# SS Increase - is that all it is?



## Micheal (Jan 28, 2009)

Well, they announced yesterday that those on SS will be getting a 1.7 percent increase come January.....
According to those that keep track it amounts to an AVERAGE of bout 20 bucks per individual.

Wow! guess it's better than nothing?


----------



## Belfrybat (Feb 21, 2003)

Yes, it is a lot better than nothing, and I for one, am glad it is as large as it is. Mine should be around $19.00, and that buys a lot -- a half a tank of gas, or a week's worth of vegetables, or a week's worth of electricity, or 20 cans of Chef Boyardee ravioli -- almost a whole month's worth!!! The latter is a terrible addiction of mine.


----------



## MoonShadows (Jan 11, 2014)

Hey...1.7 increase is better than any raise I've received at work in the past few years...and, we have a union!


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

Micheal said:


> Well, they announced yesterday that those on SS will be getting a 1.7 percent increase come January.....
> According to those that keep track it amounts to an AVERAGE of bout 20 bucks per individual.
> 
> Wow! guess it's better than nothing?


I'm guessing that inflation is more like 7%. Yes, 1.7% is better than nothing but we need to make this up sooner or later.


----------



## Janis R (Jun 27, 2013)

Last time SS gave us a raise my husband was $2.00 over the limit to receive assistance for his meds, lost food stamps.


----------



## sisterpine (May 9, 2004)

Some good some bad news.....just like life huh.


----------



## Darren (May 10, 2002)

Face it. If the feds admitted what the real inflation rate was, Congress would have a big problem on their hands. Over the years they've become really good at sweeping inconvenient things under the rug. Works for them. Doesn't work for us. It's pretty obvious the governed don't count.


----------



## 1shotwade (Jul 9, 2013)

last year it was only 1.3% BUT, the year before was 4%.Every little bit helps!

Wade


----------



## Belfrybat (Feb 21, 2003)

1shotwade said:


> last year it was only 1.3% BUT, the year before was 4%.Every little bit helps!
> 
> Wade


And there was nothing the two years prior to the large increase. So, would we rather have 1.7% or nothing?


----------



## mnn2501 (Apr 2, 2008)

*Why the official government inflation rate is completely bogus:*



> The all-items inflation rate represents everything people spend money on: haircuts, plane tickets, medical care, clothes -- you name it. But, that number is puffed up by the pesky necessities -- *food and energy.* *So those two categories are discarded when calculating the core inflation rate.*


and


> Food prices increased at nearly twice the rate of core inflation over the past year, rising 1.8 percent compared to the core inflation rate of 1 percent for the year ending in January.
> 
> But that's nothing compared to fuel costs. "The big culprit has been energy prices, which are up 7.3 percent" over the same time frame.


emphasis mine

from: http://www.bankrate.com/finance/personal-finance/is-inflation-higher-than-you-think-1.aspx


----------



## ceresone (Oct 7, 2005)

Seniors get a 1.7% raise, just enough to cut help on med's, etc. Then, last night on the news, I saw Pasta had raised prices by 7%-and--this is only one item.
Frankly, most of us would have been better without a raise!


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

ceresone said:


> Seniors get a 1.7% raise, just enough to cut help on med's, etc. Then, last night on the news, I saw Pasta had raised prices by 7%-and--this is only one item.
> Frankly, most of us would have been better without a raise!


We're not going to be able to avoid inflation. The government needs it to dwarf debt. Our only hope is that we get enough raises to keep our heads above water. If inflation is inevitable then raises are a good thing.


----------



## haley1 (Aug 15, 2012)

Like moon said, more then we are getting in the working world. 
For the last 40 years there has been talk of ss going under and everyone should save up for retirement. Why don't people save up more? Why do some retires still have mortgages?


----------



## Nate_in_IN (Apr 5, 2013)

That's odd. The amount taken FROM my paycheck has gone up 12.4%.


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

haley1 said:


> Like moon said, more then we are getting in the working world.
> For the last 40 years there has been talk of ss going under and everyone should save up for retirement. Why don't people save up more? Why do some retires still have mortgages?


It's not easy to convince people in their 20s & 30s that retirement is ever going to happen.


----------



## haley1 (Aug 15, 2012)

Nevada said:


> It's not easy to convince people in their 20s & 30s that retirement is ever going to happen.



I'm glad my parents taught us to when we were young, guess lots of this again comes to parenting.... or kids not listening

My parents are in late 70's and early 80's and still have 3 acres of garden and make over 20k a year selling at farmers market...... and complain they saved up to much for retirement because they have to cash out investments when they don't want to to avoid penalties 

I want them to take more trips and spend it and enjoy themselves


----------



## ET1 SS (Oct 22, 2005)

I dont pay into Income taxes, so I guess I am fortunate. [my pension is not large enough to be taxed] 

Fortunately I have found that my pension, though being small enough to not be taxed, is enough to support a family [so far]. So I can not complain.

