Social Security Beneficiary to get $5 raise in2017

For some of us, living hand to mouth is the ONLY option -- and telling them their plan was not good at this point in time doesn't help anyone. Some of us didn't actually get to HAVE a plan, some were felled by disability or other misfortunes and just did the best they could. I think just telling disabled seniors that it is all their fault is a tad bit insensitive. What would you suggest that a disabled elder senior who is living hand to mouth, DO about their situation? Get a job? That's a laugh. Get a cheaper apartment? Many are living in the cheapest relatively safe place they can find. Should they move into a dumpster with their walker? Or maybe just quit eating?
 

well then i hate to be the messenger of bad news but sticking their heads in the sand and pretending that everything is okay when 12 bucks a month vs 5 bucks means everything to them is what it is .

they aren't getting anymore so take this info for what it is worth but they are headed for some serious issues then . you can't pretend they are better then they are . things will only grow worse when you are down to the difference between 5 and 12 bucks starts to matter.you can wish it was more all you want but it is not going to be anymore so the ball is in their court .

they need to develop slack some how or risk failure . if things are that close then i would call that crisis mode .
 
Social Security funding, etc., is just One of many major problems that will face Seniors in the future. ONE item that seems to get little attention is Public Employees Pension funding. Several Cities, and States...especially places like California, New York, and Illinois are quickly approaching a crisis in their obligations to their public employees. CALPERS, the California fund, is well over 2.5 Trillion dollars in debt, and that number is increasing by almost 100 billion a year. City and State governments cannot just "print more money", like the Federal government, and they will soon have to start raising sales taxes, and property taxes, etc., to make up their massive shortfalls. Seniors living in such locations are going to see their costs of living rising at an unmanageable pace.
 

mathjak107 said:
well then i hate to be the messenger of bad news but sticking their heads in the sand and pretending that everything is okay when 12 bucks a month vs 5 bucks means everything to them is what it is .

they aren't getting anymore so take this info for what it is worth but they are headed for some serious issues then . you can't pretend they are better then they are . things will only grow worse when you are down to the difference between 5 and 12 bucks starts to matter.you can wish it was more all you want but it is not going to be anymore so the ball is in their court .

they need to develop slack some how or risk failure . if things are that close then i would call that crisis mode .
Click to expand...

Your compassion and empathy for your fellow man is overwhelming.

Precisely what would you suggest a disabled (or non-disabled, for that matter) elder senior being forced into abject poverty can or should do about his/her situation at this point? Yes, I'd call it crisis mode that many are facing -- you've identified it, now what do you, in your wisdom, suggest they do about it?
 
Aunt Bea said:
I would like to see them remove the wage cap altogether.

Removing the wage cap can help the average person that has some very high income years and then hits a period of low wage years "bank" some extra credit. Under the current system, with the caps, those high wage years are of no benefit when the SS is calculated.
Click to expand...

I absolutely agree the wage cap should be lifted. I don't know why high wage earners are not required to pay SS on ALL their wages in the first place.
 
why not remove the cap ? because then those higher wage earners should get more . both they and their spouse's would get even higher payments as well as ex wives . there has to be a balance . social security is already means tested . those who pay in little get out a whole lot more than those who pay in more and that is with the caps .

it is also double taxed for those who are in higher incomes . taxes are collected on the money going in to ss and taxed a 2nd time if your income is high enough . your medicare premium is linked to income as well . we had a 300% increase in medicare premium , an additional 600 a month for the 2 of us , because we sold an asset 2 years before being medicare age .

so there should be no more money going in unless all that money put in by higher earners gets bigger benefits coming out.

the problem for ss is it is no longer actuarially neutral as far as delaying . we are living longer and couples today who are 65 have a 74% chance one of them will see 85 . the 50% point is not until almost 90 today .

so more and more folks were realizing the benefits of delaying and manipulating spousal benefits so social security had to do away with some of the perks .

so far they have eliminated file and suspend and paying back ss at any point for a bigger benefit and likely will make more changes , perhaps cutting back on ex wives benefits or forcing you to pay in more if you have to support an ex wife with your benefit.

so basically as more and more folks realized the benefits of delaying it was putting more pressure on ss to make bigger payments . it was not as much a problem when the view of most folks was i better take it early ,what if i die . but more and more the thinking is what if i live ? it is then survivorbenefits and spousal benefits begain to be highlighted . do ss has to go in to protection mode and start to cut back on some of those perks .

we have 1/2 as many workers paying in as the baby boomers now . but social security can easily be funded . we have no problem coming up with billions for anything when it is crunch time .
 
