Is this a joke: 20 years?

[ProSense]

Robert Greenstein

The Chained CPI: A Response to Robert Kuttner

The President’s decision to include, in his latest “fiscal cliff” offer to House Speaker John Boehner, a proposal to use the “chained Consumer Price Index” in calculating both annual cost-of-living adjustments in Social Security and other benefits and annual inflation adjustments to various features of the tax code (such as the incomes at which tax brackets begin and end) is eliciting dismay among many progressives.

At CBPP, we have long been open to such a change if, and only if, the tax savings are devoted entirely to deficit reduction (not to financing other tax cuts) and the benefit change includes protections for poor and very old beneficiaries. The details on the Administration’s proposal are not yet available and, until they are, we’re withholding judgment on it.

<...>

But, the average cut isn’t 3 percent per year. It’s three-tenths of 1 percentage point per year (0.3 percent), according to the Social Security actuaries, or one-tenth what Kuttner assumed. And according to the Congressional Budget Office, the average reduction would be a bit smaller than that — 0.25 percent per year.

To be sure, the benefit loss would cumulate over time; after 20 years, it would represent a benefit cut of about 5 to 6 percent. But, the proposal also appears to include a benefit increase after about 20 years that’s equal to 5 percent of the average Social Security benefit, returning the benefit level at that point to close what it would be under current law. (It would begin to slowly erode again after that.)

In short, this proposal would affect beneficiaries. But the benefit reduction is much smaller than Kuttner portrays it.

- more -

http://www.offthechartsblog.org/the-chained-cpi-a-response-to-robert-kuttner/

Let's look at the facts and do the math.

Fact: It's a benefits cut.

For the first 20 years, seniors lose about 5 percent to 6 percent of their benefits.

After 20 years, they get an increase equal to about 5 percent of the average Social Security benefit.

Claim: "the benefit reduction is much smaller" than being portrayed.

OK, Greenstein is making the case that the cuts are offset by the increase.

Great. You retire a 65. You get less benefits until you're 85. At that point, you get an increase.

People are living longer, right?

Is this a joke? Twenty fucking years?

You suffer benefits cuts for most of your retirement, including the healthiest years, and are supposed to be thrilled that you get an increase at 85 (if you live that long)?

WTF? WTF?

At the WH press briefing, Jay Carney insisted: "The President didn’t put it (Social Security) on the table. This is something that Republicans want."

President Obama and Nancy Pelosi seem to not understand that we don't give a shit about what Republicans want.

If, as Carney stated, this was brought to the table by Republicans, why are Obama and Pelosi trying to sell this crap in the face of strong opposition. No one wants this. No one.

[99Forever]

1. Proud to K&R this.

[RKP5637]

2. And to add to the pain of this many of us have lost our company retirement accounts, if we

even ever had one ... and for others the 401 k's have lost a lot. ... but, not to worry, there are just thousands upon thousands of jobs just laying around for those that want them 'till they're 85. I want some of what they're smoking, it must be pretty good stuff.

[monmouth3]

3. Well I'll surely be dead by then, I just hope it's by natural causes and not starvation..n/t

[Tom Rinaldo]

4. Excellent post, Thank You. K&R n/t

[mother earth]

5. Let's just make this easy, kill off all those ready to qualify for their SS "benefit". All the l%

really needs are the laborers. Why waste profit & subsidies for the job creators, the wealthy need it more than the old & frail.
Get rid of the old and frail, what are they good for anyway?

[Hydra]

13. This is how I see it

And try to get help if you're disabled or very ill.

The US seems to be adopting a plan of "Work your ass off to survive, or hurry up and die!"

[mother earth]

17. Exactly. If you can't make profits for the master, you worth is zero...the new slavery.

[geckosfeet]

43. It's called debt bondage. Nothing new, but it did go out of fashion here for about 150 years.

It's on the fast track to revival.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1016&pid=49255

Those rich folks need to keep 1000 lifetimes worth of resources tied up.

[Curmudgeoness]

27. Sadly, I don't think you know how close you are to the truth.

I really believe that this is the way the 1% think of us.

[mother earth]

62. Without a doubt. nt

[bobhuntsman]

32. soylent green?

[nadinbrzezinski]

6. When they lose Prosense!!!!

This will cost the dems in 2014.

[jsr]

10. No kidding.

[freshwest]

14. In 2014, Tea Party 2 privatizes Social Security! And our dreams will come true!

[JDPriestly]

49. Obama's "compromise" is putting us on the road to privatization of everything.

There will be no government left except the police and the military -- and they will be maintained by the rich in order to keep us in line until we die.

[freshwest]

52. Lack of involvement on the state level by people who don't want that, is doing it.

Last edited Thu Dec 20, 2012, 02:11 PM - Edit history (1)

And a boatlaod of profiteers in every state who do want privatization is doing that. They don't need Obama to do that for them.

