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.
It will make it harder to plan on income for retirement. Inflation is a huge
factor, but I think the Republicans won't agree to Obama's plan.
Actually, neither side of the aisle is happy about it but for very different reasons. More importantly, however, is how seniors, especially those without other resources or incomes feel. Over time this will erode their buying power and in worst case scenarios they may go without needed medications or other life supports to pay rent, utility bills and even purchase adequate food. Malnutrition is a large problem with lower income seniors.
It just won't affect social security but any other retirement income that gets cost of living raises - retired military and retired federal workers will be affected.
Do believe that state and county governments who also pay cola's will also follow suit with their retirees.
I don't "feel duped, disappointed, and angry" - because we all know entitlements are a looming issue and it's time we faced up to it, the sooner the better for all concerned. We've known about it for many years, no one can credibly act surprised now.
We have to come to grips with future entitlement deficit growth, and how to keep future entitlement revenues and benefit payouts from growing apart as projected. Many seniors want to protect benefits while refusing to acknowledge future deficits. It's not someone else's problem, we have to acknowledge that our kids/grandkids will have to pay (considerably) more than we did if changes aren't made to slow benefit growth. Many of our kids/grandkids are already planning on reduced or no Soc Sec benefits for their retirements though they're paying now. Maybe they're the ones who may be justified to feel "duped, disappointed and angry?"
All generations have to be willing to share in the solutions IMO. Seniors may have to give a little, and workers may have to give a little - not one or the other alone.
However, it seems clear Soc Sec isn't nearly as problematic as Medicare/Medicaid - so it's a little disingenuous IMO to talk about Soc Sec alone. We could "solve" the future Soc Sec revenue shortfalls, and still have a massive entitlement issue. There should be way more threads on Medicare/Medicaid deficits relative to Soc Sec, where's the outrage over future Medicare/Medicaid deficits, that's a bigger problem?
Do you have a better alternative to chained CPI to slow the growth of future Soc Sec benefit payments?
FWIW. I'm 58 (nearing SS age), with no kids/grandkids, and I'm a fiscal conservative.
I don't "feel duped, disappointed, and angry" -
because we all know entitlements are a looming issue and it's time we faced up to it, the sooner the
better for all concerned. We've known about it for many years, no one can credibly act surprised now.
However, it seems clear Soc Sec isn't nearly as problematic as Medicare/Medicaid
Do you have a better alternative to chained CPI to slow the growth of future Soc Sec benefit payments?
Social security nedds reform but not pieve meal where your proposing a cut here to get higher taxes somehwere else to spend. The ony realy plan out there is Simpson/Bowles that has bi-partisan support .No one that supports it likes all of it but they realise one side or the other is going to not only have to pass but actaully get support afterwards. We that one sided changes such has ACA had no support but from one side and in the end you have to have the consent of the governed to govern. Bush got that with hs medicare drug plan and its accepted by the major as settled.
Social security nedds reform but not pieve meal where your proposing a cut here to get higher taxes somehwere else to spend. The ony realy plan out there is Simpson/Bowles that has bi-partisan support .No one that supports it likes all of it but they realise one side or the other is going to not only have to pass but actaully get support afterwards. We that one sided changes such has ACA had no support but from one side and in the end you have to have the consent of the governed to govern. Bush got that with hs medicare drug plan and its accepted by the major as settled.
I'd add Domenici-Rivlin 1&2 though Simpson-Bowles 1 (&2) is better known...
It just won't affect social security but any other retirement income that gets cost of living raises - retired military and retired federal workers will be affected.
Do believe that state and county governments who also pay cola's will also follow suit with their retirees.
Will pay raises of all current government employees (from the President & Congress on down) be subject to the "chained CPI" also ?? If not, why not ??
Will pay raises of all current government employees (from the President & Congress on down) be subject to the "chained CPI" also ?? If not, why not ??
Fair question I guess, but it does nothing to solve the fundamental issue. I don't think the Pres or Congress get COL pay increases anyway but I assume you already checked that...
How do we pay for all future Federal entitlements in a way that's intergenerationally fair. Any ideas
Last edited by Midpack; 04-06-2013 at 12:51 PM..
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.
Good for the goose.......
If not, why not ?? 
