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.
Well they've now thrown "chained CPI" into the mix to resolve the Fiscal Cliff.
Bottom line is lower COLA's for those who really need it.
Why don't they increase the tax on SS benefits from the max of 85% to 100%, or lower/limit SS benefits for the higher incomes instead of taking more from those who really need it?
Well they've now thrown "chained CPI" into the mix to resolve the Fiscal Cliff.
Bottom line is lower COLA's for those who really need it.
Why don't they increase the tax on SS benefits from the max of 85% to 100%, or lower/limit SS benefits for the higher incomes instead of taking more from those who really need it?
Hard to run for president saying you won't raise taxes on anyone making under 250K and then raise taxes on folks before you even get sworn in. The payroll tax holiday was just that and scheduled to expire. What you suggest is a change in tax law to increase taxes on folks beyond what is already scheduled to be phased in. As far as your last suggestion to lower/ limit benefits to those contributing the most to boost benefits to those receiving the least would be to say yes the wealth transfer shoes fit me and I am wearing them even before I get sworn in for my second term. Is that really what the president wants?
Well they've now thrown "chained CPI" into the mix to resolve the Fiscal Cliff.
Bottom line is lower COLA's for those who really need it.
Why don't they increase the tax on SS benefits from the max of 85% to 100%, or lower/limit SS benefits for the higher incomes instead of taking more from those who really need it?
What you don't seem to understand is that this country has been living beyond its means for some time. Social Security is paying out more than it takes in. There are going to have to be a number of reforms if it is to survive in its present fashion. Everybody is going to have to do something. At some point, the retirement age is going to have to be increased to reflect increases in human life expectancy.
Going to "chained CPI" is a comparatively minor reform that is one of a number of reforms suggested by the "Simpson Bowles Commission". If you haven't heard, this commission was created to help the nation find ways to reduce its huge deficits. The responsible members on the commission agree its going to take a combination of spending cuts and tax increases to solve this problem. I've been torn because I've felt until now that the economy needed deficit spending to avert another Great Depression. However, its clear that things are getting better now and its time to talk seriously about deficit reduction.
Chained CPI simply computes cost of living increases differently than the current CPI measure. I'll give an example. I often buy a standing rib roast for Christmas. This year, I'll buy a turkey instead. I'm unwilling to pay $6.99 a pound for a standing rib roast. Chained CPI assumes that consumers act the way that I do. Rather, than including the increased cost of standing rib roast in the calculation, chained CPI assumes consumers can substitute goods for one another. Since turkey hasn't gone up much in price, the cost of living increase reflected using chained CPI would be minimal in this respect.
Quite honestly, accepting chained CPI is the very least the elderly in this country can do. If young people have to accept older retirement ages and working people have to accept increases in payroll taxes (the cuts are set to expire) than its only fair the elderly give up something too. The requests being made of the elderly are very modest in my opinion. But undoubtedly some will complain. There are some among the elderly, who seemed determined to milk the system dry to guarantee themselves maximum benefits. They are oblivious to the harm this will work on future generations.
Increasing taxes on higher income people should be considered. However, the issue is whether everyone wants to turn Social Security from an income security plan paid for by those using it into some sort of welfare plan funded by one group for another group. President Roosevelt, himself, objected to such an approach when Social Security was created because he feared it would ultimately lead to its demise. I would encourage anyone who wants to increase Social Security taxes on the wealthiest taxpayers to seriously consider that point.
I have no problem with the chained CPI proposal, I agree that current retirees need to make some minor contributions to ensuring the long temr economic health of the Social Security system.
I have no problem with the chained CPI proposal, I agree that current retirees need to make some minor contributions to ensuring the long temr economic health of the Social Security system.
Yup, that is one of the least painful possible remedies they could make to those currently retired whether we have yet started SS or not. I am hoping the chained CPI makes its way to our pensions to help with that funding problem.
If adopted across the government, the change would have far-reaching effects because so many programs are adjusted each year based on year-to-year changes in consumer prices.
On average, annual increases in Social Security payments, government pensions and veterans' benefits would be about 0.3 percentage points smaller each year. Next year's COLA is 1.7 percent. Under the new measure of inflation, it would be about 1.4 percent.
