forum bump

What I posted was from the Chief Actuary of Social Security and was on both Fox Sunday Morning and Meet the Press. The Bush proposal will cut future retirement payments for people earning $59,000 by 30% and for people earning $90,000 or more 40%. Only people earning $25,000 or less will not receive less under the Bush proposal. This is NOT my calculation it is directly from Social Security! There is a replay of Meet the Press - I suggest you look at it drmiler.You ask for facts- Look at Meet the Press. Read the New York Times story. You would not know a fact if it hit you on the head!

Here is some more proof drmiler

Plan to Shield Benefits for Low Earners Ripped by Liberals, Conservatives Alike
By Jonathan Weisman
The Seattle Times

Friday 29 April 2005

Washington - Already battling public opinion, President Bush last night publicly endorsed a proposal under attack from all sides - by conservatives who say it will make Social Security an even less attractive deal than it is now, and by liberals who say it is unfair to the middle class and would undermine political support for Social Security.

The proposal, known as progressive indexing, was formulated by Robert Pozen, a Massachusetts investment executive and a Democratic member of Bush's 2001 Social Security Commission. It would not completely close the gap between Social Security benefits promised and taxes expected to be paid into the system, but it would solve almost three-quarters of the problem. The White House last night pegged the figure at 70 percent.

Currently, to set initial benefit levels, the Social Security Administration averages the highest earning years of a worker's career, then adjusts them upward to reflect the growth of wages between those years and the time of retirement. Under Pozen's progressive indexing, that system would remain in effect for the bottom 30 percent of earners, who currently are making less than about $20,000 a year.

For workers earning the maximum income subject to Social Security taxes, currently $90,000, benefits would be set according to the growth of inflation over their careers. Since prices tend to grow more slowly than wages, benefits for these workers would be reduced substantially over time, from the level currently promised and even the reduced level payable once the Social Security system has depleted its entire trust fund.

Workers earning between $20,000 and $90,000 would have their benefits set by a sliding scale that combines inflation increases and wage growth.

According to analyses by Social Security's chief actuary, the nonpartisan Congressional Research Service and the liberal Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, the effect would be substantial. By 2055, workers earning $90,000 would see their annual Social Security benefit drop from the currently scheduled $35,751 to $22,666, a 37 percent reduction, according to the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities. By 2075, the negative effect would be 49 percent.

Even if nothing were done to fix Social Security's finances, such workers in 2075 would see their benefits cut by $5,156, or 19 percent, from the level even a "bankrupt" Social Security system could pay.

For the working class, the picture is more complex. Under progressive indexing, a worker now earning $35,000 and retiring in 2055 would see annual benefits fall by 21 percent, or $4,552. But that benefit would be $1,685 more than Social Security could actually pay, absent any changes. If that same retiree were earning $58,000 in 2005, his benefits would be cut by $9,082, or 31 percent, from currently scheduled levels. If nothing were done to Social Security, the worker would still receive $813 more a year under a "bankrupt" system than under progressive indexing.

Democratic economists say such numbers prove that policymakers will have to combine benefit cuts with some form of tax increase to spread the pain and close Social Security's projected financing gap.

"Even if you whack high-income people, you still need deep cuts on middle-income people," said Jason Furman of the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities.

Pozen said yesterday he would be willing to discuss some tax increases to mitigate the effect of benefit cuts, but he said it was unfair to compare benefits under his plan with benefits currently promised but unaffordable. Bush last night reiterated his opposition to increasing the payroll tax rate.

Some conservatives are no less blunt in their opposition to Pozen's approach. Under progressive indexing, the rate of return from what middle- and upper-income workers pay into the system and what they get back will worsen every year, said Peter Ferrara, a conservative Social Security analyst. Benefits would be an ever smaller percentage of workers' pre-retirement income.

Such conservatives maintain that large, private investment accounts could replace Social Security with no cuts in promised benefits. But Pozen said their proposals are avoiding the difficult choices that he - and Bush - are willing to make.

