Posted on 10/12/2022 12:02:16 PM PDT by Red Badger
'With many older people choosing to live in suburban areas or rural areas, some will benefit more...'
(Headline USA) On Thursday, the U.S. government is set to announce how big a percentage increase Social Security beneficiaries will see in monthly payments this upcoming year.
Some estimates say the boost for more than 65 million Social Security beneficiaries may be as big as 9%.
It’s virtually certain to be the largest raise in four decades and will add more strain on the welfare program’s trust fund, which is expected to expire within the next decade, even as younger taxpayers continue to invest money into the system that they are unlikely ever to see paid out.
The latest annual trustees report for Social Security said its trust funds that pay out retirement and survivors and disability benefits will be able to pay scheduled benefits on a timely basis until 2035. After that, incoming cash from taxes will be enough to pay 80% of scheduled benefits.
This year’s boost also is likely to fuel even more inflation, even as the Federal Reserve has aggressively begun hiking interest rates to offset the existing inflation caused by Democrats’ reckless spending sprees.
The increase is one-size-fits-all, which means beneficiaries get the same raise regardless of where they live or how big a nest egg they may have.
They’re also permanent, and they compound. That means the following year’s percentage increase, whatever it ends up being, will be on top of the new, larger payment beneficiaries get after this most recent raise.
Like the inflation that the increase is intended to address, the new cost-of-living adjustment may be the highest since 1981, when Social Security payments went up by 11.2%.
Automatic annual cost-of-living adjustments didn’t begin for Social Security until 1975, after a law passed in 1972 requiring them.
Last year’s increase of 5.9% was itself the biggest in nearly four decades.
Since 2000, it’s averaged 2.3% as inflation remained remarkably tame through all kinds of economic swings. Since the 2008 financial crisis, the U.S. government has announced zero increases to Social Security benefits three times because inflation was so weak.
Critics, however, say the data the government uses to set the increase doesn’t reflect what older Americans are actually spending, and thus the inflation they’re actually feeling.
The COLA adjustment is tied to a measure of inflation called the CPI-W index, which tracks what kinds of prices are being paid by urban wage earners and clerical workers.
More specifically, the increase is based on how much the CPI-W increases from the summer of one year to the next.
People generally pay more attention to a much broader measure of inflation, the CPI-U index, which covers all urban consumers. That covers 93% of the total U.S. population.
The CPI-W, meanwhile, covers only about 29% of the U.S. population. It has been around longer than the CPI-U, which the government began compiling only after the legislation that required Social Security’s annual increases be linked to inflation.
Some critics have argued for years that Social Security should change to a different measure, one that’s pegged to older people in particular.
Another experimental index, called CPI-E, is supposed to offer a better reflection of how Americans aged 62 and above spend their money. It has historically shown higher rates of inflation for older Americans than the CPI-U or CPI-W, but it has not taken hold. Neither have other measures compiled by organizations outside the government that hope to show how inflation affects older Americans specifically.
Recently, the CPI-E has shown a bit milder inflation than CPI-W or CPI-U.
To calculate the CPI-E, the government pulls from the same survey data used to measure the broad CPI-U. But there are relatively few older households in that data set, meaning it may not be the most accurate.
All indexes give just a rough approximation of what inflation really is. But the more pressing challenge may be that if the government switched to a different index, one that showed higher inflation for older Americans, Social Security would have to pay out higher benefits.
That in turn would mean a faster drain on Social Security’s trust fund, which looks to run empty in a little more than a decade at its current pace.
Through a complicated formula that takes into account several factors, including how much a worker made in their 35 highest-earning years. Generally, those who made more money and those who wait longer to start getting Social Security get larger benefits, up to a point.
This year, the maximum allowed benefit for someone who retired at full retirement age is $3,345 monthly.
“The COLA doesn’t take into account where you live or your actual spending patterns,” said William Arnone, CEO of the National Academy of Social Insurance.
“For some people, it’s an overstatement of cost of living for, say, small towns in the Midwest versus urban areas like New York, D.C. or Chicago,” he continued. “With many older people choosing to live in suburban areas or rural areas, some will benefit more” than others from the same-sized increase.
Thanks. I stand corrected.
Inflation measurement is not an exact science, but it is clearly way above the 8% the government is claiming.
The most reasonable estimates are over 15%.
Anybody who buys groceries or gas knows this.
notice the death "payment" remains at $200....
winings at slot gambling remains at $1200...with inflation, why isn't that amount increased up to $2000 or more?
locally if you are destitute enough you get a little break on your prop taxes....the household can't make more than $40,000 and that figure hasn't changed for a decade....why hasn't it gone up with inflation like my property taxes have.....
