from your Creator, in exchange for charity from the public treasury.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-14-2018, 03:23 AM
 
64,558 posts, read 66,100,109 times
Reputation: 42988
tracking any cpi is not the same as our own personal cost of living index .the cpi's are just a price change measurement on a basket of goods and services some of which we use ,some of which we don't .

our own personal cost of living would depend on how many times we buy something , the quality of what we buy as higher quality goods tend to see higher price increases but last longer , as well as how we substitute .

study after study show seniors are effected way less by inflation . as we age we tend to spend less on many things and what we no longer buy helps cover the costs of what went up . we spend in a smile shape .

we spend more early on going places and doing things , then spending falls off a cliff , then by our 80's healthcare costs kick up .

seniors tend to need a fraction of the inflation adjusting that those raising families do.

here in nyc 1/2 of all rentals are rent stabilized and for 2 years millions of people got no rent increases . so you cannot compare all parts of the country as far as all the little mini economies that make us up and what we all see in our own lives .

we are retired 3 years now and have yet to take our first inflation adjustment .

health insurance plunged as we went on medicare

our rent falls under rent stabilization and we had only 1 increase in 3 years .

gas prices were low

etc etc ...... . so you can't judge anyone's cost of living by an index . shifting what is used as a basket will still not reflect a personal cost of living .
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-14-2018, 05:12 AM
 
Location: NC
6,081 posts, read 7,027,359 times
Reputation: 12054
Social Security insurance was originally created to replace no more than 40% of a persons living expenses. But today there are a wide spectrum of recipients, from those who use it for discretionary spending to those who have no other income or assets. That makes it hard to successfully argue to increase the COL adjustment.

Here is an article on how SS is funded, which varies slightly from year to year. While SS may be called a tax, it is only used to fund itself.

https://www.fool.com/retirement/gene...ty-funded.aspx
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-14-2018, 05:52 AM
 
Location: Pennsylvania
8,971 posts, read 3,118,603 times
Reputation: 7052
Quote:
Originally Posted by txbullsfan View Post
Please read this thread in full before voting

I am considering starting a petition to get a significant Cost of living increase adjustment to Social Security for our seniors and veterans and change the way COLA is calculated on Social Security to more accurately reflect true costs and inflation for these people.

Here is why:

Some excerpts from Reuters article: "The COLA crunch: Why Social Security is not keeping up with seniors costs"
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-c...0IC1DP20141023

"By law, the COLA is determined by a formula that ties it to the Consumer Price Index for Urban Wage Earners and Clerical Workers (CPI-W), which is compiled by the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS)."

"Many economists and policymakers say the CPI-W doesn’t measure retiree inflation accurately."

"Other research by the group, based on BLS data, shows that Social Security beneficiaries have lost 31 percent of their buying power since 2000. Among big-ticket items, the largest price hikes were for property taxes (104 percent), gasoline (160 percent), some types of food and healthcare expenses."

"A more generous COLA would come via the CPI-E (for “elderly”), an alternative, experimental index maintained by the BLS that is more sensitive to retirees’ spending. That index generally rises two-tenths of a percent faster than the CPI-W."

"Congress has been gridlocked on Social Security, but public opinion is clear. The National Academy of Social Insurance (NASI) released a national poll Thursday that shows 72 percent support raising benefits."

- End article excerpts

Cost of living has increased substantially. Unfortunately, COLA adjustments to our vulnerable have not.

Our veterans and elderly paid into the system with their hard work, time and money. Is it not time we get them get them to where they should be based on inflation over the years and from this point on, start ensuring that their compensation is adjusted regularly to truly reflect true cost of living/inflation increases?

Remember, while it may not affect you now, most of us will eventually be in this group eventually. So will our children. Time and age do not regress. Buying power from under adjusted programs does. Do we want our children to deal with our problems if we kick the can down the road?

Is it societies responsibility to ensure our elderly and veterans are not rich nor poor but adequately funded to meet reasonable needs for the hard work, time, money (and in some cases blood) put into the system? Will we and our children eventually become elderly?

If you agree or disagree, please vote and reply to explain your answer why.
Quit complaining. Be glad you have SS at all. Keep your costs down, live below your means, and use SS as the way it was intended to be used.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-14-2018, 06:54 AM
 
608 posts, read 281,196 times
Reputation: 1932
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mircea View Post
The article is total crap.