Gardening helps.


----------



## ceresone (Oct 7, 2005)

And--it's impossible to predict accident's-and cancer-which devastates savings FAST!


----------



## ET1 SS (Oct 22, 2005)

ceresone said:


> And--it's impossible to predict accident's-and cancer-which devastates savings FAST!


Good point. 

I just had prostate surgery on the 14th of October. From the first blood test that indicated an issue, through all the scans, biopsies, surgery and hospital stay, beginning to end it took 10-weeks. So far only the first co-pay bill has arrived.

I suspect there to be many bills arriving in the next few weeks.


----------



## Bentley (Jul 10, 2008)

ET1 SS said:


> Good point.
> 
> I just had prostate surgery on the 14th of October. From the first blood test that indicated an issue, through all the scans, biopsies, surgery and hospital stay, beginning to end it took 10-weeks. So far only the first co-pay bill has arrived.
> 
> I suspect there to be many bills arriving in the next few weeks.


ET1 SS, sorry to read about your PCa. I went through the same thing in 2010. Interesting thing was that my psa was still low at 3.07. But it had gone up slightly so I was uncomfortable with my family docs recommendation to wait another year. Went to see my Uro, who did " the" finger exam and felt a nodule. The rest is history...biopsy.." You've got an aggressive cancer sir". Surgery to remove the Prostate. Pathology confirmed a Gleason 9.... Dang it! Anyway, 2010 through 2012 was spent doing Lupron hormone therapy. So far my psa has been non detect. Thank the Lord!

What was your gleason and psa? Was your Cancer contained in the prostate ? 

Hope you are doing well. If you want to read about other fellows situations check out www.healingwell.com. Go to forums, then choose Prostate cancer, and then there is tons of posts to read.

Good luck


----------



## ET1 SS (Oct 22, 2005)

Bentley said:


> ... What was your gleason and psa? Was your Cancer contained in the prostate ?


My PSA was 22, I had a gleason of 9. The post-op pathology says that the cancer was completely contained within the prostate.


May God bless you.


----------



## Bentley (Jul 10, 2008)

ET1 SS said:


> My PSA was 22, I had a gleason of 9. The post-op pathology says that the cancer was completely contained within the prostate.
> 
> May God bless you.


DANG!!! I'm sure you realize how unusual that is. With those numbers, it is remarkable for it to be contained. Gleason 9 is very aggressive. You caught it just in time...another year, and your results might have been very different. I hope your Uro is checking your psa often. Did you have any adjuvant treatment like hormone therapy or radiation?

And thank you...God bless you as well. After my initial biopsy, my Uro referred me to a top notch Prostate oncologist at Tulane University. 
After his exam..(another butt check)...he thought mine had already spread. But it had not. And I thank my Lord for that. 

Take care, and stay on top of your psa. Statistically, you and I will both visit this monster again.. Although I pray not.


----------



## ET1 SS (Oct 22, 2005)

Bentley said:


> DANG!!! I'm sure you realize how unusual that is. With those numbers, it is remarkable for it to be contained. Gleason 9 is very aggressive. You caught it just in time...another year, and your results might have been very different. I hope your Uro is checking your psa often. Did you have any adjuvant treatment like hormone therapy or radiation?


Surgery alone.

My Uro is hopeful that he got all of it. In which case, it should not come back.

PSAs from now on should be <0.1, any PSA level greater than that, will mean that he missed some and it is back.

Then we can discuss other treatments.





> ... Take care, and stay on top of your psa. Statistically, you and I will both visit this monster again.. Although I pray not.


In 3 months. After that annually.


----------



## Bentley (Jul 10, 2008)

My Uro explained to me that PCa spreads by 1 or more of 3 ways; 1. by growing outside the prostate, 2. By cancer cells spreading through the lymph system (which is why they always get 2 or more nodes during a prostatectomy), or 3. Through the blood.

Mine was contained. Lymph nodes were clear. So only the one possibility.

Did you have robotic procedure? Or open? I had the open which wasn't as bad as I feared. Dragging that catheter around was the worst....lol


----------



## motdaugrnds (Jul 3, 2002)

Well, I was hoping to get some help with catarac surgery; however, with the $20 raise, it takes me about $3 (yes only 3 dollars) above the amount that would qualify me for the medical help. Seems the government only gives raises to keep the states from helping those in real need! Grrrrr


----------



## Deacon Mike (May 23, 2007)

Micheal said:


> Well, they announced yesterday that those on SS will be getting a 1.7 percent increase come January.....
> According to those that keep track it amounts to an AVERAGE of bout 20 bucks per individual.
> 
> Wow! guess it's better than nothing?


