1
   

Social Security Going Up by 2.3 Percent

 
 
Reply Wed 17 Oct, 2007 09:07 am
Social Security Going Up by 2.3 Percent
By MARTIN CRUTSINGER,AP
Posted: 2007-10-17 08:46:47

WASHINGTON - Come January, Social Security benefits for nearly 50 million Americans are going up 2.3 percent, the smallest increase in four years. It will mean an extra $24 per month in the average check, the government announced Wednesday.

The cost of living adjustment means that the monthly benefit for the typical retired worker in 2008 will go from $1,055 currently to $1,079 next year.

The adjustment, announced by the Social Security Administration, will go to more than 54 million Americans. Nearly 50 million receive Social Security benefits and the rest get Supplemental Security Income payments aimed at helping the poor.

The adjustment, announced by the Social Security Administration, will go to more than 54 million Americans. Nearly 50 million receive Social Security benefits and the rest get Supplemental Security Income payments aimed at helping the poor.

The 2.3 percent increase is the smallest since a 2.1 percent rise in 2004. It compares to an increase of 3.3 percent last year and a jump of 4.1 percent in 2006, which had been the biggest advance in 15 years.

The COLA is based on the change in consumer prices from the July-September quarter of this year compared to the same period last year. Benefit payments have been tied to inflation since 1975.

The big jump for 2006 occurred because energy prices had soared in September of 2005, reflecting the impact of Hurricane Katrina . This year, however, energy prices have been coming down in recent months after having spiked in the spring.

With oil prices surging this week to highs above $88 per barrel, analysts believe that consumers will get socked with higher gasoline prices and home heating oil costs in coming months, but those gains will come too late to influence the new cost-of-living adjustment.

In addition, food prices and medical prices have been rising rapidly this year. But those gains have been offset somewhat by a moderation in categories that the elderly tend to buy less of such as computers, consumer electronics and clothing.

"Social Security recipients are going to feel like they are getting squeezed," said Mark Zandi, chief economist at Moody's Economy.com. "For most households out buying gasoline and a loaf of bread, it feels like inflation is high."

Part of the Social Security increase will be eaten up by a rise in the cost of Medicare, the giant health care program that covers the elderly and disabled. The government announced earlier this month that Medicare premiums will rise 3.1 percent next year or $2.50 to $96.40 per month. That is the lowest Medicare premium increase in six years.

The average retired couple, both receiving Social Security benefits, will see their monthly check go from $1,722 to $1,761, an increase of $39.

The standard SSI payment for an individual will go from $623 per month to $637.

The average monthly check for a disabled worker will go from $981 to $1,004.

The government also announced Wednesday that nearly 12 million wage earners will pay higher taxes next year because the maximum amount of Social Security earnings subject to the payroll tax will rise from $97,500 currently to $102,000. In all, an estimated 164 million workers will pay Social Security taxes in 2008.

The Social Security Administration on Monday had a ceremony to highlight the opening wave of baby boomer retirements, a generation of 78 million people born from 1946 to 1964. The first of those boomers will turn 62 next year, making them eligible for Social Security benefits.

An estimated 10,000 people a day will become eligible for Social Security benefits over the next two decades, putting a severe strain on the pension program.

If no changes are made, the Social Security trust fund is projected to deplete its reserves in 2041 and even sooner, in 2017, Social Security is scheduled to start paying out more in benefits than it collects each year in payroll taxes. Medicare is facing even greater funding problems because of the rapidly rising cost of health care.

President Bush pledged to make reforming Social Security the top priority of his second term, but his plan to provide private accounts for younger workers went nowhere in Congress and Republicans and Democrats remain deadlocked on the issue.

A coalition named Divided We Fail has been pressing to make entitlement reform a major issue in the presidential campaign, hoping to force candidates in both parties to address the need to overhaul the government's big benefit programs.

"We want to get all of the candidates on the record and we want to let voters make up their own minds," said Jim Dau, an official with AARP, an advocacy group for people 50 and older.
  • Topic Stats
  • Top Replies
  • Link to this Topic
Type: Discussion • Score: 1 • Views: 518 • Replies: 11
No top replies

 
bigredsshop
 
  1  
Reply Thu 18 Oct, 2007 10:37 pm
Thanks for your awe inspiring foresight, BBB.
0 Replies
 
Halfback
 
  1  
Reply Tue 23 Oct, 2007 01:48 pm
I often wonder how the Social Security fund would be doing if the "surplus" funds going into the system had not been syphoned off into the general budget for all those years and had been "invested" instead and kept in the fund.

Moot point.

Halfback
0 Replies
 
Halfback
 
  1  
Reply Tue 23 Oct, 2007 01:55 pm
You know the SS System is going to be in trouble.... but it is not going to go under or be severely modified...... there are 78 million voters in that group that have a vested interest in that program.