They want it because they are getting the lifestyle they feel they deserve off it and those are the people I see in local politics that have nothing to do with Obama but he's facing their officials.

He's no socialist, more's the pity, but too many people have taken the social safety net and the commons for granted and not been involved. They have left the work of managing them tp fall into the hands of those in their states who make money off hollowing out the commons.

They have convinced the voters it's a great thing. We have not done so. Obama has only gone for the most generic principles to keep people alive and to keep the plutocrats from taking it all as they planned this year.

Support what is working, keep on agitating, but the knee jerk anti-Obama screeds won't change anything at all. It's much bigger than him.

[99Forever]

57. Yep...

.. blame the people getting fucked over, instead of those doing it.

Perfect.

[villager]

22. Jeez, I know. Akin to LBJ losing Cronkite on the Vietnam War!

[a2liberal]

30. Woah

I didn't notice the name on the post until you pointed it out... that is pretty incredible

[druidity33]

63. And how many times has Prosense said...

"he would never do that"?

When have we seen Prosense say... "I was wrong, Obama is not looking out for us here"?

[jsr]

7. Excellent explanation.

[pscot]

8. K&R

[Honeycombe8]

9. The elephant in the room: WHY have the CPI in the deal AT ALL? Whether it's large or small. nt

[doc03]

11. The SS actuary tables calculate the average retiree will live to 77

years old. So I will be 65 next April and if this goes into effect next year I will receive an increase when I am 85, 8 years after I am supposed to be dead.

[Lone_Star_Dem]

12. Average life expectancy is 78.5 years

Sure, life expectancy is rising, but not that fast. There's no way it's going to be anywhere near 85 in the next 20 years. So most people will be dead before they see that 5% increase.

[me b zola]

24. Life expectancy is lowering for the impoverished and middle class

It is only raising for the wealthy.

[Lone_Star_Dem]

42. That's another excellent point.

Basically, only a handful will survive to see their 5% increase at 85.

Also, if a person is born after 1959 they cannot retire with full benifits until they reach 67. Which puts their age for this "boon" at 87 years of age. What percentage of people live to 87 in the us?

[me b zola]

58. I don't know

...but i'm fairly certain that I won't live to be 87.

[Blanks]

15. Did you sign the white house petition?

I'm guessing that you didn't. I was signature #2619. There is still a lot more signatures needed.

You shouldn't complain until after you've signed.

[ProSense]

18. Any reason

"I'm guessing that you didn't."

...why?

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022017843

[Blanks]

28. Sorry, I wasn't really addressing you necessarily...

Even though it appears as though I am. I've been reading all of these threads about the SS reduction and then when I signed and I saw that there were so few names...

I was just kind of 'biting the asses' of those who were complaining and not signing.

[JDPriestly]

50. That petition asks for a lot of personal information.

[Blanks]

60. It asks for an email address and a zip code in order to create an account.

That doesn't seem like a lot of personal information to me.

[PA Democrat]

19. Actually, I think Prosense co-authored the petition with Manny.

I have had my share of disagreements with Prosense in the past, but she has been fighting the good fight on this issue.

[nadinbrzezinski]

20. She and Manny wrote it

Tough hombre

[Auntie Bush]

16. Well, Fugg that...I'll be dead in 20 years.

I need everything possible right now!

[Autumn]

21. You think they don't know that? This is their way of stealing those copper pennies off

of your eyes on your dead corpse.

[Uncle Joe]

51. As the American Eagle flies overhead into a rainbow.

[hifiguy]

23. Fuck the Repukes and "what they want"

Those miserable ratfuckers should be tarred, feathered and ridden out of town on the next rail.

[AzDar]

25. K & R

[Ineeda]

26. I'm no math whiz, so I need help here.

Let's say the amount of SS I collect in a month is $1500. That's $18000 a year. And if the CPI factors in at .25% a year (a quarter of a percent) that means I don't get an increase, annually, of $45.00, or $3.75 a month. Now, I don't want to lose ANYTHING in my SS payment, certainly not considering the whole one percenters and the bank bail-out scam and so forth. But if my math is correct, is this a tempest in a teapot? And no, I also don't care what rethuglicans want or think.
Please don't flame me. I'm asking a sincere question.

[ProSense]

34. Whatever it is,

it adds up over 20 years. You also have to consider the lost value and the tax increases, and what for: Preserving tax cuts for people earning $250,000 to $400,000.

[Ineeda]

36. Thank you for your polite reply. This I agree with.

And I totally get that it's (to coin a phrase) the principle, not the amount. And again, I am against this. I want, if anything relating to SS is 'on the table', it's to remove the cap. I want tax rates to go up on everyone making over $250K. I want tax reform so that wealthy people and corporations can't get away with the obscene tricks they've been getting away with for years.

