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.
For everyone who didn't bother to read the Flemming case I cited (Supreme Court of the United States) - here's what it says:
[Social security benefits] are not guaranteed legally because workers have no contractual or property rights to any benefits whatsoever. In two landmark cases, Flemming v. Nestor and Helvering v. Davis, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that Social Security taxes are not contributions or savings, but simply taxes, and that Social Security benefits are simply a government spending program, no different than, say, farm price supports. Congress and the president may change, reduce, or even eliminate benefits at any time.
Stephen Goss is the Chief Actuary of SSA, very intelligent, and, IMO, weighs his words very carefully. IOW, he's not allowed to give his opinion regarding policy, but he made damned sure his audience understood the significance of switching to the Chained CPI from the modified CPI-W by using the words "flat screen TV". He knows exactly how the Chained CPI is calculated.
Here's a more measured response from Gross in a letter to Congressman Becerra:
"It should be noted that the broad strata represent very different groups of goods and services that
are not in general explicit “substitutes” for one another. Therefore, the degree to which individuals, in different circumstances and with different income levels, are able to change their purchases on a discretionary basis across strata likely varies."
I still don't get it. Unless one assumes that any consumer who has money left over after paying for essentials must spend it on something - anything - because it's burning a hole in his/her pocket. I just don't think or spend like that. If I need $300 worth of clothes - but don't need a new TV - I'm not going to buy a new TV instead of the clothes just because it's a better deal. OTOH - perhaps most consumers in this country are irrational (in terms of being compulsive spenders) - which is why many/most are living from paycheck to paycheck and don't have $5 in savings. Robyn
Yes, Congress can change laws, and the Supreme Courts makes rulings. This isn't exactly a news flash. But it has nothing to do with my reply to your post:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Robyn55
There is no right (statutory or otherwise) to Social Social Security payments - much less inflation adjustments computed in a certain way. Once the BLS adopted hedonic adjustments to the CPI - I never really understood it - or how it worked.
You're wrong. It's there in the US Code. Can Congress change the law? Yes, and that's what is being talked about ... changing the method used to calculate COLAs that is described in the US Code. Can the Supreme Court rule that an individual is not entitled to SS benefits? Yes.
Absent a change in the US Code or a Supreme Court decision negating part of the US Code, a person who has made the necessary contributions to Social Security, has attained the correct minimum age, and met all other requirements of the program, is entitled to Social Security payments, including COLAs. Are they absolutely, positively guaranteed such payments no matter what? No, there's precious little in life that comes with that kind of guarantee. But the right/entitlement is there in the US Code, " ... a consolidation and codification by subject matter of the general and permanent laws of the United States."
Just once I would like to see those who are 55 and over SHARE some of the pain of the bankrupt Social Security Ponzi Scam. Politicians are determined that those who paid LEAST in SS taxes, get FULL promised benefits. Far more of this group have pensions, and were ahead of the wave to reduce wages for everyone after. Far more of them lived and worked when there was prosperity and you could open a business that would survive.
Let's be honest, SS is a Ponzi Scam that already (2010) started taking money from other government funds to meet SS costs. It's not like that can continue--certainly not with huge interest payments on the national debt, and the endless spending funded by paying off credit cards with more credit cards. Obama is massively increasing taxes with Obamacare and his budgets, but there is a limit. American workers simply do not make enough money to afford our gigantic Big Government, and 2.1 workers (getting ever-lower pay) cannot afford to support one retiree.
Someone now 50 has paid the highest SS rate (resulting from the 1983 legislation that created the "Trust Fund" that politicians later stole and spent) for their entire working lives (and calling 1/2 "the employer share" should fool nobody). And yet already we aren't eligible for benefits until age 67--and God knows what the age will be when we finally get there.
My spouse and I will have lost several hundred thousand dollars to this Ponzi Scam, which I know we won't see a penny back from. Of course we lose even MORE to Federal income tax, which was prohibited by the Constitution, and which we also won't see a penny back from. I simply don't understand how Americans can consider themselves free people, when in fact they are merely slaves to government.
Let the CURRENT retirees (and those 55 and over, who politicians are also protecting) share some of the cuts--they certainly are the wealthiest group BY FAR, compared to those who come after. Funny how Progressive Taxation is such a great thing to liberals, while the opposite applies as they try to "fix" a system that is so inherently doomed that it is illegal.
