KISS IT GOODBYE: SOCIAL SECURITY BENEFITS WILL BE CUT IN 2017
(Jed Graham)
No matter who wins the White House in 2016, there’s no getting around it: Social Security benefits will be cut starting in 2017. A 1983 pact between President Reagan and the Democrat-led Congress to stave off an imminent Social Security financing crisis included a hike in the official retirement age from 65 to 67 somewhere in the far-off future.
But that pact is pushing the limits of age-related reforms, even as a new funding crisis builds for the retirement program.
(HOW can that be when each one of our birth certificates is being continually traded and is worth in the billions - monies that belongs to each one of us but is being STOLEN from us by the criminal banksters and this criminal 'government' in Wash DC?! NONE of us should have a financial worry in the world with billions in each one of our accounts!!!! This is yet another control measure by the criminal NWO 'elitists' who plan to steal EVERY thing while 'depopulating' the planet - that includes the elimination of you and me.)
The retirement age rose to 66 in two-month increments between 2000 and 2005. Between 2017 and 2022, the retirement age will rise to 67.
In practical terms, workers claiming benefits at age 62 in 2022 and beyond will face a 30% reduction in the annual benefit that they receive throughout their lives. When the retirement age was 65, those claiming benefits at 62 suffered a 20% cut.
The cuts are intended to be an actuarially 'fair trade-off' allowing people to get a 'benefit' that’s smaller but runs for more years.
(Besides the billions in each one of our 'accounts' set up under the trading of our birth certificates, monies are extorted from our pay checks by the IRS and SS departments. We should not 'have' to work at all. With all those monies continually being monetized, we are wealthy beyond imagination. So WHY is SS and SNAPS being reduced due to 'funds not being available'??? HOW's THAT??)
While it may be 'fair', that doesn’t mean it won’t hurt. If that 30% cut were in place today, it would shrink the available benefit for a $30,000-earner turning 62 down to the poverty level, a bit less than $12,000 a year. (And less than $12k annually is about what MOST - if not the MAJORITY - are currently being paid.) That’s hardly enough to ensure income security for members of the working class who live long enough to deplete their savings.
In Trust Fund We Bust
Yet despite the coming rise in the retirement age, Social Security’s cash deficit is set to explode to $361 billion in 2025 from $74 billion in 2014, the Congressional Budget Office estimates. The CBO’s estimates point to the $2.8 trillion trust fund being depleted late in 2029, after which program revenues will cover only about 75% of scheduled benefits. (This is all pure bullshit. Think again of all those monies being made off your birth certificate.)
Something has to be done to put the program on a firmer footing, and potential Republican candidates have begun stepping forward with their ideas.
(Yes - take even MORE money out of our paychecks - so much so that we HAVE to turn to the 'government' to feed us and pay our rents - EXACTLY 'THE PLAN' TO PUT PEOPLE IN FEMA CAMPS TO NOT BE SEEN OR HEARD FROM AGAIN, AND TO REMOVE THE REST FROM THEIR HOMES AND LAND AND MOVE THEM INTO CONTROLLED MULTIPLE HOUSING FACILITIES, LIVING IN 8 x 10 ROOMS - NO MATTER HOW MANY MAY HAVE TO OCCUPY THAT 8 x 10 ROOM!!! AGENDA 21 FOLKS.)
Chris Christie and Jeb Bush have both put themselves squarely behind a further increase in the retirement age. Christie specifically advocated a hike to age 69, closing a bit more than one-third of the financing shortfall. But a hike to age 69 would mean that early retirees would have a whopping 39% benefit cut for life. To avoid that scenario, Christie proposed raising the earliest eligibility age for claiming benefits to 64, in tandem with the retirement-age increase.
(Christie, Bushes, Clintons, Cheney, et al and others are living off YOUR birth certificate accounts, long with GHW Bush's/Clintonistas/Cheney's criminal world businesses - drugs, porn, gun running, et al)
Delay Retirement
There’s some logic in that approach, says the American Enterprise Institute’s Andrew Biggs, deputy Social Security commissioner under President Bush.
