Cuts on SSI/SSDI?

Exactly


Jiro said:
spending power = ability to afford anything within your means based on your income. the higher your income is, the more spending power you have.
Click to expand...
 
Another example of meaning of Spending power, you got X amount of SSI check in Alabama where you live. And you decided to move up next to Jiro's residence and still get same SSI check amount, will you be able to buy everything exact same as when you were in Alabama? I'm sure Jiro knows the answer.
 
diehardbiker said:
Your getting warmer. Im speaking for PERSONAL spending power. SSI back then would be close to 300 dollars, and today is about ten times more expensive to live on, and if that is fact, we should be seeing $3000 SSI check, but it only either doubles or triples that is all.

More and more can't afford nice apartment with SSI checks nowadays than it was back in 1974 which is when SSI started.

And I'm starting to hear people who lives on SS and their primary heat source is Oil, more and more of them are left cold cause they can't afford expensive oil heating like they used to be. There are places that the only way to heat the house is Oil, Propane and wood. For example almost entire state of Maine don't have natural gas pipeline. COLA isn't even include this type of inflation because the cost of natural gas pulls the average way down to make it looks like it is cheap to live on but reality it is not.

I'm speaking for APPLE VS APPLE not Apple VS Orange.

Have you noticed some food packages at supermarket getting smaller but the price is the same, it is one way they inflate the true cost, and it can messed up with COLA calculation.
Click to expand...

$3,000 per month of SSI paycheck - Oh my god and I seriously doubt that our government could afford without extreme tax increase, so however, live on welfare is technically sucks. I have sympathy for some Americans who unable to work at all due to disabilities.

In here, the oil isn't common use for heating so most of them use electricity or natural gas for heating, also we don't have to use much heating as like in northern states.

Last question - yes, especially ice cream, but there are plenty of foods that I remember from 1990's don't have much change, so I only notice is ice cream, but I only see price goes up as package size is same.
 
diehardbiker said:
Another example of meaning of Spending power, you got X amount of SSI check in Alabama where you live. And you decided to move up next to Jiro's residence and still get same SSI check amount, will you be able to buy everything exact same as when you were in Alabama? I'm sure Jiro knows the answer.
Click to expand...

I already done with those - Alabama vs. Washington DC

DC is more expensive to live, especially food prices are about twice or triple cost more than in here and the rent is expensive.

The max SSI is same in most US states, except for California and some states, you can earn more SSI.

Note: I don't have SSI anymore, so it has been for year now.
 
Jiro said:
spending power = ability to afford anything within your means based on your income. the higher your income is, the more spending power you have.
Click to expand...

:ty:
 
diehardbiker said:
Another example of meaning of Spending power, you got X amount of SSI check in Alabama where you live. And you decided to move up next to Jiro's residence and still get same SSI check amount, will you be able to buy everything exact same as when you were in Alabama? I'm sure Jiro knows the answer.
Click to expand...

If you are SSI user in Alabama so you will live in ghetto area with shitty public transportation, or isolated rural with expensive driving, so the life is hard, no matter about how cheap is. The Medicaid in here is abysmal and we are probably number 1 worst Medicaid provider ever due to too fewer doctors accept that. The utility bill, especially water and sewer are very high if you live in Jefferson County because of sewer crisis.
 
Right, but if your in 1974, you won't have any issue finding a nice apartment with SSI money back then. Now, not anymore. How did it happened? It is COLA that is miscalculated and effectively cuts SSI checks over time without anyone even notice.

Foxrac said:
If you are SSI user in Alabama so you will live in ghetto area with shitty public transportation, or isolated rural with expensive driving, so the life is hard, no matter about how cheap is. The Medicaid in here is abysmal and we are probably number 1 worst Medicaid provider ever due to too fewer doctors accept that. The utility bill, especially water and sewer are very high if you live in Jefferson County because of sewer crisis.
Click to expand...
 
diehardbiker said:
Right, but if your in 1974, you won't have any issue finding a nice apartment with SSI money back then. Now, not anymore. How did it happened? It is COLA that is miscalculated and effectively cuts SSI checks over time without anyone even notice.
Click to expand...

Oh really? wow... who is major fault for mess up the SSI?

The public transportation was great in Birmingham until around 1960's/1970's and the big reform went to massive cut on lines and schedules due to lack of riderships, even we had street cars and commuter trains in past, but not anymore.
 
Not just COLA itself, there are also other factors that cause messed up.

I don't trust our government but I love my country.