I totally agree with you and I am over 65. The thing that tops it for me is the spouses who have never worked a day in their lives who continue to reap their working spouses social security long after the working spouse is dead. That is what is sucking the life out of social security.
And of course then the whiners who think the old poor people are going to miss $10.00 a month with the chained cpi. Ridiculous!
Yes, Congress can change laws, and the Supreme Courts makes rulings. This isn't exactly a news flash. But it has nothing to do with my reply to your post:
You're wrong. It's there in the US Code. Can Congress change the law? Yes, and that's what is being talked about ... changing the method used to calculate COLAs that is described in the US Code. Can the Supreme Court rule that an individual is not entitled to SS benefits? Yes.
Absent a change in the US Code or a Supreme Court decision negating part of the US Code, a person who has made the necessary contributions to Social Security, has attained the correct minimum age, and met all other requirements of the program, is entitled to Social Security payments, including COLAs. Are they absolutely, positively guaranteed such payments no matter what? No, there's precious little in life that comes with that kind of guarantee. But the right/entitlement is there in the US Code, " ... a consolidation and codification by subject matter of the general and permanent laws of the United States."
No disagreement about the US Code. So what? Congress changes the law everyday in some form or manner and those changes are reflected in the Code. But your statement regarding the US Supreme Court is too narrow. The US Supreme Court has ruled that Social Security is not a property right. Period. No need to rule that a particular individual is or is not entitled to SS benefits unless the individual is part of a class that is entitled to benefits as defined in the Code. Which, BTW, is why Social Security benefits are referred to as an entitlement.
I totally agree with you and I am over 65. The thing that tops it for me is the spouses who have never worked a day in their lives who continue to reap their working spouses social security long after the working spouse is dead. That is what is sucking the life out of social security.
And of course then the whiners who think the old poor people are going to miss $10.00 a month with the chained cpi. Ridiculous!
Well, you're certainly not the first person who would throw Granny under a bus.
As for the $10 for a poor person? Well, that $10 a month buys one of my generic meds. Guess I would do without that. Or maybe a gallon of milk, a loaf of bread and a jar of peanut butter. Heck, I'd just skip one meal a day and keep the medication. No, wait. I need the calories. But I need the med, too. Damn! What to do...
So now advocates for the poor are "whiners"? You might want to reread your post. "The thing that tops it for me is the spouses who have never worked a day in their lives..." A perfect example of whining.
I still don't get it. Unless one assumes that any consumer who has money left over after paying for essentials must spend it on something - anything - because it's burning a hole in his/her pocket. I just don't think or spend like that. If I need $300 worth of clothes - but don't need a new TV - I'm not going to buy a new TV instead of the clothes just because it's a better deal. OTOH - perhaps most consumers in this country are irrational (in terms of being compulsive spenders) - which is why many/most are living from paycheck to paycheck and don't have $5 in savings. Robyn
Robyn, you and Lenora are not disagreeing. The top quartile is less vulnerable to price changes and the upper range of that is pretty immune at current rates of inflation. Your spending flow is probably well below you're current income flow and your net worth is quite possibly still increasing. The alternative cost for you in increased consumption cost is at the expense of wealth enhancement.
What do folks think about people who voluntarily retire at 62 take their benefits then because they want them then who ten years later are hurting. Heat is the collective responsibility to them?
What do folks think about people who voluntarily retire at 62 take their benefits then because they want them then who ten years later are hurting. Heat is the collective responsibility to them?
Have no idea what the bolded sentence means but we each voluntarily retired and we each started taking SS at age 62, respectively, because we wanted to and we each have pensions and good health care benefits. We'll have to wait and see whether or not we're hurting in another five years but so far, so good. Should we be, then shame on us and we'll deal with it. I would hope others would do the same and adjust accordingly. Consequently, I have absolutely no thoughts one way or the other.
None of us can predict tomorrow, much less 10 years out. What we can do is plan to the best of our abilities and means then sit back and enjoy our retirement years. The alternative is to jump at shadows and live those years in fear and consternation, worry ourselves to death and obsess about it. Thanks, but no thanks.
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.
