FREE NEWSLETTER
Go to main Forum page »
I recently received an e-mail survey from the Senior Citizens League, a senior advocacy group. Out of curiosity I completed the survey so I could see all the questions. They are all leading questions all focused on getting more for seniors.
What is not contained in the e-mail is reference to the financial status of Social Security and Medicare, the need to lower costs or increase FICA taxes or both. As I read it, it is all about me, me, me.
I think this effort is unfair to younger Americans and a bit selfish. Why do we seniors deserve more at the expense of younger Americans?
I find all this as disturbing as the movement to excerpt seniors from property taxes.
HD is about being financially prudent, about preparing for retirement and other financial events when being a senior is real. I think readers reflect all that, but I suspect that is not reflecting the majority of seniors.
Example survey questions:
Overall, how satisfied are you with the amount you receive from your monthly Social Security benefit check(s)?
The Social Security Cost-of-Living Adjustment (COLA) is 2.8 percent for 2026. Which of the following statements best describes how you feel about this COLA? (Fair, too low, too high).
How do you feel about the idea of guaranteeing a 3 percent minimum COLA for Social Security beneficiaries?
How do you feel about the proposal to eliminate ALL taxes on Social Security benefits?
Overall, how satisfied are you with the cost of your Medicare benefits?
How do you feel about changing the COLA calculation to use an inflation index designed specifically to measure seniors’ economic experiences?
How do you feel about the idea of the government issuing a senior stimulus payment?
Who gets the better deal for “health insurance”? Seniors paying $2,434.80 per year, or someone who is not a “senior” and pays $17,592 per year? That’s a trick question!
The WSJ had an article in the print version on January 26, and also online. It pointed out the Irmaa Medicare charges for higher earners. However, the article also included this:
“according to KFF’s ACA [Obamacare] premium calculator, the cost of a silver plan for a 64-year-old nonsmoking single person with no children who earns $150,000 and has no employer coverage or federal subsidy would be $1,466 a month.” That’s $17,592 per year.
In the same article, the Medicare Part B premium for a single filer earning $137,001 to $171,000 per year will pay a monthly premium of $405.80 per person, including Irmaa charges. That’s $4,896.60 per year.
Some seniors complain about the Irmaa charges, but if the single filer annual earnings are $109,00 or less (or $218,001 joint income) the Medicare Part B charges are $202.90 per month. That’s $2,434.80 per person, per year. Of course, Part D will increase this.
The article acknowledges “To be sure, even with Irmaa charges Medicare premiums often remain a bargain when compared with the cost of other health coverage—if one can get it.”
Something like Irmaa applied to social security benefits would go a long way toward levelling the playing field. Politicians always talk about protecting “hard working Americans” but don’t, and special interest groups do everything they can to continue favored treatments for seniors.
Let’s not forget seniors paid taxes for their benefits too. I paid over $98,000 in Medicare taxes, (like amount for employer) including writing a check for $16,000 when I retired because part of my pension is non-qualified and according to the prescribed calculation had a present value of $1.6 million which I may never actually receive since it is only paid monthly under our standard pension formula.
Of course, seniors don’t “deserve” more than any other group. But the U.S. has become semi-socialist in the name of doing good. The AARP is another senior advocacy group which promotes changes in SS which would probably be to the detriment of other taxpayers.
Socialism is the government ownership and control over the means of production. There is nothing socialist about strong safety net programs. It’s how a society works.
I don’t know I would say doing good, but rather doing what is necessary for the lower economic segments of society.
When it comes to SS, I see little excuse for anyone above the 20th income percentile all their working lives to not be better prepared to supplement social security and for the top 50% to be able to deal with inflation in retirement as well. And that includes spouses providing for survivors.
Getting old is hardly a surprise or unforeseen emergency.
Socialism “operates on the principle that resources should be managed for community benefit. ” Sweden isn’t a socialist country but they are “admired” for their approach. The problem in the U.S. is that the government isn’t doing good “for the lower economic segments of society”. For example, the disparity in the cost of health insurance for seniors of all income classes, as compared to workers. What’s happening is “safety nets” now benefit certain classes, to the detriment of others. The government is indirectly managing resources. Ergo semi-socialism.
Of course, those who benefit will defend current practices, while demanding more.
Probably the closest thing this country has to socialism is the Veterans Administration.
Or maybe the TVA
The theory behind representative democracy is that each bloc of voters will push their own interests, and a compromise will be worked out that gives each group some of what they want.
The big problem is that some interests are direct, and some are diffuse. Seniors will vote as a bloc for higher benefits, but those who have to pay the bill are more likely to vote on other issues – schools, taxes, employment. And those over 65 turn out at a rate of 75%, compared 62% for those under 35.
Oh I hate surveys like that. I have received similar from both major political parties, they are obviously designed to get to a desired conclusion.
Early in our careers, we had a handful of payroll tax increases that came with the understanding that we were supporting those already collecting Social Security. If the pattern of increasing the tax every few years as needed would have continued, I would have paid those increased taxes until my retirement, 4 years ago; that would have been fair. However, for the past 40 or so years there have been no increases to the payroll tax. So to dump all the burden on workers who are decades younger than us does not seem fair to me.
Sadly, I agree with Ormode’s comment in your prior post, that at the very last minute, congress will approve a bill that funds SS while offering no clue as to how it will be paid for.
I’m sure they will, after this administration, but the SCL wants more than solvency they want higher COLAs and even extra cash payments.
I don’t think the entire cost of fixing SS should fall on younger workers either.
I think for one part of the fix the COLA should be eliminated or modified (like delayed five years) for anyone in the future who retires with the maximum FRA benefit.
Those people who have earned the maximum taxable base or more should be able to prepare for inflation in retirement.
I’m not sure at what age my mother in law claimed. She was born in 1922 and received a very low check even with inflation adjustments. If she claimed at 65, and if there were no COLAs over the nearly four decades she lived after claiming it’s possible all of her income would have gone to paying her Medicare premiums. So I do not agree with eliminating COLAs, especially if the government is going to take some of my earnings every working year, have a pretty paltry return, then turn around and the say, well this is all you get for the rest of your life, good luck.
Error in post placement. See below.
The taxable wage cap is now $184,500. I think at that level there should be plenty of room to save and invest to supplement SS and deal with inflation in the future.
Those are the people earning the maximum SS benefit that I am referring to.
The government isn’t taking your money, you are paying taxes, a premium of sorts, for insurance covering several different events possible over a lifetime. Millions of workers and adult children are receiving disability benefits for example. Spouses are collecting survivor benefits.
My wife and I started benefits at my FRA, she did not work. I received the maximum benefit at the time. That was 18 years ago and 11 years ago we had collected all I and my employers had paid in SS taxes since 1959.
That’s pretty good insurance in my book. Too good actually for the level of taxes as the financial state of the SS trust demonstrates.
Did you pay all after taking inflation into account?
My apologies Dick. I thought you were talking about an INDIVIDUAL’S maximum benefit, not providing COLAs only for those who don’t pay SS taxes on all their income. That I would agree with.
I’m not familiar with the Senior Citizen League, but to my mind they sound like a lobby group. As with all lobbies, the interests of their demographic don’t always align with the best interests of society as a whole.
Yup, exactly. We are not too good at understanding how almost everything is linked to others or considering consequences.