Home | About | Donate

Shouldn’t Social Security Recipients Get A CEO-Sized Raise?


#1

Shouldn’t Social Security Recipients Get A CEO-Sized Raise?

Dave Johnson

CEOs got an average 3.9 percent pay increase last year. This increase is subsidized by taxpayers because corporations can deduct it as an expense.

Meanwhile, America’s struggling seniors will receive no cost-of-living allowance (COLA) increase next year because the COLA doesn’t take into account the things seniors need to buy. If only there were some way to make an adjustment that fixes this discrepancy…


#2

Hell, I'd forgo an adjustment if I could get housing that doesn't take half my pension! I'm on the list for public senior housing, but I'll certainly be dead before my name comes up (there are more than 300 ahead of me on the list!)

But why is this being proposed now? Could it have something to do with the 2016 elections? Could it be a sop, intended to make the Dems look better but not to pass? (not that it would be an adequate increase if it did pass).


#3

My sentiments exactly. Besides, a one time payment of $500 dollars will solve very little but it sure looks good as far as elections are concerned.


#4

Time:

“Hillary Clinton has proven she will fight, deliver and win for working families,” said SEIU International President Mary Kay Henry. “SEIU members and working families across America are part of a growing movement to build a better future for their families, and Hillary Clinton will support and stand with them.”

I couldn't get the above endorsement out of my mind while reading Mr. Johnson's piece. Hillary won't even give a strong endorsement of SS and its future, let alone its enhancement, yet the totally corrupt Mary Kay Henry can pen this garbage endorsement. Why not join Hedges and Mary Kay Henry et. al. and blast Bernie as not being authentic enough, or some such ridiculous reason for being against this good man, and so it goes.


#5

Lets hope the SEIU rank and file wise up and find a different union to represent them.


#6

I'm not sure that it matters to you, and I am quite sure the article was not clear in stating the way this payment actually would work, but it is a 3.9% payment and Section 2, a) 1. A says: "A benefit payment described in this clause is a monthly insurance benefit"

I take it to mean that 3.9% of whatever amount is calculated as your annual benefit, will then be paid as a slight increase in your monthly benefit, so for example that average $580 payment would be divided by 12 or justunder $50 per month. I'll take it. I would also imagine that making it a one-time payment would mean that future COLAs would not be calculated with respect to that additional amount.


#7

Exactly, this is a helpful amount to add to a yearly budget. The cynicism of some posters is beyond the pale. $500 can go a long way in helping people struggling to make ends meet. I was on a bus just this past week and several seniors were discussing their disappointment in not getting a COLA this year.

I understand that the Warren proposal is a lump sum payment not an amount spread over 12 months, so be it, either way it helps.


#8

It's not a monthly benefit. Here's the actual language from Grayson's version https://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/114/hr4012/text (I couldn't find Warren's - her site seems to be facebook-hosted)


#9

Either way, I'll take it. Wording, as always, clear as mud. I doubt we'll get it, regardless as it has to pass both houses. On the other hand, election time is coming and that might make them fear the wrath of the senior citizens. Politicians used to, anyone remember those days? But that was in the days before electronic voting.


#10

Rent and food prices are all up-yet we are told there is no inflation.The same dis-information about unemployment. And to Bernie Sanders credit he has called out the dis-information on unemployment,and he is the candidate calling to strengthen social security.


#11

You are obviously NOT a Social Security recipient, at least not in the possible majority of us who are paid LESS THAN MINIMUM WAGE! Even ten cents helps some, but we need a SERIOUS RAISE! My roommate and I support the Fight for $15 to raise the min. wage. But we don't even get that!
That $518 might be significant if it were every MONTH!
"Beyond the pale" is the TRILLIONS OF DOLLARS spent on wars based on lies, and the "Democrats" saying "We just don't have the money." (for a new WPA and CCC- quote from your president Obama in 2010 ).
And of course, no accountability: "Absolute Immunity for everything" -commondreams.org 8-26-13.
Why? So the Dem's can commit the same atrocities around the world to pull oil from the ground- at a time when we need to bring it to an almost complete stop.
Your insensitivity to the poor is similar to that of both parties. SHAME!