Instead of further eroding the benefit that seniors will rely on late in life, workers would face the penalty in their early 60s (they are ALREADY facing that penalty when the need arises that they HAVE to apply 'early' for SS - due to job losses, illnesses, etc. but NOW these bastards intent to take MORE from you people.)
Ideally, they would keep working longer so that they’d be able to spread their savings over fewer years of retirement. (These shysters plan on how to run YOUR lives while they benefit from their theft of YOUR birth certificate accounts.)
“Delaying retirement is a really, really effective way of increasing retirement income,” Biggs said. His message to Republicans is not to focus on solvency alone but also on “how do you make the system more effective?”
Looking for ways to encourage later retirement may be more important than ever, now that ObamaCare’s subsidies, which grow much more generous as income falls, are pushing in the opposite direction.
Christie also proposes raising the Medicare eligibility age — currently 65 — by one month a year, to 67 by 2040, saying, “It encourages ??? (Even when more and more are becoming disables from chemtrails, poisonous Bill Gates generated 'vaccines', GMO 'foods', etc????) seniors to remain in the workforce.”
Christie emphasized in a New Hampshire speech that he would gradually phase out Social Security benefits for seniors with income above $80,000, with no benefits going to those earning more than $200,000.
“Do we really believe that the wealthiest Americans need to take from younger, hard-working Americans to receive what, for most of them, is a modest monthly Social Security check?” Christie asked.
Still, his means-testing proposal wouldn’t save much money be cause it won’t affect many people.
The political left attacked Christie’s overall proposal as “a disaster for the poor,” with Paul Krugman noting that lower earners’ life expectancy has grown much more slowly than higher earners’.
Undoubtedly, a rise in the earliest retirement age would most affect those who have difficulty extending their careers and little savings to fall back on.
(HOW does the average Joe and Josephine 'save' when this criminal 'gov' extorts more and more from their pay? And their 'benefits'?)
Social Security Administration data show that about 30% of beneficiaries in their early 60s rely on the program for at least 80% of total income.
There are two ways of insulating lower earners from benefit cuts. President Bush and Rep. Paul Ryan, R-Wisc., previously proposed to bolster Social Security’s minimum benefit in ways that might provide a net increase to help keep the lowest earners out of poverty.
(Understand this: THE GOAL IS TO REDUCE EVERYONE TO POVERTY IN ORDER TO JUSTIFY ROUNDUPS WHICH WILL BE TRANSPORTATED TO FEMA CAMPS 'WHERE THEY WILL BE PROPERLY CARED FOR' OR RELOCATED TO THEIR AGENDA 21 HOUSING APARTMENTS.)
A second possibly complementary option would be to ask workers to set aside a fraction of additional income in a personal account that could eventually be tapped to offset benefit cuts early in retirement. (These accounts will be stolen from you also.)
If this extra saving were mandatory, it might be criticized as a tax hike. Yet if it were done on a voluntary basis, letting workers opt out of a new savings initiative, there would be much less of a sure thing that financially stretched workers would participate in.
*********************************************
Americans: don't be fooled - misled - by their continued lies and 'reasonings' on YOUR behalf. You are considered to be STUPID and UNABLE to handle your own personal affairs. THEY have to do it FOR YOU - while stealing monies made off of your birth certificates - in the billions.
http://govtslaves.info/kiss-it-goodbye-social-security-benefits-will-be-cut-in-2017/
No matter who wins the White House in 2016, there’s no getting around it: Social Security benefits will be cut starting in 2017. A 1983 pact between President Reagan and the Democrat-led Congress to stave off an imminent Social Security financing crisis included a hike in the official retirement age from 65 to 67 somewhere in the far-off future.
But that pact is pushing the limits of age-related reforms, even as a new funding crisis builds for the retirement program.
