On Tue, 12 Oct 2010 12:40:55 -0700, "Dimitri" >
wrote:

>"Brooklyn1" <Gravesend1> wrote in message
.. .
>> On Tue, 12 Oct 2010 08:15:54 -0700 (PDT), Nancy2
>> > wrote:
>>
>>>On Oct 12, 8:03 am, "James Silverton" >
>>>wrote:
>>>> Christopher wrote on Tue, 12 Oct 2010 05:43:00 -0700 (PDT):
>>>>
>>>> > On Oct 12, 6:58 am, walt tonne > wrote:
>>>> >> On Oct 12, 2:43 am, "Lawrence Akutagawa"
>>>> >> > wrote:
>>>>
>>>> > >> Funny - stuff like water rates still keep going up
>>>> > >> hereabouts.
>>>>
>>>> > >>http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20101011/...al_security_no...
>>>>
>>>> > >> Seniors prepared to cut back on everything from food to
>>>> > >> charitable donations to whiskey as word spread Monday that
>>>> > >> they will have to wait until at least 2012 to see their
>>>> > >> Social Security checks increase.
>>>>
>>>> There is an evident contradiction here. Why should cut-backs be needed
>>>> when Social Security is pegged to the CPI which has hardly changed. Does
>>>> the CPI not measure the cost of living and thus a need for increases?
>>>>
>>>> --
>>>>
>>>> James Silverton
>>>> Potomac, Maryland
>>>>
>>>> Email, with obvious alterations: not.jim.silverton.at.verizon.not
>>>
>>>Yes, you're right about when the COL on SS income kicks in; however,
>>>the CPI may not change overall, but certain items within it do - like
>>>medical costs, which rise for no reason whatsoever. Many expenses
>>>like medical expenses are ones that seniors cannot do without. Also,
>>>utilities continue to rise. OTOH, maybe clothing doesn't, or one's
>>>housing cost doesn't (and, in fact, interest rates are down). The CPI
>>>is an overall figure, not one that takes individual increases
>>>affecting seniors into account.
>>
>>
>> The most important fact to keep in mind is that SS was never intended
>> as a retirement pension... people are supposed to save on their own
>> for retirement... SS was always intended as a suppliment the same as
>> unemployment insureance is not pay in lieu of wages. And when SS was
>> instituted it was never with the guarantee it would exist forever...
>> nothing is forever. I would have much preferred having the option of
>> not being required to pay into SS and use that money witheld as I
>> determined... I know I would have been much further ahead. SS was
>> instituted because the vast majority are lamebrains when it comes to
>> taking personal responsibility.
>
>
>The problem with your information is a shift in society. In years past
>after xx years with a company there was a "retirement" that went along with
>the job. Even the teamsters had a pension fund. In addition medical was
>usually part of the retirement package - Just ask GM and the UAW.
>
>The problem came with a dramatic shift in mobility and when corporations no
>longer valued loyalty or longevity for a wide variety of reasons.
>
>In short the employers began shifting the retirement burden to a year by
>year basis by paying into the 401K type programs hereby eliminating long
>term liability and care for their employees.
>
>In short the worker became disposable.
>
>The new workers of today understand (we hope) that their retirement can not
>longer be funded by the government or their corporation and is in the
>process of being shifted onto the backs of the individual.
>
>In the interim a spouse trying to LIVE on 1/2 her deceased husbands SS is
>up the creek and there are no more paddles he/she can access.


The full value of a vested pension is paid to a spouse... SS is NOT a
pension, not in any way whatsoever. Like I said, one needs to provide
for themself.