----- Original Message ----- From: "Nick Arnett" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "Killer Bs Discussion" <[email protected]> Sent: Friday, February 18, 2005 12:56 PM Subject: Re: Real cost of living (was Social Security reform)
> Dan Minette wrote: > > > That's true, but the initial benefits are not based on COLA. > > Wasn't the subject at hand the *increases* in benefits? > > Are you guys talking about increases in initial benefits only, not COLAs? The "Primary Insurance > Amounts?" > > Then Erik is right, but in only one sense. Benefits have been increasing in line with the rising > standard of living -- that's what the wage index does. It's not as if the current formula results > in needy folks enjoying a standard of living that rises faster than anyone else's. Far from it, > even ignoring the unfair basis of the COLAs. And with longer lives, the total benefits increase as a fraction of GDP. We are not only spending more money supporting the elderly every year, but that number is rising faster than the GDP...even factoring out the demographic buldge. > Tell me, if you're a retiree and you can't afford to enjoy the same increases in standard of living > as your neighbors, have your benefits really "increased?" Yes, you are better off. People still stuck below the poverty line are not. > If you're supporting the switch from wage-based indexing to price-based indexing, then you're > advocating freezing retiree's standard of living at the point they retire. It is a plan that says > that once you retire, you no longer get to benefit from overall economic growth. Sounds *terribly* > "fair" -- you're no longer contributing, so it's okay to leave you where you are. The alternative is to tax workers more and more each year to give to the retirees. Given the fact people are living longer now and are also living active lives longer now, and have more expensive medical procedures considered standard, we will soon be talking about elderly benefits reaching 10% of GDP....unless modifications are done. Remember, you and I are looking at _being_ the elderly in 15-20 years, while we are looking at our children's generation and the generation after that being taxed for our lifestyle. At what level do we say, if I want more money, then I'll consult a day a week or so. > Now we have a society in which the working > people can afford lots of butter, but the neediest can't afford any more than they could when they > were working. That won't do -- it is only "fair" in the greediest sense, and shows no compassion or > mercy toward the neediest. The poverty rate for >65 in 2003 was 10.2%. The poverty rate for 18-64 was 10.8%. The poverty rate for under 18 was 17.6%. The elderly are not the poor, the children are. If my wife and I want more than about 40k/year in income, I think it is very reasonable to expect me to 1) have a 401k and/or 2) work some past age 66. > I will support a plan that recognizes that there is no such thing as a non-participant, that > retirement or disability doesn't mean we forget you helped build the foundation of today's economy. Yes, you and I definitely helped build tomorrow's economy. I have no shame in receiving Social Security. But, there is a limit on how much I feel I can ask of my kids to support me in turn. Further, even if I don't have grandchildren, I don't want to pass on a big burden to that generation. Dan M. _______________________________________________ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
