The bump in social security pay this year is 1.7% which translates to roughly a $20 increase. In this short video they talk about how this small increase is not enough to allow people, mostly senior citizens, to live off of with the rising of prices. Take a look at the video. Do you think that the increase or bump in social secuirty is enough? Should the bump be higher? what do you think that the government could do to lessen the impact of bumping social security? Any other thoughts on the video?
http://video.foxbusiness.com/v/3853675438001/the-social-security-cost-of-living-adjustment-not-enough/?intcmp=obnetwork
This goes right back to what we did in class on Tuesday when we all attempted to adjust the federal budget. Interestingly, I recall every single one of us in class cutting social security (maybe some of us should have seen this video and learned some of the statistics first). As we all know, if the federal government spends more in one area, something has got to give (cut spending elsewhere, increase taxes, etc.). Anyone and everyone could make arguments for more or less spending on social security or elsewhere; however, everyone needs to realize that when you make something better off (in this case, those 65 and older), you have to consequently make something else worse off. I would need more proof than this video provides on why we need a greater increase in social security. Maybe they should adjust social security to rising prices in the grocery stores like the video suggests? But to me, that just sounds like a small increase that the government already is doing with this 1.7% increase. My question is, if they increased social security, what would they decide to make worse off?
ReplyDeleteIf anything, I think that they should increase the age for social security. Nowadays, people are far exceeding the age of 65, and with the baby boomers approaching that mark, there are a lot of people that would be eligible for social security benefits. Although, a 1.7% increase may not seem like that much, I think people forget how many people are receiving social security and how long they will be receiving it as average life expectancy increases. Overall, social security is great and it benefits several people. However, I believe in order to sustain social security an increase in the age requirement may be needed.
ReplyDeleteGoing along with what Q said, many of the baby boomers are working full time even past the retirement age. The age to receive social security was decided on decades ago and standards of living and work have drastically changed since them.
ReplyDeleteAlthough the increase in social security may not seem high, it is based on inflation in the economy so it should reflect price changes fairly well. Additionally as we when we spoke about low-income taxation, even $22 a month is additional funds that will gladly be accepted. Could the increase be higher? Yes, but then there could be an argument that the increase is too large. I think the rate is reflective of inflation and it would be difficult to ask more of the government.
I agree with Q, that there need to be some changes to the requirements for receiving Social Security. The first change would be an increase in age. I think the bump will be sufficient, at least for now. It is better to incrementally raise Social Security instead of one large bump that is more than necessary. If the government realizes that this 1.7% bump is not enough, then another bump can occur. Using the bump to mirror inflation is ideal and I believe that this is the government's objective.
ReplyDelete