The Motley Fool Discussion Boards
Politics & Current Events / Political Asylum
|Subject: Re: Wait! ... You mean???||Date: 3/4/2013 9:40 AM|
|Author: alstroemeria||Number: 1863312 of 2123203|
the Simpson Bowles report
The problem with the Simpson-Bowles report is that it represents the thinking of conservatives and moderates, but not progressives. They lost me with their plans for Social Security. Elders, one of the few groups who cannot do much to improve their financial situation, do not deserve a severe cut in income.
Seniors on average don't have much savings to invest and don't invest what they have all that well anyway.
Over their working lives, average seniors earned median income and therefore receive significantly less Social Security than professionals like you or my husband, for example. Do we really need to be cutting a $1230/month income--for people who, in most cases, can't go back to work?
The majority of seniors spend their entire monthly income, helping support our economy. The recession cut my mother's income, and inflation in things seniors tend to spend on did a number on it as well. She now can afford to get her hair and nails done half as often, impacting her hairdresser, nail lady, hair-wash & sweep-up lady, and salon owner, who in turn negatively impact other businesses as well as their families. Mom now eats lunch out less than half as often, affecting restaurants, waitresses, busboys, and so on. She doesn't eat dinner out at all any more, but I guess restaurants' losses are Lean Cuisine's gains--.I shudder to think what will happen if she needs to cut back even further because of implementing S-B or something like it as well as investment losses and/or increase in income taxes on lower middle class incomes--cutting her modest income (half SS, half IRA) even further.
Not to mention that many people stop working due to health problems--and no, mostly not caused by anything they did. Health declines with age. The last thing they need is a further cut in Social Security or a delay in being able to collect--and collect less at that.
|Copyright 1996-2016 trademark and the "Fool" logo is a trademark of The Motley Fool, Inc. Contact Us|