Feb 16, 2013

Democrats In House Oppose Chained CPI

     From a press release issued yesterday:
107 House Democrats, a majority of Democrats in the House of Representatives, wrote President Obama today, urging him to reject any proposals to cut benefits millions of American families depend upon through Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security. The letter was led by Rep. Jan Schakowsky (D-IL),Congressional Progressive Caucus Co-Chairs Reps. Keith Ellison (D-MN) and Raúl M. Grijalva (D-AZ), Rep. John Conyers (D-MI), and Rep Donna Edwards (D-MD).
The Members specifically singled out “Chained CPI”—a proposal to reduce Social Security benefits by changing the way inflation is calculated—and raising the Medicare retirement age as policies they oppose. ...

6 comments:

Victor Bobier said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Victor Bobier said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Victor Bobier said...

Of course Chained CPI would only reduce benefits, not reduce or eliminate the current budget deficit, since Social Security is self funding through Payroll Taxes and before the Reagan Administration existed, there was No Danger of bothering the budget. About 30 years from now Social Security is expected to have a short fall, that's another reason for the Payroll Tax Cap, so that Benefits have to be reduced, so that Social Security will look like it would be worse than being Privatized like George Bush and Rep Paul Ryan(Republican) still want, Wall Street wants all that hoarded money to play with and spend like crazy. The payroll tax cap is not needed and never was needed as it was all a long term con job on the American People, so repeal the Payroll Tax Cap which is also a Tax Cut for the Wealthy disguised as something to fix Social Security, which was not broken before Reagan became POTUS, that was invented by Republicans who still wish Social Securities ultimate repeal and abolition...

Max Abilify said...

Victor,

Nothing but partisan claptrap. Your hatred of Republicans is matched by your ignorance of history. First, chained CPI would not reduce Social Security benefits, but reduce future increases in benefits. The effect on an indivudual is so small that advocates against chained CPI have to posit the cumulative effect on a beneficiary who will live to age95 for dramatic effect. Second, there has always been a cap on the amount of wages subject to FICA contributions. The cap had been $3600. for years, slowly increasing over the first forty years of the program. The cap increased dramatically in the late 1970's due to double-digit inflation, and has continued to increase since then.

Victor Bobier said...

One I have concentration problems being disabled since I get SSI, so leaving a word or two or a sentence not typed like I wanted made for a few edits, notice the 3 deletions? Those are all mine. As to Chained CPI, I get the current COLA and it is inadequate, If You got SSI, SSDI or SS You'd know this for a fact, but then the benefits are inadequate now, especially SSI and please don't say the benefits are lavish and that they need to be cut, as You would not know from experience like I do about this, but then $710 a month from SSI is fairly small and it sure isn't lavish or extravagant in the least either, maybe it's time to end the cap. I did find this quote:

In 1983, a commission headed by future Federal Reserve Board chairman Alan Greenspan reached a bipartisan compromise that was soon signed by President Ronald Reagan. It saved Social Security for the Greatest Generation just as those Americans were entering retirement. The deal gradually raised the payroll tax rate, indexed the ceiling on income subject to taxation, and lifted the retirement age to 67 – but not until the middle part of the Baby Boom was scheduled to enter its golden years.

The deal was a spectacular success. Not only did it save Social Security for the World War II generation, by the end of the 1990s Social Security was generating huge surpluses for the government, which continue to this day. Alas, the income tax cuts enacted in 2001 and 2003 sent that money (and more) back out the door.

A least-noted aspect of that ’83 plan had to do with the level of wages subject to taxation. The cap was designed to hit about 90 percent of all wage and salary income (interest, dividends and capital gains are not subject to the payroll tax). The architects of the compromise calculated the revenue would be sufficient to maintain the system for the next 75 years, or to 2058. That was about the time when the last of the 77 million Baby Boomers would be lowered to a place where they could no longer draw benefits.

But a funny thing happened on the way to the future. Though the cap rose with inflation, the total amount of wages subject to the tax did not. As more and more of the total income pie went to high earners, less and less of total wages wound up being taxed.

http://www.thefiscaltimes.com/Blogs/Gooz-News/2011/04/22/Gooz-News-Inside-the-Social-Security-Wage-Cap-Issue.aspx

Don Levit said...

Victor wrote: About 30 years from now, Social Security is expected to have a shortfall.
Incorrect. It has had a cash shortfall since 2010.
Go to the Social Security Administration itsaelf at http://www.ssa.gov/OACT/ProgData/allOps.html.
Don Levit