More

Social Security Benefits Revision Could Lead To Tax Increase, Cuts To Future Payments

Social Security Benefits

STEPHEN OHLEMACHER   11/ 7/11 03:14 PM ET   AP

WASHINGTON — Just as 55 million Social Security recipients are about to get their first benefit increase in three years, Congress is looking at reducing future raises by adopting a new measure of inflation that also would increase taxes for most families – the biggest impact falling on those with low incomes.

If adopted across the government, the inflation measure would have widespread ramifications. Future increases in veterans' benefits and pensions for federal workers and military personnel would be smaller. And over time, fewer people would qualify for Medicaid, Head Start, food stamps, school lunch programs and home heating assistance than under the current measure.

Taxes would go up by $60 billion over the next decade because annual adjustments to the tax brackets would be smaller, resulting in more people jumping into higher tax brackets because their wages rose faster than the new inflation measure. Annual increases in the standard deduction and personal exemptions would become smaller.

Despite fierce opposition from seniors groups, the proposal is gaining momentum in part because it would let policymakers gradually cut benefits and increase taxes in a way that might not be readily apparent to most Americans. Changes at first would be small – the Social Security increase would be cut by just a few dollars in the first year.

But the impact, as well as savings to the government, would grow over time, generating about $200 billion in the first decade and much more after that.

The proposal to adopt a new Consumer Price Index was floated by the Obama administration during deficit reduction talks in the summer. Now, it is one of the few options supported by both Democratic and Republican members of a joint supercommittee in Congress working to reduce government borrowing.

The committee of six Democrats and six Republicans is struggling to come up with a plan to reduce government red ink by at least $1.2 trillion over the next decade. Changing the inflation index alone would put them a sixth of the way there.

"I think the thought process behind this is, slip this in, people won't understand it," said Max Richtman, president and CEO of the National Committee to Preserve Social Security and Medicare.

Richtman's group is spending about $2 million on radio, TV and direct mail ads to fight cuts in Social Security and Medicare. His message to Congress: "Don't believe that taking this approach to cutting Social Security will not be noticed. You will pay for it."

A TV ad by AARP puts it this way: "We are 50 million seniors who earned our benefits, and you will be hearing from us today – and on Election Day."

The inflation measure under consideration is called the Chained Consumer Price Index, or chained CPI. On average, the measure shows a lower level of inflation than the more widely used CPI for All Urban Consumers.

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.

For example, if the price of beef increases while the price of pork does not, people will buy more pork. Or, as opponents mockingly argue, if the price of home heating oil goes up, people will turn down their heat and wear more sweaters.

A report by the Moment of Truth Project, a group formed to promote the deficit reduction package produced by President Barack Obama's deficit commission late last year, supports a new inflation measure. "Rather than serving to raise taxes and cut benefits, switching to the chained CPI would simply be fulfilling the mission of properly adjusting for cost of living," it argues.

The new measure would reduce Social Security cost-of-living adjustments, or COLAs, by an average of 0.3 percentage points each year, according to the Social Security Administration. Next year's increase, the first since 2009, will be 3.6 percent, starting in January.

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 all, adopting the chained CPI would reduce Social Security benefits by $112 billion over the next decade. Federal civilian and military pensions would be $24 billion lower, according to the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office.

If adopted across the government, fewer people would be eligible for many anti-poverty programs because the poverty level also would increase at a lower rate each year. That would result in fewer people living below the official poverty line, despite having the same income.

The tax increases would hit low-income families the hardest, while high-income taxpayers would see smaller changes. The wealthiest taxpayers already pay taxes at the highest marginal rate, currently 35 percent.

For example, by 2021, taxpayers making between $10,000 and $20,000 would see a 14.5 percent increase in their federal taxes with a chained CPI, according to an analysis by the Joint Committee on Taxation. Taxpayers making more than $1 million would get a tax increase of 0.1 percent.

Despite the political backlash, some lawmakers see the new inflation measure as a way to help break the deadlock in Washington over tax increases and cuts in benefit programs. Most Republicans adamantly oppose tax increases, while Democrats have said they won't support benefit cuts without a substantial increase in revenue.

Rep. Xavier Becerra, a California Democrat who serves on the supercommittee, helped lead the fight over the summer against adopting the chained CPI. But in an interview last week, he wouldn't rule out supporting a package that included it.

"If you're going to simply try to save money by changing the CPI, you can do that," Becerra said. "But then be up front and tell seniors what you're doing. You're throwing them under the bus to save money."

FOLLOW HUFFPOST POLITICS
Subscribe to the HuffPost Hill newsletter!
WASHINGTON — Just as 55 million Social Security recipients are about to get their first benefit increase in three years, Congress is looking at reducing future raises by adopting a new measure o...
WASHINGTON — Just as 55 million Social Security recipients are about to get their first benefit increase in three years, Congress is looking at reducing future raises by adopting a new measure o...
Filed by Nick Wing  | 
 
 
  • Comments
  • 20
  • Pending Comments
  • 0
  • View FAQ
Comments are closed for this entry
View All
Favorites
Recency  | 
Popularity
07:23 PM on 11/26/2011
Republicans oppose tax increases, but support benefit cuts.

