Skip to main content

View Diary: Social Security Rashomon: an Actuary, a Defender and a Reformer Meet (33 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  What would the curve in exhibit 4 look like... (3+ / 0-)

    if chained CPI were immediately implemented? Does that get us where we need to be with no benefits "cliff" or does it just reduce the magnitude of that cliff slightly?

    Just another faggity fag socialist fuckstick homosinner!

    by Ian S on Mon Dec 31, 2012 at 03:15:02 PM PST

    •  A better question for Dean Baker (6+ / 0-)

      To some degree I am a semi-informed promulgator for ideas and data sets developed by Dean and my friend Prof Barkley Rosser.

      But no I don't see Chained CPI lowering scheduled benefits down to meet income. Nor of course would that be a policy goal for progressives. Chained CPI drags down scheduled benefits by 0.3% per year or about 6 points nominal at the point of TF exhaustion. Even coupled by the reduced drawdown in TF assets in the meantime that wouldn't seem enough to offset the scheduled benefit increase of around 20% real by the early 2030s.

      In fact in 2010 CBO scored 30 SS Policy Options and Chained CPI closed 0.2 of a 0.6% of GDP gap over 75 years. The numbers would be somewhat different when pinned down to a specific year but the curve simply wouldn't bend that far over the next 20 years.

      And to repeat: nor should it. As progressives we should be working to build up revenues to allow payable to meet scheduled and not allow Chained CPI to drag down the scheduled benefit just to reduce the magnitude of the reset at Trust Fund exhaustion. Wrong cure applied to the wrong end of the equation. - SocSec.Defender at - founder DK Social Security Defenders group - (hmm is there a theme emerging here?)

      by Bruce Webb on Mon Dec 31, 2012 at 03:40:56 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  Will someone with numbers acumen kindly figure (3+ / 0-)

        into this the effect of my least favorite law, namely the provision which makes even naked SS benefits taxable as income as to half of it when the total amount receivable in a year is 25K, and then up to taxable as to 85% at 32-34K. Because at that point, SSers have a haircut at whatever the rate is for the amount that is taxable which has to be figured into the mix when we are talking decades out. That's another one like AMT which needs fixing because a lotta folk are gonna be over that line and their presumed benefit laws trimmed by 10-15 percent which is not being taken into account.

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site