Foxrac said:
Oh really? wow... who is major fault for mess up the SSI?

The public transportation was great in Birmingham until around 1960's/1970's and the big reform went to massive cut on lines and schedules due to lack of riderships, even we had street cars and commuter trains in past, but not anymore.
Click to expand...
 
diehardbiker said:
Don't forget Fiscal cliff. The COLA information is just an announcement of average cost of living increase. It does not necessarily mean that SS checks will go up by guarantee.

The cuts COULD cancel the COLA increase for January if congress passed them, and could cut them even further.

My point is, there is NO guarantees that it will go up or down and either way will happen. As of right now, no one really knows where we are heading.
Click to expand...
There are two different things.

Freeze means no increases until futher notice.
Cut means an amount reduced.

As for SS benefits, so far the freeze has happened but cuts haven't happened because the law forbids it. Use your fucking common sense.
 
House Republicans release counterproposal in

Check it out what it mentioned, you guessed it! COLA!

$200 billion in changes to the consumer price index and another $300 billion in mandatory spending.

See? They are going to change the COLA formula to hide the real cuts. This is not the first time, and it had happened in the past. Very very stealthy way of cutting entitlement spending/checks without poor people knowing it.
 
The COLA formula which it calculates the cost of living has been changed over time. What that means is that over time for example

X+Y=Z as example as orignal formula

new formula say X+Y-100=Z

So say, if X as 1000 plus Y as 150 would be 1150 as orignal formula which translate to increase of 150

change to new formula as stated above

So say, if X as 1000 plus Y as 150 minus 100 would be 1050 as new formula. See? It is a way for them to cut 100 without anyone even noticed and it translate only 50 as increase with 100 as cuts.

This is just example of a real complex and confusing formula being used to calculate COLA.

And don't ever call me to use fucking common sense! Cause your fucking asshole.




CrazyPaul said:
There are two different things.

Freeze means no increases until futher notice.
Cut means an amount reduced.

As for SS benefits, so far the freeze has happened but cuts haven't happened because the law forbids it. Use your fucking common sense.
Click to expand...
 
diehardbiker said:
House Republicans release counterproposal in

Check it out what it mentioned, you guessed it! COLA!

$200 billion in changes to the consumer price index and another $300 billion in mandatory spending.

See? They are going to change the COLA formula to hide the real cuts. This is not the first time, and it had happened in the past. Very very stealthy way of cutting entitlement spending/checks without poor people knowing it.
Click to expand...

Good luck with senators because they will not clear those proposal.
 
Hey you Crazypaul, a truly an asshole read below in red font!

Its found on
Social Security News

Dec 3, 2012
A Good Summary Of The Fiscal Cliff Situation
From Daniel Gross writing in The Daily Beast:

The reality should be seeping in to viewers of the Sunday shows that the Republicans don’t have a game plan. They don’t have a single, specific proposal to avoid the fiscal cliff. And even if they had one, they don’t have a roadmap to get there. They keep expecting Obama to come back with something more to their liking, which they’d also reject. Many Republicans literally don’t understand what is happening. Sen. Charles Grassley tweeted over the weekend that he was frustrated that President Obama hadn’t embraced the recommendation of the Bowles-Simpson Commission. Apparently, he is one of the many people in Washington who doesn’t understand that Bowles-Simpson recommended letting the Bush tax rates on the wealthy expire, while also proposing to cap or eliminate deductions primarily enjoyed by the wealthy.


Above all, the Republicans have yet to grasp that the field is tilted against them. Republicans have every reason to expect, based on their scouting of past Obama performances, that he will start moving toward them and then, essentially, bargain with himself. But now he doesn’t have to. Right now, the policy choice isn’t between an Obama proposal the Republicans abhor and a preferred Republican proposal. No, the choice is between an Obama proposal the Republicans abhor and the fiscal cliff, which Republicans would like even less and the Democrats could live with for a while.

The Republicans are losing, and time is running out. But instead of putting the quarterback on the field and rolling out an aggressive two-minute drill, they seem to be preparing to punt.

Update: House Speaker Boehner has come up with a "proposal." It would take the sequestration that would cut funding so much that it would render the federal government, including the Social Security Administration, inoperable and increase it by 30%! To quote John McEnroe, "You cannot be serious!"
 
Oh another link
The Social Security System''
========================
Reduce Benefits In-Proportion To Anticipated Payments

If all else fails, the government will have little choice but to reduce benefits. But with people paying a large chunk of their paycheck, the Republicans and Democrats rightfully fear the backlash from the citizens, so this idea will never get past the “thinking” stage.