Last edited:
social security uses the cpi-w , pensions tend to use cpi-u


cpi-w tends io run higher then cpi-u because cpi-w assumes no substitutions


The Consumer Price Index for All Urban Consumers (CPI-U) was introduced in 1978. It includes all urban households within an area that have inhabitants of 2,500 or more. It does not include rural consumers and those that are in military and other institutions. It represents the buying habits of more than 80 percent of the population of the United States including those that are self employed, retired workers, professional workers, clerical, and part-time workers, and even those who are unemployed. It is more of a general index and traces how retail prices affect urban consumers of goods.




The Consumer Price Index for Urban Wage Earners and Clerical Workers (CPI-W), , includes sales, craft, service or labor, and clerical workers who must have been employed for 37 weeks or more. It represents 32 per cent of the United States population and is a subset of the CPI-U. It traces how retail prices affect workers who are paid hourly and those that do clerical work. The Social Security Administration uses data from the CPI-U to decide its annual rate of increase.


The CPI-U represents more than 80 per cent of the population of the United States while the CPI-W represents 37 per cent.
3.While both are concerned with how changes in prices affect urban consumers, CPI-U includes a broader and more diverse group of people in the population while the CPI-W is considered as a subset of the CPI-U.


4.The CPI-W includes only the clerical, sales, craft, service workers, and laborers while the CPI-U includes those that are self-employed, retired workers, professional workers, clerical and part-time workers, and even those who are unemployed.


5.The CPI-U gives weight on all goods and services that consumers need while the CPI-W gives more weight on food, clothing, and transportation.
6.Both the CPI-U and the CPI-W do not include rural consumers and those in the military and other institutions.


Read more: Difference Between CPI-U and CPI-W | Difference Between http://www.differencebetween.net/business/difference-between-cpi-u-and-cpi-w/#ixzz4Ni8QRlb7
 
Knight: That $5 will not be used for gas because most of it will be eaten up by the increase in medicare, which I read is supposed to go up to $108. So you'll have $2 for gas, unless of course you get much more than average and you've deducted that Medicare raise already. :)
 
Our statements came today. The amount will stay the same for 2017...and here I was getting ready to go shopping for a new Cadillac with the expected raise....Oh, Well....
 
>>where did all that Social Security and Medicare money that was taken from my pay for 50+ years go?>>

There seems to be some misunderstanding/misinformation in this thread.

Social Security was NEVER a system where a fund was created in your name from your contributions. It is a "pay as you go" system, where contributions from payroll taxes were used to pay the monthly benefits for retired or disabled elderly over the years. When SS began in August 1935 it paid benefits to those who had never contributed.

Thus, when I worked and paid SocSec taxes, I knew that money was going to my disabled father and others like him. It was not "mine".

The intent of SocSec is to provide one-third of retirement income. It is only to provide the most basic necessities. Retirement savings and those now-disappearing pensions were to supply the other two-thirds of retirement income.

SocSec and Medicare are already in crisis mode. The Republicans - see Paul Ryan's announcement right after the Trump election - have already started floating plans to lower the COLA raises even further, delay and reduce SocSec for future generations. Medicare "reform" will probably introduce a voucher system and more block grants to states to cede regulatory control to local governments.

If you live in a state that has a history of poor safety enforcement and inadequate financial support for eldercare/disabled/convalescent facilities, you will probably see quality and service reduced further under Medicaid.
 
Lethe200 said:
Medicare "reform" will probably introduce a voucher system and more block grants to states to cede regulatory control to local governments.

If you live in a state that has a history of poor safety enforcement and inadequate financial support for eldercare/disabled/convalescent facilities, you will probably see quality and service reduced further under Medicaid.
Click to expand...

I think we are going to see several attempts to push programs back to the states. The Federal budget will go down and the State budgets will increase, sort of like the old game of finding the pea under the walnut shell. This trend can be good or awful depending on which state you live in.
 
SS will always be federal not states' responsibility since people moved around not only in the job but where they want to live. States should not be burden without just cause. Personally, I have no problem with SS. I received a high salary when I worked and I paid into the system. I can said I have benefited from collecting from SS at 62. It was a good financial decision from my part.
 

You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top