"You have to suffer some pain," Pozen said. "The question is, what's a reasonable amount of pain and who should suffer it?"

No Comment drmiler? It is your stupidity that is boundless.

(moderator note) Please don't use other member's names in the titles of yours posts..

moderator note) Please don't use other member's names in the titles of yours posts..

Sorry Brad it won't happen again.

No Comment drmiler? It is your stupidity that is boundless.

No but yours must be! Your so called proof is worthless since fact check.org says it is wrong.

Here, I'll post it again so you don't have to go find it.

Bush Proposes Slowing Growth of Social Security Benefits for Future Retirees Democrats call it a "cut." Compared to what? April 29, 2005 Modified: April 29, 2005 Summary President Bush announced April 28 that he is embracing a proposal to address Social Security's financial shortfall by slowing the growth of future benefits for higher-income and middle-income workers, but not for lower-income workers. Bush said, "I propose that future generations receive benefits equal to or greater than the benefits today's seniors get." Democrats called the proposal a deep benefit cut. But which side is right? Would benefits be equal, or would they be cut? Both sides have a claim to accuracy, but neither is giving the full story and thus leaving citizens confused. The fact is that the current Social Security benefit formula would cause benefits for future retirees nearly to double in buying power over the next 75 years, even after adjusting for inflation. What Bush is proposing is a plan that freezes benefits at their current buying power for upper-income workers, while other workers would continue to see benefits rise faster than inflation. Compared to the buying power of benefits paid to today's retirees, that would not be a "cut" for anybody. Compared to the rising level of benefits provided by the current formula, that would mean a "cut" for upper-income and middle-income workers. And for the bottom 30 percent of earners, those making $25,000 a year, there would be no "cut" at all. Analysis Sometimes it seems as though Democrats and Republicans are living in parallel universes.Consider these two duelling quotes from April 29, regarding the President's announcement that he is supporting "progressive indexing" of Social Security benefits for future retirees: President Bush: I propose that future generations receive benefits equal to or greater than the benefits today's seniors get. Sen. Harry Reid, Democratic Majority Leader: This plan will provide deep benefit cuts for middle-class seniors. So which is it -- steady benefits or reduced benefits? Actually, neither side is being completely honest. Bush fails to mention that upper-income and middle-income workers who retire in the future would get lower benefits under his plan than under the current benefit formula. And Democrats fail to mention that the current formula would cause future benefits nearly to double in buying power over the next 75 years, and can't be paid for by current tax rates. Pozen Plan: "Progressive Indexing" The White House said the President's plan is "similar" to this one, proposed by Robert C. Pozen: •Anyone now retired, or retiring before 2012, would get full benefits promised under current formula. •Workers averaging $25,000 a year or less (in today's dollars), and retiring after 2012, would continue to get full benefits promised under current formula. This would apply to the lowest 30 percent of earners. •Workers averaging $113,000 or more (in today's dollars), and retiring after 2012, would see their benefits rise only enough to compensate for the rising cost of living. •Workers in between would have benefits set by a sliding scale, with benefits rising more than the cost of living, but less than under the current formula. Source: Robert C. Pozen, " A Social Security Plan for All," paper prepared for "Saving Social Security ," The Brookings Institution, 4 Jan 2005. What's the Plan? According to a White House "fact sheet" issued while the President was speaking at a prime-time news conference, his proposal is "similar" to a "progressive indexing" plan proposed by Robert C. Pozen. By itself, progressive indexing