(HOW can that be when each one of our birth certificates is being continually traded and is worth in the billions - monies that belongs to each one of us but is being STOLEN from us by the criminal banksters and this criminal 'government' in Wash DC?! NONE of us should have a financial worry in the world with billions in each one of our accounts!!!! This is yet another control measure by the criminal NWO 'elitists' who plan to steal EVERY thing while 'depopulating' the planet - that includes the elimination of you and me.)
The retirement age rose to 66 in two-month increments between 2000 and 2005. Between 2017 and 2022, the retirement age will rise to 67.
In practical terms, workers claiming benefits at age 62 in 2022 and beyond will face a 30% reduction in the annual benefit that they receive throughout their lives. When the retirement age was 65, those claiming benefits at 62 suffered a 20% cut.
The cuts are intended to be an actuarially 'fair trade-off' allowing people to get a 'benefit' that’s smaller but runs for more years.
(Besides the billions in each one of our 'accounts' set up under the trading of our birth certificates, monies are extorted from our pay checks by the IRS and SS departments. We should not 'have' to work at all. With all those monies continually being monetized, we are wealthy beyond imagination. So WHY is SS and SNAPS being reduced due to 'funds not being available'??? HOW's THAT??)
While it may be 'fair', that doesn’t mean it won’t hurt. If that 30% cut were in place today, it would shrink the available benefit for a $30,000-earner turning 62 down to the poverty level, a bit less than $12,000 a year. (And less than $12k annually is about what MOST - if not the MAJORITY - are currently being paid.) That’s hardly enough to ensure income security for members of the working class who live long enough to deplete their savings.
In Trust Fund We Bust
Yet despite the coming rise in the retirement age, Social Security’s cash deficit is set to explode to $361 billion in 2025 from $74 billion in 2014, the Congressional Budget Office estimates. The CBO’s estimates point to the $2.8 trillion trust fund being depleted late in 2029, after which program revenues will cover only about 75% of scheduled benefits. (This is all pure bullshit. Think again of all those monies being made off your birth certificate.)
Something has to be done to put the program on a firmer footing, and potential Republican candidates have begun stepping forward with their ideas.
(Yes - take even MORE money out of our paychecks - so much so that we HAVE to turn to the 'government' to feed us and pay our rents - EXACTLY 'THE PLAN' TO PUT PEOPLE IN FEMA CAMPS TO NOT BE SEEN OR HEARD FROM AGAIN, AND TO REMOVE THE REST FROM THEIR HOMES AND LAND AND MOVE THEM INTO CONTROLLED MULTIPLE HOUSING FACILITIES, LIVING IN 8 x 10 ROOMS - NO MATTER HOW MANY MAY HAVE TO OCCUPY THAT 8 x 10 ROOM!!! AGENDA 21 FOLKS.)
Chris Christie and Jeb Bush have both put themselves squarely behind a further increase in the retirement age. Christie specifically advocated a hike to age 69, closing a bit more than one-third of the financing shortfall. But a hike to age 69 would mean that early retirees would have a whopping 39% benefit cut for life. To avoid that scenario, Christie proposed raising the earliest eligibility age for claiming benefits to 64, in tandem with the retirement-age increase.
(Christie, Bushes, Clintons, Cheney, et al and others are living off YOUR birth certificate accounts, long with GHW Bush's/Clintonistas/Cheney's criminal world businesses - drugs, porn, gun running, et al)
Delay Retirement
There’s some logic in that approach, says the American Enterprise Institute’s Andrew Biggs, deputy Social Security commissioner under President Bush.
Instead of further eroding the benefit that seniors will rely on late in life, workers would face the penalty in their early 60s (they are ALREADY facing that penalty when the need arises that they HAVE to apply 'early' for SS - due to job losses, illnesses, etc. but NOW these bastards intent to take MORE from you people.)
