Oh look, we just found a new way to screw the poor!

[Peter1x9]

http://finance.yahoo.com/news/New-formula-would-reduce-apf-365864943.html?x=0

Many economists argue that the chained CPI is more accurate because it assumes that as prices increase, consumers switch to lower cost alternatives, reducing the amount of inflation they experience.

Under the chained CPI, yearly benefits for a typical 65-year-old would be about $136 less, according to an analysis of Social Security data. At age 75, annual benefits under the new index would be $560 less. At 85, the cut would be $984 a year, and at 95, the annual income loss would amount to $1,392.

"For someone in the first year, it may not seem a lot," said AARP's David Certner. "But as people get older and then they get poorer and more reliant on Social Security, the cut gradually gets larger and larger."



In other words, it's ramen noodles, cat food, and no heating or air conditioning for all the old folks, and more taxes for the rest of the non-old poor people. Under this "new formula", poor people would get a 14.5% tax increase while the super rich get a 0.1% tax increase. Why don't they just quit pretending and call our government what it is: a Fascist Plutocracy?

[abelenkpe]

1. It is a way to screw the poor nt

[dtexdem]

2. And meanwhile, costs of such things as health care and housing take increasing proportions of income

So the issue is not just the increases in these costs but in the proportion of incomes that go to these costs. The CPI does not accurately reflect such changes.

[ThomCat]

10. Of course not. They Assume we'll chose to use less of those things

somehow.

At the very time when our need for healthcare will be increasing, we'll be expected to "chose" to use it less in order to save money.

I'm on Medicare, and I've entered the "gap," also known as the "doughnut hole" for paying for meds. My meds are no longer covered until I pay over $4,000 out of my own pocked to get out of the gap.

I was supposed to make "rational choices" to minimize the meds I take to prevent myself from getting into this gap. On a fixed income, I'm supposed to find a way to come up with over $4k to pay for meds for the rest of this year, or else I'm supposed to make "rational choices" not to use meds that I simply can't afford for the rest of this calendar year.

I have to stop taking migraine medications for the rest of this year. I get between 10-15 migraine headaches per month. I've got some meds stockpiled, but once they are gone, I can't get any more until next year unless my doctors can give me samples.

I'm fortunate that they have a list of generic meds they'll let me buy at a discounted rate, and my pain medications are on that list. I can afford to buy those from those for the next few months.

Every new economic scheme, every new way of calculating poverty, and every new way of measuring who needs help is always a way of cheating poor people. It's always a way of claiming that poor people aren't really poor. It's an official art that never reflects reality.

[county worker]

3. Well, gas prices rise, I just going to buy that cheaper gas. Well, food prices rise, I think I'll

go to that store that has 1/2 price groceries. What they don't exist?

If prices rise it doesn't matter because those folks are already spending every penny on the lowest cost of those things they can afford to buy.

[baldguy]

4. This'll just force people to buy the generic cat food instead of that fancy-shmancy name-brand stuff

[Art_from_Ark]

9. I'm already buying the store brand

although once in a while, there'll be a sale on Friskies dry cat food :crazy:

[starroute]

5. This is doubly false

From what I've read, if the price of a television or computer goes up but it has a few more bells and whistles tacked on, they don't count that as an increase because you're getting more for your money.

This is already phony, because it ignores the fact that you may not have a choice to switch to a cheaper model, but at least it assumes that the quality of goods needs to be factored in.

But now they turn around and say that it doesn't count if the quality of what you can afford goes down every year -- that as long as you can choke it down, it's still food.

It would be bad enough if they openly admitted that they were going to increase social security benefits by less than the inflation rate every year in order to save money. But to use elaborate calculations that have no connection to reality in order to convince us that they aren't really doing what they're doing seems doubly horrible.

[Sarah Ibarruri]

6. And meanwhile there are people worried that somebody might be dancing on the flag...

Why aren't they focusing on things like this? Seniors going hungry? The skyrocketing rate of children living under the poverty level?

[bvar22]

7. Wait for IT....

It is coming.
The Progressive Caucus WILL try to stand against it,
but they will be marginalized by the "Centrists" working with their friends, the Republicans.


You will know them by their WORKS,
not by their excuses.
Solidarity99!
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[dixiegrrrrl]

8. Great, I will be losing money, but I will have a sex life at long last.

:evilgrin:

[snot]

11. It shd also be pointed out that much that old people need most is already excluded from CPI

i.e., food and energy costs. And inflation in those categories has been much higher.