=========================

See? There is no law against it, they will if they are out of all options. I hope it won't happen but the chances are STILL there.
 
Another reason not to ever cuss at me!

This proves that there is NO such law against cuts. 25% cuts? That is BAD!

I hope they are wrong about 25% cuts but the possibility is there.

Social Security Deficit Could Mean a 25% Benefit Cut

By ERIC PIANIN, The Fiscal Times
October 3, 2012

With little notice in the run-up to tonight’s presidential debate in Colorado, the non-partisan Congressional Budget Office reported on Tuesday that for the second consecutive year, the Social Security trust fund took in less in tax revenue than it paid out in benefits in 2011.

Last year, spending by the federal pension program exceeded dedicated tax revenue by four percent – just as spending outpaced revenues the year before – and that gap is growing fast, according to the report. “As more members of the baby boom generation enter retirement, outlays will increase relative to the size of the economy, whereas tax revenues will remain at an almost constant share of the economy.”

The Fiscal Times FREE Newsletter


That means, for example, that over the next decade, spending will exceed dedicated tax revenues, on average, by about 10 percent. The gap or shortfall will grow larger in the 2020s and will exceed 20 percent of tax revenues by 2030.

Those gap calculations don’t take into account the interest accruing on Social Security assets that when factored in transforms a seeming deficit into a surplus. But the Social Security Administration projects that Social Security will deplete its trust fund in 2033, and that after that, retirees would receive only 75 percent of promised benefits without changes to the system.

There is widespread consensus among policy experts that the long term problem could be fixed relatively easily by tweaking the program in any number of ways, such as boosting the percent of wages covered by the Social Security tax from 83 percent to its formal level of 90 percent, or raising the Social Security tax rate by two percentage points.

Alice Rivlin, the former director of the Congressional Budget Office and a Clinton era budget chief, said earlier this week that “We do need to put Social Security back on a firm foundation for the future.”

“It is really stupid to wait to do that,” Rivlin said during a budget and health care conference sponsored by the Center for Strategic and International Studies. “We need to assure people currently in the labor force and entering into it that Social Security will be there for them and that they can plan around it.”

But tampering with Social Security is a high risk political venture certain to rile older Americans and seniors’ advocacy groups including AARP, and President Obama and Republican presidential nominee Mitt Romney have had little to say about it throughout the campaign.

David Axelrod, Obama’s chief political adviser, said last week that “The reality to Social Security is this is a much less imminent problem than Medicare.”

“We’ve extended the life of Medicare by close to a decade with the changes that Governor Romney wants to repeal. But Social Security is a more distant problem. One that needs a solution, but it isn’t as pressing as the Medicare issue.”

Two weeks ago, however, Obama, in a satellite speech to the AARP convention in Virginia, revived a 2008 campaign proposal to have workers pay Social Security taxes on up to $250,000 of income. At present, only the first $110,000 of income is taxed.

Romney has voiced interest in making changes to the system that would put it on a long term course of sustainability. Earlier this year, he said that for the people who are already retired or 55 years of age and older, nothing changes. But for younger Americans, he said he would raise the retirement age by a year or two and “lower the rate of inflation growth in the benefits received by higher-income recipients and keep the rate as it is now for lower income recipients.”

People with higher earnings pay more in Social Security payroll taxes than do lower-earning participants, and they also receive larger benefits. Because of the progressive nature of Social Security's benefit formula, replacement rates—the amount of annual benefits as a percentage of average annual lifetime earnings—are lower, on average, for workers who have had higher earnings.

Campaigning last week in Florida, home to many retirees, Vice President Joe Biden charged that Republican Mitt Romney’s tax plan would result in higher taxes for Social Security recipients. “Well, if Governor Romney's plan goes into effect, it can mean that everyone — every one of you, would be paying more on — taxes on your Social Security,” Biden said in Boca Raton. “The average senior would have to pay $460 a year more in tax for their Social Security.

Romney has not proposed these higher taxes, and a spokesman said he would not increase taxes on Social Security benefits. But he also hasn’t said precisely how he would offset the cost of his proposed 20 percent across-the-board cut in income-tax rates, which has created an opening for the Obama team to theorize on how he would cover the lost revenue without raising the deficit.
Read more at Social Security Deficit Could Mean a 25% Benefit Cut
 
Back
Top