Monday March 17, 2014, 4:03 am
So the the article you posted yesterday was bogus. Anyway. cost of living increases for the elderly should be based on elderly expenses, likewise cost of living expenses for families should not include those of the elderly But this ignore the "fact" but perhaps more accurately called a myth that medical cost will reduce (or I have been told by a bunch of liberal morons) but now those same morons are saying we should increase the cost of living for the elderly? And what of the argument people paid into it, this article clearly assumes that is not the case, but the wealthy should do more. Sorry, this is your alternet crap.
Monday March 17, 2014, 12:24 pm
Hey, what is happening to the social security payments of all those dying before they are old enough to collect????? Sounds like the SS needs new mgt (as does the post office). Stop jerking us around with nonsense about social security. We like it the way it is; do not mess it up.
Monday March 17, 2014, 2:37 pm
Numbers 9-12 are the most important! "There is no other issue in America where those in power are so out of sync with the voters and the people."
9.Until recently, the social insurance debate has been dominated by cutting benefits. But expanding Social Security benefits won’t hurt the economy. It is now 5 percent of GNP. Keeping current benefits past 2033 with no other changes would come to 6 percent.
10. There are many smarter ways to assess future benefit levels. One is using an elderly consumer price index, which is 0.2 percent higher than the inflation gauge used today. That formula looks at costs that are higher for seniors, such as healthcare.
11. Another is a simple tax reform—scrapping the $117,000 income tax cap now in place for Social Security taxes; wealthier people do not pay more. And raising Social Security payroll taxes by 50 cents a week. Both more than cover expanding Social Security.
12. Almost all Americans support both these reforms, with 87 percent for scrapping the cap and 82 percent for slight SS tax increases.
Monday March 17, 2014, 3:34 pm
Noted. Thanks, Cal. I agree with Yvonne; it seems few mention that eliminating or significantly raising the cap will help immensely, and SHOULD be done. I recommend $1 million as a possible cap, or perhaps up to $1 million at the present rate, with a progressively declining rate for each million over that. Millionaires and billionaires are benefiting at present, and they should pay their fair share.
Monday March 17, 2014, 6:19 pm
I have the way increases are computed on Social Security. If we all had the money we put in for the years we worked, we'd each be making a much better return than is paid now. They manipulate the increase by adding in expenses that are low, but now senior has, and ignoring the real increases in medical care, prescriptions, transportation, etc.
Monday March 17, 2014, 8:57 pm
It never should have Never been on the table at all it's our's not their's to mess with.
All senior's rely on this for their retirement years. It better be there for us all!
Tuesday March 18, 2014, 2:20 am
If the government would cut back on the military budget in preparing for foreign wars which has nothing to do with them they would be able to fund the social security bill without trouble,
Tuesday March 18, 2014, 7:25 am
I'm tired of making things harder for the Elders and the most in need. I agree cut back on the overblown military spending except for the Veterans who are in need of medical care and help with housing. We should make sure our soldiers have what they need, however going into wars of misadventure need to stop and one shouldn't cut back the taxes on the Oligarchy at the same time push us into wars based on lies like what happened with Iraq.
Is the trouble with this society, one becomes disabled or up in age and suddenly they are disposable or can live off of the crumbs that the more healthy ones deems is suitable for them. If it isn't youthful and can be sent to war or be worked to death then somehow one is suppose to just quietly fade away or wait while the slow strangulation is brought forth. Cut back here, cut back there, less heat here, less food there, take half a pill in hopes that works, and pray one can keep a roof over their head......harder to do all the time.
But hey, do not worry after all they are not humans once they are old or disabled. Just ask those Corporate people they'll tell you. Ask Mitt Romney, "Corporations are people my friend." Sure the Plutocrats will tell you. They are too busy about kissing each others rear ends, protecting their self interests, but it's okay for the rest to suffer, just not them.
Tuesday March 18, 2014, 9:02 am
Sharon F, USPS does not need new management. It is doing phenomenally well under crippling restrictions. What is needs is the repeal of the requirement to pre-fund retirees who are not even born yet - 75 years into the future. That was foisted on them in 2006 and the fact they are even still around is a miracle. No business could do what we require the USPS to do, and no business would try.
Tuesday March 18, 2014, 10:19 am
Spot on Joanne, another area that is under attack has been the Post Office that had worked extremely well until what you mentioned took place. Unfortunately, this is what happens when too few are aware of why entities, such as the Post Office, are in such conditions.
Also please realize the Post Office doesn't take any tax monies, it supported itself on the postage and services it provided.