Shouldn't be any surprise. It's all formula driven and the writing was on the wall after last month.




Nevada said:


> I'm guessing that inflation is more like 7%. Yes, 1.7% is better than nothing but we need to make this up sooner or later.


Why would you say inflation is 7%? There's not really any data to support that. The CPI is based on a basket of goods. To the extent that what you consume differs from the basket, you'll have a slightly different rate. But I'd struggle to see how you could get an inflation rate of 7%. Also, if your income doesn't keep up with this relatively low rate of inflation, your standard of living still suffers, but that doesn't mean that inflation is understated.




Darren said:


> Face it. If the feds admitted what the real inflation rate was, Congress would have a big problem on their hands. Over the years they've become really good at sweeping inconvenient things under the rug. Works for them. Doesn't work for us. It's pretty obvious the governed don't count.


What is the real rate of inflation and why do you think it's under-reported?



Belfrybat said:


> And there was nothing the two years prior to the large increase. So, would we rather have 1.7% or nothing?


Actually, based on the formula, 2010 should have been a cut, but that's not how the law is written. It won't go backwards.




mnn2501 said:


> *Why the official government inflation rate is completely bogus:*
> 
> 
> 
> ...


The core rate has nothing to do with what the SS increase is. SS is based of the Consumer Price Index - Urban Wage Earners and Clerical Workers, which is an all in index. It includes food and energy. In fact, due to declining gas prices, food and energy lowered the inflation rate, but not enough to really matter. 

The link you posted is from March of 2011. Those price movements are not current.



Nevada said:


> We're not going to be able to avoid inflation. The government needs it to dwarf debt. Our only hope is that we get enough raises to keep our heads above water. If inflation is inevitable then raises are a good thing.


This seems inconsistent with your previous post, which states the inflation is understated. Now you seem to say the government wants inflation. I'm somewhat confused about what you think.


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

Deacon Mike said:


> This seems inconsistent with your previous post, which states the inflation is understated. Now you seem to say the government wants inflation. I'm somewhat confused about what you think.


The government needs true inflation to dwarf deficit and debt, that's true. Inflation will make money owed worth less, and inflation will also increase tax revenues so the government has more money to service debt.

But if government reports inflation accurately then by law it also has to increase benefits to Social Security beneficiaries to match the reported inflation, which the government can't afford to do. They have no realistic choice except to say that inflation is lower than it is. They will report it more accurately after the recession resolves, when government will have more revenue to adjust Social Security as the law demands.

I suspect that as the recession resolves that we will enter a period of high inflation (maybe 10% per year) for 5 years or so, similar to what we had during the Carter administration and Reagan's first term. After 5 years of 10% inflation Social Security benefits will be about 50% over what they are today.


----------



## Shrek (May 1, 2002)

I don't know if SS will be around when I am 65 and eligible ( if they don't raise the eligibility age for my generation), but a1.7 increase is as good or better than the interest increase or dividend return on many savings /investments and that is what SS really is. Its a form of investment savings that we as workers contribute to and the amount we qualify for at eligibility age is determined by how many quarters during our career that we contributed.

It makes a nice additional income stream to our multiple streams of retirement nest egg income we create during our career, but if SS is all you have you better be good with the idea to keeping working or living like a refugee as SS was and never will be considered a sole retirement income and medical science continues to mess with the original formula so fewer contributors expire before they actually reach the age to retire forfeiting their contribution to the small stipend fund.

As I have no intention of ever getting remarried SS is already off the hook to send whoever handles my cremation that $255 FDR established for a dignified burial. $255 wouldn't even fill the fuel tanks on a sanitation truck if by the time I turn 65 , the Soylent Green approach to deaths and public assistance are in place.


----------



## mnn2501 (Apr 2, 2008)

Deacon Mike said:


> The core rate has nothing to do with what the SS increase is. SS is based of the Consumer Price Index - Urban Wage Earners and Clerical Workers, which is an all in index. It includes food and energy. In fact, due to declining gas prices, food and energy lowered the inflation rate, but not enough to really matter.
> 
> The link you posted is from March of 2011. Those price movements are not current.


You may be right, but I want to see proof.


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

haley1 said:


> I'm glad my parents taught us to when we were young, guess lots of this again comes to parenting.... or kids not listening


They don't listen, and most of us didn't listen either.