That sounds like a "make or break" voting block to me. Laughing

It will probably end up being funded from the general fund, just like a lot of other "welfare" programs.

Halfback
0 Replies
 
okie
 
  1  
Reply Tue 23 Oct, 2007 06:06 pm
The ceiling on the incomes from which social security is taxed will likely be raised further, and the age limits for starting of benefits will likely be raised as well. This will only serve to bog down the economy more and more.

When the government loans the funds to itself to spend, the rate of return is well below how other funds have performed, so in answer to your question, I think there would be alot more money available. The government treated it as their money, not as a trust fund that they would manage for the good of the people owning the money in the trust fund. If the government had been treated as other trust fund managers, they would have gotten the boot a long time ago, if not criminal charges.
0 Replies
 
Halfback
 
  1  
Reply Wed 24 Oct, 2007 07:13 am
Mark Zandi said "for those out buying gasoline and a loaf of bread, it is going to feel like inflation is high." The man's grasp of the obvious is astonishing!

I have often wondered why it is that the Government's Consumer Price Index excludes foodstuffs and fuel, two of the major monthly expenditures for your average family.

I'm sure the Government has passed out some story on the reason why, but is the story logical? Or is it a method by which "panic" can be controlled? I wonder.

Halfback
0 Replies
 
okie
 
  1  
Reply Wed 24 Oct, 2007 09:13 am
It is in the government's best interests to suppress official inflation rate numbers, so as to suppress growth of entitlements that are inescapable expenditures. It is what I believe is a dirty little secret that both Democrats and Republicans hesitate to emphasize.
0 Replies
 
Halfback
 
  1  
Reply Wed 24 Oct, 2007 11:04 am
.....and that would not surprise me in the least.

Halfback
0 Replies
 
parados
 
  1  
Reply Wed 24 Oct, 2007 12:15 pm
Food and fuel are included in the overall numbers but removed from the core numbers.

It's not like the government is hiding it.

The reason they are not in the core numbers is because of their volatility. One need only pass by the same gas station for a couple of months to see how volatile fuel prices can be. We see the trend by removing the volatile figures otherwise we might see an 8% rise one month and a 2% drop the next. Such drastic figures are enough to create panic in the casual observer.
0 Replies
 
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Reply Wed 24 Oct, 2007 12:16 pm
parados wrote:
Food and fuel are included in the overall numbers but removed from the core numbers.

It's not like the government is hiding it.

The reason they are not in the core numbers is because of their volatility. One need only pass by the same gas station for a couple of months to see how volatile fuel prices can be. We see the trend by removing the volatile figures otherwise we might see an 8% rise one month and a 2% drop the next. Such drastic figures are enough to create panic in the casual observer.


Well, when we've seen 6 years of solid and consistent rises in prices, can it really be said to be 'volatile?'

Cycloptichorn
0 Replies
 
parados
 
  1  
Reply Wed 24 Oct, 2007 12:22 pm
Halfback wrote:
You know the SS System is going to be in trouble.... but it is not going to go under or be severely modified...... there are 78 million voters in that group that have a vested interest in that program.

That sounds like a "make or break" voting block to me. Laughing

It will probably end up being funded from the general fund, just like a lot of other "welfare" programs.

Halfback

The general fund will have to be used to pay back what the general fund borrowed.

The sad truth is that once general taxes are raised to pay back the SS fund there won't need to be a tax increase to keep paying SS from the general fund. SS will need excess funds whether it is paying back borrowed money or just making up the shortfall.
0 Replies
 
okie
 
  1  
Reply Wed 24 Oct, 2007 02:14 pm
parados wrote:
Food and fuel are included in the overall numbers but removed from the core numbers.

It's not like the government is hiding it.

The reason they are not in the core numbers is because of their volatility. One need only pass by the same gas station for a couple of months to see how volatile fuel prices can be. We see the trend by removing the volatile figures otherwise we might see an 8% rise one month and a 2% drop the next. Such drastic figures are enough to create panic in the casual observer.

For once, I think we agree. I had heard that, and it makes sense.

Here is a graph of social security tax rates and caps, etc. I think they will continue to raise the caps, and eventually raise the retirement ages again as well.

http://www.geocities.com/politicalcalculations/images/2005-03-22-a-large.GIF
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

Obama '08? - Discussion by sozobe
Let's get rid of the Electoral College - Discussion by Robert Gentel
McCain's VP: - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
TEA PARTY TO AMERICA: NOW WHAT?! - Discussion by farmerman
 
  1. Forums
  2. » Social Security Going Up by 2.3 Percent
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 09/30/2024 at 06:29:37