Ideally, they would keep working longer so that they’d be able to spread their savings over fewer years of retirement. (These shysters plan on how to run YOUR lives while they benefit from their theft of YOUR birth certificate accounts.)
“Delaying retirement is a really, really effective way of increasing retirement income,” Biggs said. His message to Republicans is not to focus on solvency alone but also on “how do you make the system more effective?”
Looking for ways to encourage later retirement may be more important than ever, now that ObamaCare’s subsidies, which grow much more generous as income falls, are pushing in the opposite direction.
Christie also proposes raising the Medicare eligibility age — currently 65 — by one month a year, to 67 by 2040, saying, “It encourages ??? (Even when more and more are becoming disables from chemtrails, poisonous Bill Gates generated 'vaccines', GMO 'foods', etc????) seniors to remain in the workforce.”
Christie emphasized in a New Hampshire speech that he would gradually phase out Social Security benefits for seniors with income above $80,000, with no benefits going to those earning more than $200,000.
“Do we really believe that the wealthiest Americans need to take from younger, hard-working Americans to receive what, for most of them, is a modest monthly Social Security check?” Christie asked.
Still, his means-testing proposal wouldn’t save much money be cause it won’t affect many people.
The political left attacked Christie’s overall proposal as “a disaster for the poor,” with Paul Krugman noting that lower earners’ life expectancy has grown much more slowly than higher earners’.
Undoubtedly, a rise in the earliest retirement age would most affect those who have difficulty extending their careers and little savings to fall back on.
(HOW does the average Joe and Josephine 'save' when this criminal 'gov' extorts more and more from their pay? And their 'benefits'?)
Social Security Administration data show that about 30% of beneficiaries in their early 60s rely on the program for at least 80% of total income.
There are two ways of insulating lower earners from benefit cuts. President Bush and Rep. Paul Ryan, R-Wisc., previously proposed to bolster Social Security’s minimum benefit in ways that might provide a net increase to help keep the lowest earners out of poverty.
(Understand this: THE GOAL IS TO REDUCE EVERYONE TO POVERTY IN ORDER TO JUSTIFY ROUNDUPS WHICH WILL BE TRANSPORTATED TO FEMA CAMPS 'WHERE THEY WILL BE PROPERLY CARED FOR' OR RELOCATED TO THEIR AGENDA 21 HOUSING APARTMENTS.)
A second possibly complementary option would be to ask workers to set aside a fraction of additional income in a personal account that could eventually be tapped to offset benefit cuts early in retirement. (These accounts will be stolen from you also.)
If this extra saving were mandatory, it might be criticized as a tax hike. Yet if it were done on a voluntary basis, letting workers opt out of a new savings initiative, there would be much less of a sure thing that financially stretched workers would participate in.
*********************************************
Americans: don't be fooled - misled - by their continued lies and 'reasonings' on YOUR behalf. You are considered to be STUPID and UNABLE to handle your own personal affairs. THEY have to do it FOR YOU - while stealing monies made off of your birth certificates - in the billions.
http://govtslaves.info/kiss-it-goodbye-social-security-benefits-will-be-cut-in-2017/
1 comment:
Hopefully it will collapse all the use of the social security numbers for financial gain by those that know how to get into that account.
There is wealth in the account and everyone wants the number to let you have light, or cable or a bank account or auto insurance, or medical insurance, to go to school, or the dentist, and especially when they kidnap you and take you to jail.
They know how to get into that account and get money to pay your salary for your job, and then take money out of your labor to put back some of what they are taking out.
But behind the scenes they have securitized it, with the bonds/bondage they get off the fake criminal complaints they get people to pay and sign to get back home after being robbed of their freedom.
shut it down.
The accounts have been pilfered ad infinitum.
The people can be responsible for their own credit.
When you let a group of people control the credit of the people, they rob the accounts to make their selves richer and the creditors poorer.
Get rid of it.
We will take care of each other, and if we don't, we will find out who we really are as the People.
Post a Comment