* Nick Arnett ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote: > Dan Minette wrote: > > >I think he got that from: > > > ><quote> > > > >>If so, why do we need to continue increasing the cost cost of future > >>social security payments faster than cost of living increases? > > > > > >Who says we do? We haven't in the past. > > Perhaps I don't know what Erik meant in that sentence above. Here's > how I read it: Why is it imperative that going forward, Social > Security benefits must rise more quickly than the cost of living. > E.g., if the cost of living goes up 10 percent, then Social Security > benefits must go up more than 10 percent. If that's not it, I'd > appreciate clarification.
The benefit formula has been indexed to wages for years. It only slows down to inflation after retirement. Roughly, people work for 40 years and collect benefits for 15 - 20 years. So must of the time the benefits are increasing with wages. Wages have historically increased 1.5% to 2% faster than cost of living. Social security benefits have increased almost as fast as wages, and much faster than inflation. They are set to do so in the future as long as no changes are made to the law. Nick wrote: "We haven't [increased social security payments faster than cost of living] in the past". Dead wrong. -- Erik Reuter http://www.erikreuter.net/ _______________________________________________ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
