You must be registered to comment and vote on comments.
Pay attention to your next Social Security income, whether you get a check or an electronic deposit....note what it is now called...see below...
SOCIAL SECURITY IS NOW CALLED 'FEDERAL BENEFIT PAYMENT'/ENTITLEMENT!
Funny how the Dems are concerned about something that a lot of folks depend on and who might struggle without.
Then there are the Pubs, more interested in protecting something that folks in the 1% want, even though there is no doubt they won't struggle should they have to pay more taxes.
Funny how that works.
Exactly right, Guppy35! It's protecting a program that many older people and disabled people absolutely need versus giving some of the world's lowest-taxed millionaires still another tax break.
Liberals have no problems changing , tweaking social security as long as it increases payouts and weakens the entire pool. Try to make a change to the involuntary supplement retirement program to try to strengthen it and they cry bloody murder!
(article quote): A "chained" consumer price index takes into account the fact that people are likely to substitute cheaper goods for more expensive ones as prices shift, and many economists argue it is a more effective measure of inflation. ---- Shoot. They figured it out... Instead of a Bentley, I'll have to use my fixed income to buy a BMW instead. Might even have to sell the Minnetonka lakeshore second home! And, what cheaper goods are there to replace milk and bread? Water and dryer screen lint? It must be so difficult to be wealthy and able to live off of interest leechings (ie no real working at all). Run this "chained" example the reverse way: Is that your Maserati in front of the store? OK. That gallon of milk you want is now $150. Find something cheaper if you don't like that fact.
Many people believe that Social Security is an “earned right.” That is, they think that because they have paid Social Security taxes, they are entitled to receive Social Security benefits. The government encourages that belief by referring to Social Security taxes as “contributions,” as in the Federal Insurance Contribution Act. However, in the 1960 case of Fleming v. Nestor, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that workers have no legally binding contractual rights to their Social Security benefits, and that those benefits can be cut or even eliminated at any time.
Court Opinion......“To engraft upon the Social Security system a concept of ‘accrued property rights’ would deprive it of the flexibility and boldness in adjustment to ever changing conditions which it demands.” It is apparent that the non-contractual interest of an employee covered by the [Social Security] Act cannot be soundly analogized to that of the holder of an annuity, whose right to benefits is bottomed on his contractual premium payments.”
Social Security is not an insurance program at all. It is simply a payroll tax on one side and a welfare program on the other. Your Social Security benefits are always subject to the whim of 535 politicians in Washington. Congress has cut Social Security benefits in the past and is likely to do so in the future.
Funny how honestly accounting for inflation is now considered a concession.
Last time I looked, there was a separate line on my paycheck deducting for Social Security. There is none for oil company subsidies, agriculture subsidies, war financing or even defense spending. I realize Social Security funds were spent on the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq and profligate defense spending, and that now that it's time to pay it back, Republicans don't want to, but I hope enough Congressmen believe in paying their debts and stop using Social Security to balance out their irresponsible spending.
Social Security was set up after the banks went bust in the '30s wiping out the life savings of millions. It is a savings account guaranteed by the "full faith and credit of the United States." The GOP has been trying to discredit & dismantle it ever since. To that end they have destroyed faith and credit.
Liberals do not like it, but recalculating the cost-of-living adjustments in Social Security benefits is part of the talks over the year-end fiscal cliff. ********** What is wrong with recalculating the cost-of-living adjustments? I also believe they should increase the age requirement, and cut out the waste. If nothing is done than you can bet that when those that are in their 30’s and 40’s will not see a dime of Social Security.
Your comment is being reviewed for inclusion on the site.
Comments will be reviewed before being published.
425 Portland Av. S.
Minneapolis, MN 55488
© 2013 StarTribune. All rights reserved.
StarTribune.com is powered by Limelight Networks