Since year 2000, Inflation has increased an average of 2.4% per year, while COLA increases have averaged 2.2% per year.

The difference of 0.2% is negligible.
The difference compounded over eighteen years is about 5.3%, somewhat more than "negligible". And you are forgetting that the government keeps changing the model it uses to calculate CPI (hint: the adjustments are not in your favor).
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-14-2018, 06:57 AM
 
64,558 posts, read 66,100,109 times
Reputation: 42988
as much as i hate to agree with the gov't , the changes they have made have made the price changes more accurate for some of the items in the basket as well as a better comparison between the 1500 mini economies that up this country .
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-14-2018, 07:39 AM
 
Location: Silicon Valley
2,747 posts, read 1,209,866 times
Reputation: 5047
I voted for the cut. The people receiving benefits now did not pay the full rate. They paid something. They should get something, but it's been known forever that the plans will run out of money. The day of Reckoning cannot be postponed much longer. I get sick and tired about hearing any movement on this never involves people in or near retirement. Increases could be capped for awhile at the very least.

2017 Rates
Social Security - 6.2% on first $127,200
Medicare - 1.45% with no limit
Additional 0.9% over $200,000

Self Employment
15.3% on first $127,200
2.9% from $127,200 to $200,000
3.8% over $200,000


Prior to 1991, Social Security and Medicare contributions were combined in a single tax.

Year FICA Self-Employment
1990 7.65% on first $51,300 15.3% on first $51,300
1989 7.51% on first $48,000 13.02% on first $48,000
1988 7.51% on first $45,000 13.02% on first $45,000
1987 7.15% on first $43,800 12.3% on first $43,800
1986 7.15% on first $42,000 12.3% on first $42,000
1985 7.05% on first $39,600 11.8% on first $39,600
1984 6.7% on first $37,800 11.3% on first $37,800
1983 6.7% on first $35,700 9.35% on first $35,700
1982 6.7% on first $32,400 9.35% on first $32,400
1981 6.65% on first $29,700 9.3% on first $29,700
1980 6.13% on first $25,900 8.1% on first $25,900
1979 6.13% on first $22,900 8.1% on first $22,900
1978 6.05% on first $17,700 8.1% on first $17,700
1977 5.85% on first $16,500 7.9% on first $16,500
1976 5.85% on first $15,300 7.9% on first $15,300
1975 5.85% on first $14,100 7.9% on first $14,100
1974 5.85% on first $13,200 7.9% on first $13,200
1973 5.85% on first $10,800 8% on first $10,800
1972 5.2% on first $9,000 7.5% on first $9,000
1971 5.2% on first $7,800 7.5% on first $7,800
1969-1970 4.8% on first $7,800 6.9% on first $7,800
1968 4.4% on first $7,800 6.4% on first $7,800
1967 4.4% on first $6,600 6.4% on first $6,600
1966 4.2% on first $6,600 6.15% on first $6,600
1963-1965 3.625% on first $4,800 5.4% on first $4,800
1962 3.125% on first $4,800 4.7% on first $4,800
1960-1961 3% on first $4,800 4.5% on first $4,800
1959 2.5% on first $4,800 3.75% on first $4,800
1957-1958 2.25% on first $4,200 3.375% on first $4,200
1955-1956 2% on first $4,200 3% on first $4,200
1954 2% on first $3,600 3% on first $3,600
1951-1953 1.5% on first $3,600 2.25% on first $3,600
Prior to 1951, self-employed persons were not taxed for, nor received benefits from, the Social Security program.

Year FICA
1950 1.5% on first $3,000
1937-1949 1% on first $3,000
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-14-2018, 08:10 AM
 
608 posts, read 281,196 times
Reputation: 1932
Quote:
Originally Posted by artillery77 View Post
I voted for the cut. The people receiving benefits now did not pay the full rate. They paid something. They should get something, but it's been known forever that the plans will run out of money. The day of Reckoning cannot be postponed much longer.
For Social Security the "day of reckoning" can indeed be postponed -- the fix is simple. Medicare and Medicaid are the programs that are busting the budgets, and major changes are needed ASAP.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Economics
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6.

© 2005-2018, Advameg, Inc.

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top