Community | August 23, 2009 | 13 comments

Millions face shrinking Social Security payments

Image
lordsbassman
WASHINGTON – Millions of older people face shrinking Social Security checks next year, the first time in a generation that payments would not rise.

The trustees who oversee Social Security are projecting there won't be a cost of living adjustment (COLA) for the next two years. That hasn't happened since automatic increases were adopted in 1975.

By law, Social Security benefits cannot go down. Nevertheless, monthly payments would drop for millions of people in the Medicare prescription drug program because the premiums, which often are deducted from Social Security payments, are scheduled to go up slightly.

"I will promise you, they count on that COLA," said Barbara Kennelly, a former Democratic congresswoman from Connecticut who now heads the National Committee to Preserve Social Security and Medicare. "To some people, it might not be a big deal. But to seniors, especially with their health care costs, it is a big deal."

Cost of living adjustments are pegged to inflation, which has been negative this year, largely because energy prices are below 2008 levels.

Advocates say older people still face higher prices because they spend a disproportionate amount of their income on health care, where costs rise faster than inflation. Many also have suffered from declining home values and shrinking stock portfolios just as they are relying on those assets for income.

"For many elderly, they don't feel that inflation is low because their expenses are still going up," said David Certner, legislative policy director for AARP. "Anyone who has savings and investments has seen some serious losses."

About 50 million retired and disabled Americans receive Social Security benefits. The average monthly benefit for retirees is $1,153 this year. All beneficiaries received a 5.8 percent increase in January, the largest since 1982.

More than 32 million people are in the Medicare prescription drug program. Average monthly premiums are set to go from $28 this year to $30 next year, though they vary by plan. About 6 million people in the program have premiums deducted from their monthly Social Security payments, according to the Social Security Administration.

Millions of people with Medicare Part B coverage for doctors' visits also have their premiums deducted from Social Security payments. Part B premiums are expected to rise as well. But under the law, the increase cannot be larger than the increase in Social Security benefits for most recipients.

There is no such hold-harmless provision for drug premiums.

Kennelly's group wants Congress to increase Social Security benefits next year, even though the formula doesn't call for it. She would like to see either a 1 percent increase in monthly payments or a one-time payment of $150.

The cost of a one-time payment, a little less than $8 billion, could be covered by increasing the amount of income subjected to Social Security taxes, Kennelly said. Workers only pay Social Security taxes on the first $106,800 of income, a limit that rises each year with the average national wage.

But the limit only increases if monthly benefits increase.

Critics argue that Social Security recipients shouldn't get an increase when inflation is negative. They note that recipients got a big increase in January — after energy prices had started to fall. They also note that Social Security recipients received one-time $250 payments in the spring as part of the government's economic stimulus package.

Consumer prices are down from 2008 levels, giving Social Security recipients more purchasing power, even if their benefits stay the same, said Andrew G. Biggs, a resident scholar at the American Enterprise Institute, a Washington think tank.

"Seniors may perceive that they are being hurt because there is no COLA, but they are in fact not getting hurt," Biggs said. "Congress has to be able to tell people they are not getting everything they want."

Social Security is also facing long-term financial problems.
  1. groups:
    Community,   Greatest Depression
  2. tags:
    USA Social Security
  3.     
    |

13 comments // Millions face shrinking Social Security payments

  • kennymotown
  • J_Jammer
    • 0
      J_Jammer [removed]  
    • You don't throw more money at idiots that can't spend right.

      You take away money....taxes and their payment for their time. Congress should be paid based on their approval rating.

    • 2 years ago
  • jubal
    • 0
      jubal  
    • What about the 7 Trillion dollars that the Bush Administration borrowed from the Social Security Trust fund? That would surely be enough to cover the meager billions needed.

    • 2 years ago
  • masterzip
    • 0
      masterzip  
    • Social Security payments already shrunk under Bush, not in the form of reduced cash payments, but by way of making everything in the world more expensive.

    • 2 years ago
  • J_Jammer
  • biggranny
  • lordsbassman
  • jh64487
    • 0
      jh64487  
    • Image
    • hiyooooooooo, i know the solution. balance out the money (gasp! socialism!!! nooooooooes!)

      This document presents details on the wealth and income distributions in the United States, and explains how we use these two distributions as power indicators.

      Some of the information might be a surprise to many people. The most amazing numbers come last, showing the change in the ratio of the average CEO's paycheck to that of the average factory worker over the past 40 years.

      First, though, two definitions. Generally speaking, "wealth" is the value of everything a person or family owns, minus any debts. However, for purposes of studying the wealth distribution, economists define wealth in terms of marketable assets, such as real estate, stocks, and bonds, leaving aside consumer durables like cars and household items because they are not as readily converted into cash and are more valuable to their owners for use purposes than they are for resale (Wolff, 2004, p. 4, for a full discussion of these issues). Once the value of all marketable assets is determined, then all debts, such as home mortgages and credit card debts, are subtracted, which yields a person's net worth. In addition, economists use the concept of financial wealth, which is defined as net worth minus net equity in owner-occupied housing. As Wolff (2004, p. 5) explains, "Financial wealth is a more 'liquid' concept than marketable wealth, since one's home is difficult to convert into cash in the short term. It thus reflects the resources that may be immediately available for consumption or various forms of investments."

      We also need to distinguish wealth from income. Income is what people earn from wages, dividends, interest, and any rents or royalties that are paid to them on properties they own. In theory, those who own a great deal of wealth may or may not have high incomes, depending on the returns they receive from their wealth, but in reality those at the very top of the wealth distribution usually have the most income.

    • 2 years ago
  • jh64487
    • 0
      jh64487  
    • wait um...shrinking...or simply not rising.

      and...yea, duh...were kinda in a financial crisis in case ya'll haven't noticed.

      i wonder if the same people concerned about this have been voicing their frustration over the creeping rise in minimum wage, which has totally failed to keep up with costs of living etc etc etc.

      i have an idea...let's friggin tax companies and wealthy people and make sure they aren't hiding money overseas (cause apparently, and i for one am shocked beyond words, they do that)

    • 2 years ago
  • GodsnLiberals
    • GodsnLiberals  
    • This comment was removed as a violation of community guidelines.
  • tbowman131
  • jh64487
  • tbowman131
    • 0
      tbowman131  
    • most misleading picture ever. the caption:

      "President Obama talks about the Afghan elections Friday, Aug. 21st, 2009, outside the White..."

      Obama has NOTHING to do with this article...

    • 2 years ago
  • GodsnLiberals
  • ProjectBat
    • 0
      ProjectBat  
    • Social Security is the prime example of why I am looking at health care reform very cautiously. It's always the seemingly nice option, the safe option, the one that allows us to take care of ourselves through the government's help, but at the end of the day, the government can't run anything with near the efficiency or skill of a private enterprise. It's hard to get rid of and just a SS has become a massive burden on the state while giving out a poor quality of life, it is not foolish at all to think the same couldn't happen to health care.

    • 2 years ago
  • Ihatethemall
    • 0
      Ihatethemall  
    • Looks like the government sure knows how to run social programs to me. I don't blame Obama for this. I blame the entire government. They can't run anything succesful.

      When the feds are broke, the cities are going broke, states are going broke, services are being cut on all levels. Why would anyone want the GOV to take on more resposibility? haven't they proved to you that when the government gets involved with something fraud, waste and corruption are the norm.

    • 2 years ago
more from Community:

top videos