I dont get it, am I just catching the "spin" on the deal here.
Between the three of them they call for cutting current benefits, raising the retirement age to the death age, taxing the snot out of rich people, basing the benefit to rich people on price increases(cost of living), and basing the benefit to Joe Average on his income with a little kick for price increases. Seems to me that they only promise security for the folks that have a lesser need for it.
This stuck out like a sweaty whore in church
Higher-paid workers would have their benefits tied to inflation, which would produce lower benefits than those generated by the current link to wages. (Wages rise more sharply than prices). Lower-paid workers--those making less than $30,000 or so--would continue to have benefits tied to wages.
Since when do wage increases exceed cost of living increases? I got a $0.25 raise this week called a cost of living raise. Every hourly employee in the company got it. That's $10 a week, I'd like to know how that, plus the $0.25 that the company doled out last year and the year before can cover the cost of living. It might
cover the cost of fuel if you switch to the cheap stuff.
They must be smokin' dope up there.
Maybe it's different in other parts of the country but here the wages for average folks don't go up in proportion to prices, they fall behind ever so slightly each year. That means that I'm still screwed, if I even live long enough to qualify for SSI retirement benefits.
Did I get it right?