would clear up about 70 percent of the $4 trillion shortfall in Social Security's finances, according to an analysis by the chief actuary of the Social Security system. It would do so by holding down growth of future benefit levels. This can be done either with or without the individual investment accounts that Bush also proposes. For a summary of Pozen's plan see the text box at left. For full details, and also for an analysis by the Social Security system's chief actuary, see "supporting documents" at right. Pozen is a lawyer and economist who served as a Democratic member of President Bush’s Commission to Strengthen Social Security. He is a former vice chairman of Fidelity Investments and the lead investment advisor to the Fidelity mutual funds. He currently teaches law and business at Harvard and is the chairman of MFS Investment Management. Wages vs. Prices Currently the level of benefits for future retirees is set by a formula harnessed to the rise in wages, a system called "wage indexing." Because wages tend to rise more rapidly than prices, that pushes up benefits even faster than inflation. Democrats have been predicting for months that Bush would endorse "price indexing," which would allow benefits for future retirees to rise only in line with inflation, holding their buying power constant. What Bush in fact endorsed is a compromise, called "progressive indexing," which would push up benefits faster for low-income workers than for middle-income workers and hold them constant in terms of buying power for those at the top. A "cut" for whom? When? How much? Pozen's progressive indexing plan would mean a "cut" – compared to what's in the current benefit formula – of varying amounts depending on average salary levels and the year in which retirement begins. Here are some examples taken from table B-1 of the chief actuary's analysis: For workers with average earnings, a "cut" of 6 percent for those retiring in 2025, rising to 28 percent for those retiring in 2075. For those at the top, making more than $133,000 in today's dollars, a "cut" of 11 percent for those retiring in 2025, rising to 49 percent for those retiring in 2075. For low-income workers, those making $25,000 a year in today's dollars, no cut whatsoever. And compared to what? It is important to remember that these figures are in relation what the current benefit formula promises, not what current law can actually deliver . The current level of payroll taxes can't support the promised level of benefits beyond 2041, according to latest officfial projections. If nothing is done, benefits will automatically be reduced for all persons receiving them. Without a tax increase or some other additional revenue, those built-in reductions would start at 26 percent in 2041, rise to 32 percent by 2078 and keep rising every year after that. And that would apply to everybody receiving benefit checks – rich and poor alike. So, compared to the levels that current taxes can actually support, low-income workers would actually get substantially more under progressive indexing than they would under the current system, starting in 2041. High-income workers would still get less, even compared to what current taxes can bear. High-income workers retiring in 2045 would see a "cut" of little over 28 percent under the current system, and a "cut" of 29 percent under progressive indexing. So when politicians use the word "cut," it's a good idea to get clear on just what they mean. A cut compared to what, and for whom, and when? And what's the cost to avoid? Sources Stephen C. Goss, "Estimated Financial Effects of a Comprehensive Social Security Reform PRoposal Including Progressive Price Indexing," Social Security Administration, Memorandum to Bob Pozen, 10 February 2005. Robert C. Pozen, "A Social Security Plan for All," paper prepared for "Saving Social Security," The Brookings Institution, 4 Jan 2005. Robert C. Pozen, "The route to real pensions reform," The Economist, 6 Jan 2005. "Fact Sheet: Strengthening Social Security For Those In Need," White House Fact Sheet, 28 April 2005. Press Conference of the President, White House Transcript , 28 April 2005. Joseph Curl, "Bush Urges Tiered Benefits," The Washington Times, 29 April 2005.