#12

I have written to your Center for American Progress after
signing various petitions, to ask about how many Social Security recipients are below the poverty line, or below minimum wage. And to propose that we be brought up to minimum wage; better yet- we should also have a Living Wage!
I have never gotten an answer.
And: "Lift the cap (now about $118,000) on the portion of wages that are subject to Social Security taxes..."
I question the word "lift". The tax ceiling IS lifted each year, just a little bit. The word should be REMOVE. ALL income and wealth should be taxable for this.
In 2010, the Congressional Budget Office said that if the
tax ceiling were REMOVED, Social Security would be solvent indefinitely.
I get the feeling that Center for American Progress is just a Democratic Party front group.


#13

You better read what I said again, obviously you misread, that is all I have to say because your post has no relation to what I said at all.


#14

About Mairead's situation:
* Why public senior housing?
* Can your problem be solved by moving to a lower cost of living place? Such as Mississippi? Or Puerto Rico?


As for the article, it is all about symbolism and values. Among other things, people like Sen. Warren want to build higher a public sentiment that rich persons' money isn't their money, "they didn't build it" and are under obligation to surrender it to the communisty. (deliberate misspelling).


#15

Oh dear. This reflects the 'entitlement mentality' that Democrats, Cloward & Piven seek to promote. Not good for the social health of our community.
-- Simple logic: If the cost of living hasn't gone up, or we have even had some serious deflation, then there should not be a COLA to SS benefits this year.
-- In other words, your and their complaint should be directed at how the CPI is calculated, not at COLA or no-COLA this year.


#16

I am shocked and dismayed at how much higher prices are now compared to 'when I remember'. So --> I picked out about a dozen items and each June 30th I look up the current price of them and put them into a spreadsheet. (BTW, I was surprised last June 30th that the price of things like potatoes was essentially unchanged from a year earlier. But don't believe me; start doing this yourself.)


#17

Take your bs and go someplace else. Folks know that in their lives the cost of living has gone up, especially the elderly, and studies show it. Go away with your nonsense, nutcase troll.


#18

We the People have paid into SS for our entire working lives. It was withheld from our paychecks. That money was put into a trust fund, to be paid out after retirement to the working people of the nation to help them in their later years.
* The Trust was designed to be solvent and growing essentially forever. It was untouchable except for payments to retirees over 62 and those disabled by injury.
* The government looked at all this money and decided to take most of it for wars and pork and replace it with paper promises to pay it back, someday. Obviously, the promises were not worth the cost of the paper to print it. Instead, SS became excoriated as an "entitlement" a government giveaway to lazy people who were no longer working.
* The government would like nothing better than to get rid of SS, or farm it out to the banksters who have fouled the economy probably beyond redemption.
* That way, they could burn the paper and not worry about having to pay it back to the Trust. Meanwhile, they figure we are making enough through this "entitlement" and have capped it at its current low rate. Everything is rigged to calculate us as wealthy and greedy for more.
* My wife and I are in our late 70's, depending on a small 1991 pension and two very small SS checks. We get by, but have to watch everything like hawks. Others are in far worse shape than us, trying to subsist, after a lifetime of work and contributions, on a SS check every month of three or four hundred dollars, out of which comes food, rent and medicine.
* I'm sure the government would like nothing better than to have those reaching retirement age get a notice thanking them for their service, directing them to turn their belongings in to the state and report to the Soylent Green recycling station to do their final service to the nation.
* "Tastes like chicken."
;-})


#19

I apologize if I misunderstood you. What did you mean by "The cynicism of some posters is beyond the pale."
I thought you were attacking people who found Warren's
"gift" of $580/yr. to be inadequate. Her new proposal is less than the proposal some months ago by Sen.'s Harkin and Begich of "about $800/yr." (Also inadequate; there should be action taken to bring EVERYONE above minimum wage! Businesses usually can't get away with paying less than minimum wage!)
What did you mean by "cynicism of some posters"?


#20

I was referring to the posters who seem to believe Warren's proposals are for political reasons only because of the upcoming election.