But in reality, the actual dollar amount will not send us all running to the cat food aisle. Not even when adding it up over 20 years. So I don't appreciate the fear-factor being used. That a rethug tactic.

[rurallib]

29. looks like the stupid of Republican math is catching on

soon Democrats will be standing up for creationism.

[Bohunk68]

31. I could go for $1500/mo

right now, it's only $799 and goes to $813 in January. Whooooopeeeee. If DOMA was not reality, I would have been able to add my deceased partner's portion difference. That's one reason why repeal is necessary. This shit, though, is just not acceptable. I'll wait and see, but not pleased.

I'm surprised the Obamanauts haven't popped out with THE LIST yet.

[Blanks]

33. The issue isn't the amount of the cut IMHO.

The issue is that they are even looking at cutting at all while there is still a cap.

They want to make sure it has the money; apply the tax to capital gains. Raise the payroll deduction up to $1 million. Why we're pinching pennies when there is a completely untapped source of revenue makes no sense.

The president ran a campaign that said they were gonna raise taxes; raise some taxes.

[bobhuntsman]

35. we don't give a shit about what Republicans want.

how much simpler could it be?

put it in large caps, boldface, underlined. . .EVERYWHERE!!

[hay rick]

37. Welcome to the dark side.

Last edited Wed Dec 19, 2012, 11:48 PM - Edit history (1)

K&R. It is what it is.

[In Truth We Trust]

38. is there no sense of decency? Damn!

[tiredtoo]

39. Some discussion here about how small the benefit cuts are.

Well, my most recent increase in SS was immediately used up to pay additional insurance premiums and increased cost of prescriptions. We do not want any cuts we want an increase in cola !
Actually the increase in insurance premiums and prescription drug premiums are greater then the increase in SS. This leaves me with less money for Oreos and other important items. Damn, this sucks !

[Hissyspit]

40. This is a ProSense post?

I'm confused.

Seriously though, why are we talking about Social Security? (Rhetorical)

[MotherPetrie]

41. K&R

[renie408]

44. The problem isn't US not giving a shit about what THEY want.

The problem is THEM not giving a shit about what WE want.

See, they have a pretty good hold on the House. Yeah, we have a slight advantage in the Senate and the WH, but in this fight they are wielding the much larger stick.

Why is it that everybody frames this whole thing like it is all Obama's to just give away...like he is holding all the cards? Cause he really isn't. It is easy to screech about how we should just GO OVER THE CLIFF.

Let me ask you this...if you don't have a job NOW from which to contribute to SS, how much does THAT hurt how much you get back after you retire??

[rosesaylavee]

45. No deal.

Let the Republicans stew in their own mess. Off the cliff with them.

[Blue_In_AK]

46. Thank you, ProSense

I'll be 86 in 20 years. I plan to celebrate when I get that money back. Pfft.

[defacto7]

47. Just leave it!

Leave SS alone. It's not enough to make a difference in the long run. It's just a GOP face lift.

[NashvilleLefty]

48. As one who is close to retirement age, can we be honest?

I don't really care how the Inflation Increase is calculated, because it's fucked up to begin with. For one thing, it's based on a single quarter. Plus, it's retroactive. The price index goes up, and THEN benefits increase which means that Seniors pay the higher prices and later get benefits increases, which means they pay the higher prices and only later does their benefits rise to meet the prices they have already paid.

In some cases, they get no increase because the 3rd quarter went down, even though every other quarter went up.

So, seniors are fucked no matter which calculation is used.

[michigandem58]

53. The precedent is what bothers me

If I knew this would be coupled with some very healthy tax increases for the wealthy (pre-Regan levels) and serious defense cuts - and it would solve the deficit long term - I'd swallow hard and support it.

But whatever package we come up with, it's just step one in solving the deficit. And we've opened the door to more at the next round.

[Romulox]

54. We've been told for *years* that the SS funding shortfall for younger workers is "no big deal".

I guess that theory now gets put to the test?

[WilliamPitt]

55. Where am I?

This is a ProSense post?

K&R.

[coalition_unwilling]

56. Cue "Twilight Zone" theme :) - n/t

[whatchamacallit]

59. All for show

don't be fooled.

[Melinda]

61. And it's official; Hell has frozen over.

Is this a homage, a play on 12/21/12, a

kind of post?

Or, who are you and what have you done with the real ProSense?

[truebluegreen]

64. "People are living longer, right?" Not exactly.

Rich people are living longer. Poor people are not. In fact, I think some have actually lost ground.

And our Best-Government-That-Money-Can-Buy wants us to climb on this bandwagon?

Evidently someone wants this...but we wanted a Democrat(s). Let's make them act like Democrats.

[idwiyo]

65. I am sure it's that multi-dimensional chess game, or something.

And you are not even remotely smart enough to understand such a great move.




PS is this post really posted by ProSense or was this account hacked by someone from the left?