Around the year 1980, about the time Reagan took office, it was becoming clear to everyone that the baby boomers were contributing more to FICA than Social Security & Medicare were paying out. There was nothing in place to deal with that, so congress was just taking the money. Heck, back then they didn't even leave an IOU.

It was pretty obvious that our entire generation was being robbed. It was our opinion that if Congress was just going to take the money without so much as leaving an IOU that we were probably better off just keeping our money and looking for alternatives to SS & Medicare.

Reagan realized that he had a near-revolt on his hands, so he pushed to reform FICA. That reform materialized in 1983 as the Social Security Amendments Act. At least we got IOUs, LOL! Our generation has amassed $2.7 trillion in IOUs. In fact, today the baby boomer generation is the single biggest investor in US treasury notes -- even bigger than China.

So I can remember thinking that trashing SS was a pretty good idea when I was about 30 years old. But today I'm happy SS stayed.

Watch this clip as Reagan signs the SS Amendments Act of 1983, promising an "iron clad" commitment to retired Americans. The gist of that act was to require congress to give FICA a treasury note (i.e., an IOU) for any money borrowed from the SS & Medicare fund.

[ame]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0-91W5LS0E8[/ame]


----------



## 1shotwade (Jul 9, 2013)

Nevada said:


> They don't listen, and most of us didn't listen either.
> 
> Around the year 1980, about the time Reagan took office, it was becoming clear to everyone that the baby boomers were contributing more to FICA than Social Security & Medicare were paying out. There was nothing in place to deal with that, so congress was just taking the money. Heck, back then they didn't even leave an IOU.
> 
> ...



You are exactly right! Also signed into law as a part of this was the "windfall" provision which was "needed" to "stop double dipping " by collecting SS and another pension!That didn't do what the general public thought it was there to do(but probably just what the government wanted it to do.)
It was supposed to stop people from using the time the spent not paying into SS to count for SS "quarters" which takes 30 quarters to qualify for SS.What actually happened is that not only was the time not able to be used which was fine but they also deducted a percentage of your SS to offset the other retirement income you had worked for.
In my case I spent 15 years in a private retirement which would yield me a $937 check each month and my normal $820 in SS. The years I paid into the private retirement were not counted toward my SS earnings but on top of not being used for SS I would also be penalized $530 by SS bringing my SS check down to $290.Fortunately I found out about this at age 59 1/2 when I went to meet with SS while planning to take my private pension at age 60.In order to not be penalized i had to take my private pension and roll it over into an IRA which was not addressed by the windfall act and at age 62 was able to collect the full amount of $820 from SS.
The problem with this law is that if I were on welfare or just unemployed and laid around drunk for those 15 years I would not be penalized by SS but because I was A responsible person trying to better myself and just happened to be in a private pension plant they were going to nail me for $530 out of the $820 I would get for being a bum.If they didn't count the time that would be fair but not counting the time plus penalizing me $530 is terribly unfair and NO ONE in government cares enough to try and change it!It is a very bad law and needs to be rewritten.
If any of you happen to be in this situation please take the time to look into this now before it is too late.


Wade


----------



## Michael W. Smith (Jun 2, 2002)

haley1 said:


> Like moon said, more then we are getting in the working world.
> For the last 40 years there has been talk of ss going under and everyone should save up for retirement.


At least you are getting a raise with SS. There are MANY people in the working world who will not be getting a raise this year, and some who didn't get a raise last year, or the year before.

And at least you are getting your SS money you put in. I still have another 20 years to work before I can claim my full benefit - IF they don't raise the retirement age again. At this point I'm not so sure I will ever see any of the money I've put in.

So, as it is, I continue to work - while the government keeps taking money out of my check for "my" retirement.


----------



## Becka03 (Mar 29, 2009)

more than my raise at work- 
and I am pretty sure SS won't be around when I am 62....

sad state of affairs


----------



## Belfrybat (Feb 21, 2003)

My neighbour works on the County road crew and the workers just got a raise of 1.5% -- so yes, I'm a very happy camper with a 1.7% raise.


----------



## tomtom (Oct 23, 2014)

Just keep on keeping on


Sent from my iPhone using Homesteading Today


----------



## arabian knight (Dec 19, 2005)

Micheal said:


> Well, they announced yesterday that those on SS will be getting a 1.7 percent increase come January.....
> According to those that keep track it amounts to an AVERAGE of bout 20 bucks per individual.
> 
> Wow! guess it's better than nothing?


Ya WOW my Humana Medicare Advantage goes up 12 bucks or a 27% raise. So there is that so called COLA just about is eaten up by health insurance raise.


----------



## newcolorado (Jan 31, 2012)

AK,
Same here but Rocky Mountain Med Ins up and copays up. Trying to keep from going down hill. Glad to get the $20.


----------

