• Comment (20)

Why is the Social Security Hike Seen as Bad News?

October 24, 2011 RSS Feed Print

Social Security payments will increase by 3.6 percent next year, the government announced last week. This is the first cost of living adjustment (COLA) for the program in three years. It will boost a typical retiree's payments by roughly $500 during 2012. Given price increases and tough economic times for many seniors, you'd think the extra money would be welcome.

[See 2012 Social Security Payments to Rise 3.6%.]

Many experts and seniors' organizations, however, responded to the increase as if they'd been slapped in the face. We were told that the gains might be wiped out by increases in Medicare premiums. We were told that the formula used to calculate cost-of-living increases for Social Security was badly flawed and unfair to seniors. Efforts to find a satisfied senior advocate were fruitless:

"The compromised increase in Social Security benefits for retirees jeopardizes their financial security and underscores the instability of the benefit program," said the Insured Retirement Institute, a trade group of companies that sell annuities and other retirement products.

"[The] COLA announcement lets them know there's some relief around the corner," said the National Committee to Preserve Social Security and Medicare. "It may be cold comfort, however, once they see just how high next year's Medicare premiums will go. While healthcare costs continue to erode seniors' ability to keep up with inflation, Congress has yet to adopt a COLA formula that reflects the spending habits of seniors. ... At the same time, the Congressional Super Committee is reportedly considering another formula that would make a flawed formula even worse as COLAs for beneficiaries would continue to fall even further behind the true costs of living they face each and every day."

[See 6 Likely Social Security Changes.]

Even AARP, which seems engineered to be uplifting and happy for seniors, spent much of its statement lamenting the stresses on senior programs and echoed concerns that there is pressure in Congress to take a flawed index for calculating the Social Security COLA and make it much worse.

"It would be hard to overstate the financial peace of mind Social Security provides for 55 million Americans," the AARP statement said. "It is the principal source of family income for nearly half of older Americans, who have incomes of roughly $20,000, and keeps nearly one-third of them out of poverty. Unfortunately," it continued, "the increase announced today will not completely ease their burden. Medicare premiums are also expected to rise for many. And with the decline in housing values, deep losses to retirement and savings accounts and skyrocketing health and prescription drug costs, millions of older Americans continue to struggle to make ends meet."

Why the long faces? Well, ever since senior entitlement programs came under scrutiny by budget cutters, it has become bad form to acknowledge that seniors are getting a good deal from Social Security, Medicare, or much of anything. In the public sector, good deals these days equate to overspending and government waste, and are seen as vulnerable. In the private sector, bad news sells annuities and other retirement security products. Good news? Not so much.

There is a particularly harsh form of hardball being played in Washington these days. Give an inch, and you've just blinked your way to losing. So, even normally reasonable advocates are forced to take a hard line that effectively precludes compromise. Polls take our pulse on what seems like an hourly basis. And they find that we are unhappy and that we think things are going in the wrong direction. I get it. This has been an awful recession, and it's far from over. Home mortgages and housing values are a continuing disaster. Incomes and standards of living are down. Retirements are being deferred by those lucky enough to find or keep jobs.

But let's be honest here. The 2012 increase in Social Security payments is, if viewed objectively, much more of a good thing than a bad thing.

Yes, the inflation index used to set the Social Security COLA may be flawed, and doesn't accurately measure the market basket of things that older consumers buy, particularly when it comes to healthcare. But indexes are necessarily flawed in describing averages that don't apply to most individuals. Also, the COLA's weakness hasn't always worked against seniors.

In 2008, oil and gasoline prices exploded and triggered a hefty 5.8 percent Social Security COLA for 2009 payments. Later in 2008, energy prices receded but the COLA was still there. And in 2009 and 2010, inflation was low by anyone's measure, and there was no COLA. Meanwhile, of course, that 5.8 percent hike in benefits wasn't reversed, and seniors even got a one-time payment of $250 in 2009 to help compensate for the lack of a COLA.

[See Understanding Your 2012 Medicare Enrollment Statements.]

It's also true that premiums for Part B of Medicare, which covers physician and other out-patient expenses, will rise in 2012. It's also true that the increase is linked to the COLA. But the groups lamenting this hike have largely failed to note that roughly 75 percent of all Medicare beneficiaries have seen no increase in these premiums in 2010 and 2011. That's because the program has a "hold harmless" provision that prevents premiums for existing beneficiaries from rising if there is no increase in Social Security benefits.

Now that there is a 3.6 percent increase in benefits, it's hardly unreasonable for Medicare Part B premiums to increase as well next year. Yet this cup is definitely described as being at least half empty.

It's also true that healthcare expenses hit seniors particularly hard. First, any inflation is hard for folks on fixed incomes. More importantly, most people use more and more healthcare as they get older. At the same time, health reform is providing Medicare beneficiaries with a growing menu of free wellness and preventive care services and growing subsidies for drug prices. Changes to Medicare Advantage and prescription drug programs will cause 2012 premiums to be lower than in 2011.

Life is hardly perfect for older Americans, but Social Security and Medicare have performed well during the past few years. Just ask unemployed Americans how their incomes and healthcare benefits have held up during this same period. Seniors, by contrast, have maintained the nation's lowest poverty rate among any age group. Of course, that index is also criticized as not being fairly designed.

Twitter: @PhilMoeller

Tags:
social security,
retirement,
Medicare,
senior health

Reader Comments Read all comments (20)

Add Your Thoughts
Your comment will be posted immediately, unless it is spam or contains profanity. For more information, please see our Comments FAQ.

What about the NOTCH babies That treatment has never been helped in any way?

orin r hutton of AR 8:36PM December 30, 2011

Rather than an entitlement, Social Security should become an insurance policy - insurance against being unable to save enough for a secure retirement.

A current problem is that no one knows how much they will need for a secure retirement, because they don't know what future markets will do, and because they can't predict what medical and other expenses will come with old age. Therefore they will try to save an unnecessarily large amount of money as a hedge against future but rare extreme fiscal exigencies.

Pay-out should be on a sliding scale indexed to gross adjusted income (adjusted for medical costs), and to assets. People with large savings but little income should not be entitled to Social Security; again, a sliding scale should apply. Any time the fiscal circumstances of a person over 66 should change for the worse, they should be able to apply for benefits.

In fact, the benefit should not be limited to what Social Security pays out today but could be expanded to cover excess medical costs not covered by medical insurance, and for which other income and savings are insufficient.

The beauty of this scheme is that everyone remains a potential beneficiary of Social Security, and thus need not lock up large sums of money to secure their retirement. Yet to a person who is wealthy, it will not be an attractive proposition to waste their savings in order to qualify for Social Security.

While I would leave it to the experts to decide where the thresholds should stand, I suggest that a couple whose joint income is $100,000, who own their home and have $250,000 in savings should experience some reduction in their Social Security income, and by $200,000/500,000, should receive none. Some will see these figures as too high - it is not important - I just want to get the idea of a fundamentally different model across.

Such a change would make Social Security secure indefinitely, and could still contribute funds to Medicare.

cgraham of NM 12:02AM November 08, 2011

What many people do not know, that when those of us who get Snap along with SS will see a cut in our snap payments, even though food costs, fuel both gas and heating have increased along with health costs. So if anything we are going backwards not forward.

doorcountyed of SD 1:38PM October 28, 2011

The Best Life

Philip Moeller, contributing editor for U.S. News Money, writes about achieving success and happiness in older age.

advertisement

Our retirement readiness calculator will provide a rough idea of how long your retirement savings and income will last.


Latest Video

advertisement