Taxes would slowly increase because annual adjustments to income tax brackets would be smaller, pushing more people into higher tax brackets. Over time, fewer people would be eligible for anti-poverty programs like Medicaid, Head Start, food stamps and school lunches because annual adjustments to the poverty level would be smaller, leaving fewer people under the official poverty line.
If enacted for 2014, the change would reduce government borrowing by $223 billion over the next decade — $158 billion in spending cuts and $65 billion in tax increases, according to the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office. The biggest savings — $102 billion — would come from Social Security.
What you don't seem to understand is that this country has been living beyond its means for some time. Social Security is paying out more than it takes in. There are going to have to be a number of reforms if it is to survive in its present fashion. Everybody is going to have to do something. At some point, the retirement age is going to have to be increased to reflect increases in human life expectancy.
Going to "chained CPI" is a comparatively minor reform that is one of a number of reforms suggested by the "Simpson Bowles Commission". If you haven't heard, this commission was created to help the nation find ways to reduce its huge deficits. The responsible members on the commission agree its going to take a combination of spending cuts and tax increases to solve this problem. I've been torn because I've felt until now that the economy needed deficit spending to avert another Great Depression. However, its clear that things are getting better now and its time to talk seriously about deficit reduction.
Chained CPI simply computes cost of living increases differently than the current CPI measure. I'll give an example. I often buy a standing rib roast for Christmas. This year, I'll buy a turkey instead. I'm unwilling to pay $6.99 a pound for a standing rib roast. Chained CPI assumes that consumers act the way that I do. Rather, than including the increased cost of standing rib roast in the calculation, chained CPI assumes consumers can substitute goods for one another. Since turkey hasn't gone up much in price, the cost of living increase reflected using chained CPI would be minimal in this respect.
Quite honestly, accepting chained CPI is the very least the elderly in this country can do. If young people have to accept older retirement ages and working people have to accept increases in payroll taxes (the cuts are set to expire) than its only fair the elderly give up something too. The requests being made of the elderly are very modest in my opinion. But undoubtedly some will complain. There are some among the elderly, who seemed determined to milk the system dry to guarantee themselves maximum benefits. They are oblivious to the harm this will work on future generations.
Increasing taxes on higher income people should be considered. However, the issue is whether everyone wants to turn Social Security from an income security plan paid for by those using it into some sort of welfare plan funded by one group for another group. President Roosevelt, himself, objected to such an approach when Social Security was created because he feared it would ultimately lead to its demise. I would encourage anyone who wants to increase Social Security taxes on the wealthiest taxpayers to seriously consider that point.
1. I do realize we have been living beyond our means, and agree with reforms like raising the retirement age.
2. What you are missing is Chained CPI really takes money away from those who need it the most. If you carry your reasoning far enough, when you cant afford turkey/chicken, what do you buy next? Just because you choose to buy turkey instead of your rib roast, please don't assume that it is that simple and ends there. I have been on many first aid calls in which senior citizens could not afford their medication, so they split their medications in half; a lot of good that does their health. Chained CPI also affects VA benefits, so I guess you are alright with lowering the benefits to our veterans who we sent to war and came home maimed. Yet, apparently you are OK that the wealthiest continue to get benefits; chained CPI will not make a difference to them!
3. SS needs to be means tested; it's that simple. Ken Langone- co-founder of Home Depot was on CNBC yesterday, and he's all for means teasting SS; he said take it away as he really doesn''t need it, and is greatful he's as well off as he is.
4. SS was intended to help those who really need it, and not a pension for all. However, we have turned it into a pension, and right now we are planning to cut benefits for those who need it the most, while continuing to provide SS to the wealthiest; what sense does that make? I'm not sure Roosevelt would want to see benefits cut to those who need it the most!
5. Instead of chained CPI, how about we increase federal taxation of SS benefits from the maximum of 85% to 100%, which will not hurt those who have the higher incomes.
6. To you chained CPI is simple benefit computation change, and I'm glad you are in a financial position that it will not significantly affect you, but please remember that for those less fortunate it's "simply" another cut in their benefits, along with increased medicare premiums. There are other ways to reduce these programs without hurting those who need it the most.
7. All too often those who are fortunate forget or don't understand what it's like to be less fortunate.
Last edited by marc515; 12-19-2012 at 05:57 AM..
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.
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.