Am I an idiot, or are they the same thing ultimately?
01:06 PM on 11/11/2011
What we need to keep in mind is the way they are figuring inflation now is not covering the real inflation.

Does the CPI index count food, health care and gas as part of inflation ?.
12:46 PM on 11/11/2011
It is a shame that the leaders forget that we earned the 2.6 trillion dollars by working and paid in out of our paychecks. Our employer matched what we paid in as part of our wages.

It will make it hard on the younger generations if they figure the CPI differently. It will probably hurt the retirees too.
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
loki
Better to die fighting, than live on knees
04:45 AM on 11/08/2011
chop off the elderly and disabled people and the vets at the head. At least then you can justify not paying them enough to survive. Like the Nazi's use to say, a bullet is cheaper than feeding a prisoner.
SoCalGrandma
Question consumption.
03:30 PM on 11/07/2011
What do you tell people who are already foregoing beef, pork, chicken, turkey, and fish in favor of Spam? Go to potted meat and Vienna sausages?
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
loki
Better to die fighting, than live on knees
04:49 AM on 11/08/2011
spam? I was shopping the other day and an old man had bought 10 cans of cat food in front of me. I joked with the cashier that he had a lot of cats. She replied, he comes in once a month and buys 10 cans to eat himself. I felt so bad I took a bag of my groceries and ran it out to him at the bus stop. He was very very grateful, and he didnt even know I stuck a 20 in the bottom of the bag for him. Spam is getting to be a luxury for many it appears.
01:02 PM on 11/11/2011
They have done that before, they started figuring that we would buy something cheaper if steak went up we would buy hamburger. I think Bill Clinton did it
How nice.

I suppose we could all be vegetarians or raise our own.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
DixieMelody
Iso Blue in Red Idaho
03:26 PM on 11/07/2011
You heartless, greedy, self-serving clowns roosting in luxury on Capitol Hill . . .

It's NOT that you tax too little. . .

It's that you SPEND TOO MUCH ! ! !
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Sue McFarland
05:04 PM on 11/07/2011
I'm sorry, I'm not sure I "get" this comment.

To be clear, I don't support cutting Social Security in any way, shape, or form--or Medicare either, for that matter. My question is don't you realize the biggest budget busters are those two programs.

It helps to remember that if we hadn't had the Bush tax cuts AND two wars, one of choice and the other not, then it's very possible the deficit wouldn't be as bad as it is. It also helps to remember that a big chunk of the deficit will go away once the unemployment rate comes down.
12:49 PM on 11/11/2011
Other countries have free health care and early and better retirements, too..

I am tired of this game, it isn't fun. You can't win.
09:36 PM on 11/21/2011
And when do you think that will happen? Not
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
loki
Better to die fighting, than live on knees
04:49 AM on 11/08/2011
they spend too much on stupid shat too. like propping up the super rich for their own personal investment mistakes.
02:52 PM on 11/07/2011
Members of congress belong behind bars' bankers on wall street belong behind bars both groups should serve life sentence's. Oh' lets not forget the ( 5 ) clowns on the supreme court as well.
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
blueeyedbull
A sense of humor is one of the most sexy qualities
02:44 PM on 11/07/2011
The wealthy don't have to depend on social security when they retire. Once again they are _pandering to the wealthy and hurting the middle class and poor.
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
02:50 PM on 11/07/2011
Really. Because as it stands right now, poor people get their SS and Med back when they file their income taxes through the Earned Income Tax Credit. Poor people get more money for their SS contribution because payout is graduated, starting at 90% of 30 year averaged pre-retirement income, then dropping to 32%, and then down to 15% for those lucky enough to have contributed at the top level. And when they get their benefit check, poor people do not pay income taxes on it. Looks to me like the system is heavily weighted towards poor folks. And while this might cut into that a little bit, its a far cry from "selling out" the poor in favor of the middle class and wealthy.

And by the way, the REAL wealthy do not get social security because they never had earned income, never paid SS tax, and therefore are not eligible for a benefit check.
photo
HUFFPOST COMMUNITY MODERATOR
glomtt
Terribly Political
03:15 PM on 11/07/2011
You don't get the earned income credit unless you work, that's why it's called the earned income credit. Know what you are talking about.
01:10 PM on 11/11/2011
A lot of business employers match what employees pay in. My son in law started a business and he had to pay both the employer match and what the employee pays in too for Social Security. He was considered the employer and the employee by the government. It may be required.

The only wealthy that doesn't pay into it is those who don't own businesses.