"they'll "give" 9% but they'll take 12%.
SS payouts are a ripe off ....I worked until age 67....I paid in for nearly 5 decades....
and people will still say its an entitlement.....not that you personally didn't "donate" so much to it over the yrs.
You did what my original thoughts had been. It takes place
like that each year, so you’re not wrong to think in those
terms.
Some goes up and some goes down a little. We’ll probably
lose out some, but I think it’s better than in other years,
particularly with the COLA going up as much as it is
expected to.
You’re kinder than I am.
This has nothing to do with Biden.
Social Security’s annual COLA is determined by the CPI of the previous fiscal year. Since inflation skyrocketed during that time, the COLA for next year will be higher than usual.
If you care to watch it, the interview I sent you confirms what you say.
“That in turn would mean a faster drain on Social Security’s trust fund, which looks to run empty in a little more than a decade at its current pace.”
‐-—————
Then they need to stop calling it a surplus while using it to fight unnecessary wars.
The shortage only makes sense if it was spent on something other than Social Security. The largest bulk of the people paid into the fund for a very long time. The money should be available to them without a shortage of funds. As the base shrunks, there are fewer people to pay. I presume this Trust Fund pays interest. There is no good reason for a shortage.
And why is this fund tied ot welfare? Welfare is a totally different thing and should have its own trustfund.
There’s entirely too much hanky panky by the .gob with OUR moneys!
Not true this time around. Read that Part B will actually go down about $4.00.
I was thinking the same way. Yes, it will be ~ 9% and that will help. I appreciate the follow up.
They only include certain “items” to come up with the COLA rate. Last years 5.9% was a real shaft job for Seniors.
Thanks. I stand corrected.
How many are going to be pushed into a higher tax bracket and end up getting less?
You know, technically, I agree with your take on that.
I hate to say it, but the Democrats seem to wind up running
so many things these days, as they entrench so well, that I
don’t know what will happen.
If they think it will help Biden to keep the raise lower,
that’s what they’ll do. IF they think it will help to
raise it more, they will do that.
I can see Biden bragging about how much better he treats
SSDI recipients, than Trump was. And sure the raises
seem to indicate that, but then why? How many are going
to grasp the raise this will will probably not cover all
the price hikes to this point, and just ahead.
I know the CPI index is paramount in the calculations,
but I don’t think any of us thinks that would stave off
the calculators doing any darn thing they please.
Overall, I agree with you, but lets just trust and verify
on this one.
Your social security (SS) “tax” you paid in while you were working went to pay the SS retirement benefits of those then retired. To show you I am not making this up. Here’s the SSA.gov link.
You will notice that this graphic begins in 1940. In 1940 there were 159.4 workers covering the benefits for every one worker. In 2013 where the graphic ends you will see that it has shrunk down to 2.8 workers per covered beneficiary. I find it interesting that the chart ends at 2013 - 9 years ago! The current worker per covered ration must be abysmal and they’re afraid to show it!
This ‘sort of works’ as long as there is a significantly larger number paying in. Just like a Ponzi Scheme almost works as long as it keeps its subscriber subscription expanding!
Also, the money you paid in. It’s not yours - no property rights in it! There have been several federal court including USSC decisions confirming that. If you had property rights in UT, you could make it part of your estate. You can’t!
Also, if you live long enough it’s possible to take out far more then you put in! The best example is Ida May Fuller. The news reels of the day declared her the first social security recipient. She has a wiki link.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ida_May_Fuller
Ida May Fuller worked for three years under the Social Security program. The accumulated taxes on her salary during those three years was a total of $24.75. Her initial monthly check was $22.54. During her lifetime she collected a total of $22,888.92 in Social Security benefits.
There have been 10s if not 100s of thousands of Ida May Fullers!
Why was SS set up so ridiculously? Insurance execs and financial experts at the time advised the FDR administration that it was financially unsound. FDR’s geniuses were Ivy League lawyers they weren’t about to take advice. I’ll tell you why! It gives a political whip hand to the Rats to keep them in power - “Don’t touch you GOP’ers you’ll starve grandma!”. A pool of money to dip into as long as the ratios are high to reward cooperating constituent groups.
Marxism has learned to be like the brick layer building a wall. With heated resistance they stop laying bricks for a while. After a bit with associated crying they begin to lay bricks onto the wall slowly, to not arouse too much resistance all at once. If all is quiet, they begin to industriously resume the wall building.
Never. And I do mean Never, do they remove any bricks from the wall.
Okay, we get it.
Why not start by ELIMINATING the federal income TAX on Social Security payments?
Meet the social security “trust fund”:
This is what a long con looks like....
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.