is some more proof drmiler Plan to Shield Benefits for Low Earners Ripped by Liberals, Conservatives Alike By Jonathan Weisman The Seattle Times Friday 29 April 2005 Washington - Already battling public opinion, President Bush last night publicly endorsed a proposal under attack from all sides - by conservatives who say it will make Social Security an even less attractive deal than it is now, and by liberals who say it is unfair to the middle class and would undermine political support for Social Security. The proposal, known as progressive indexing, was formulated by Robert Pozen, a Massachusetts investment executive and a Democratic member of Bush's 2001 Social Security Commission. It would not completely close the gap between Social Security benefits promised and taxes expected to be paid into the system, but it would solve almost three-quarters of the problem. The White House last night pegged the figure at 70 percent. Currently, to set initial benefit levels, the Social Security Administration averages the highest earning years of a worker's career, then adjusts them upward to reflect the growth of wages between those years and the time of retirement. Under Pozen's progressive indexing, that system would remain in effect for the bottom 30 percent of earners, who currently are making less than about $20,000 a year. For workers earning the maximum income subject to Social Security taxes, currently $90,000, benefits would be set according to the growth of inflation over their careers. Since prices tend to grow more slowly than wages, benefits for these workers would be reduced substantially over time, from the level currently promised and even the reduced level payable once the Social Security system has depleted its entire trust fund. Workers earning between $20,000 and $90,000 would have their benefits set by a sliding scale that combines inflation increases and wage growth. According to analyses by Social Security's chief actuary, the nonpartisan Congressional Research Service and the liberal Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, the effect would be substantial. By 2055, workers earning $90,000 would see their annual Social Security benefit drop from the currently scheduled $35,751 to $22,666, a 37 percent reduction, according to the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities. By 2075, the negative effect would be 49 percent. Even if nothing were done to fix Social Security's finances, such workers in 2075 would see their benefits cut by $5,156, or 19 percent, from the level even a "bankrupt" Social Security system could pay. For the working class, the picture is more complex. Under progressive indexing, a worker now earning $35,000 and retiring in 2055 would see annual benefits fall by 21 percent, or $4,552. But that benefit would be $1,685 more than Social Security could actually pay, absent any changes. If that same retiree were earning $58,000 in 2005, his benefits would be cut by $9,082, or 31 percent, from currently scheduled levels. If nothing were done to Social Security, the worker would still receive $813 more a year under a "bankrupt" system than under progressive indexing. Democratic economists say such numbers prove that policymakers will have to combine benefit cuts with some form of tax increase to spread the pain and close Social Security's projected financing gap. "Even if you whack high-income people, you still need deep cuts on middle-income people," said Jason Furman of the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities. Pozen said yesterday he would be willing to discuss some tax increases to mitigate the effect of benefit cuts, but he said it was unfair to compare benefits under his plan with benefits currently promised but unaffordable. Bush last night reiterated his opposition to increasing the payroll tax rate. Some conservatives are no less blunt in their opposition to Pozen's approach. Under progressive indexing, the rate of return from what middle- and upper-income workers pay into the system and what they get back will worsen every year, said Peter Ferrara, a conservative Social Security analyst. Benefits would be an ever smaller percentage of workers' pre-retirement income. Such conservatives maintain that large, private investment accounts could replace Social Security with no cuts in promised benefits. But Pozen said their proposals are avoiding the difficult choices that he - and Bush - are willing to make. "You have to suffer some pain," Pozen said. "The question is, what's a reasonable amount of pain and who should suffer it?"

Awful funny that fact check is using the "same" person to refute this garbage as your source used to print it in the first place. And BTW check time and date on my source. It after yours was done. Which usually means someone discovered the error and corrected it.

(moderator note) Please don't use other member's names in the titles of yours posts..

I tried to edit the title. Editing was successful. But it never changed on the blog.

The impact of reducing the COLA is to lower the amount the retiree will receive in the future. Since inflation will continue, the reductions Bush is proposing will lower the dollars to future retirees the way Social Security has calculated. There are only two ways to make up for the lack of money for Social Security - Lower future benefits (what Bush proposed) or increase the tax revenue going into the Social Security Fund.

The impact of reducing the COLA is to lower the amount the retiree will receive in the future. Since inflation will continue, the reductions Bush is proposing will lower the dollars to future retirees the way Social Security has calculated. There are only two ways to make up for the lack of money for Social Security - Lower future benefits (what Bush proposed) or increase the tax revenue going into the Social Security Fund.

You *still* have not addressed the fact that fact check.org says this is bogus.

I keep telling you doc , facts never gets in the way of a bush basher, when you gonna learn?

You *still* have not addressed the fact that fact check.org says this is bogus.

Let me know when that happens.

Colon Gene's lies are proof that not all officers are gentlemen.