Dear Editor,
The better off get better off and the less fortunate get less fortunate. Every year the Social Security Administration (SSA) gives us elder people on Social Security a cost-of-living increase, or COLA. It is always in the form of a percentage increase.
I’ve been on Social Security for over 10 years and this is the way it is always done. Also, SSA deducts the fee for being on Medicare. Sometimes it goes up and like last year it dropped a little. But here is the problem. According to the SSA, the average Social Security recipient receives a little over $1,800 per month and they state that the 3.2% we are going to get this year amounts to around $59.
Well, if we are supposed to be helping those who are less fortunate, we aren’t. A person getting, let’s say, $1,200 per month will only receive about $38 more while someone who receives $2,400 per month will receive about $77 more per month. Now who do you suppose could use more money, the upper earner or someone struggling to pay the light bill? This has been going on every year since I’ve been receiving Social Security and the gap between those less fortunate and those better off has done nothing but widen.
What should be done is to establish what the average increase would be for the average Social Security receiver, this year about $59, and give the same increase to every recipient equally. For instance, this year lower and higher amount recipients would each get around $59. Wouldn’t this be fair? It wouldn’t cost the country any more money to do this and after many years there might be a more equitable result.
Jon Filion,
Salisbury
Mr. Filion argues that Social Security increases should not be based on a percentage of one’s benefit but should be the same numerical value for everyone, based on the average benefit of all recipients. He ignores the fact that these increases simply make up for inflation, so that your benefit will maintain its value in the future. Using Mr. Filion’s figure of 0.032% inflation, a loaf of bread costing $4 today, will cost $7.28 in the 20th year. But his method reduces the value of benefits for those getting more than the average benefit today, so that that loaf takes a higher percentage of their income.
Mr. Filion compares people making $1200 and $2400 per month. Note that someone with a Social Security benefit of $2400/month is unlikely to be rich, unless they got a nice inheritance.
Here are figures for the year 2043, comparing benefits calculated using the SSA’s method and Mr. Filion’s method, based on inflation of 0.032%/year, every year.
2023 Base 2043 Benefit (Value/Ratio to $1200)
(Ratio to $1200) SSA’s Method Filion’s Method
$1200 $2183 $2677
$1800 (1.5) $3275 (1.5) $3275 (1.22)
$2400 (2.0) $4366 (2.0) $3875 (1.45)
Because of inflation, under Mr. Filion’s method anyone making over the average benefit now will have the value of their future benefit reduced, possibly greatly reduced, in 2043. Someone getting $2400 today would lose 11% in value in 2043, adjusting for inflation. The value of the benefit for someone getting $4000/month today would be 25% less. What makes this “fair” is hard to understand.
The problem is not with the SSA’s method, it’s the inequality today. A lot of people simply don’t get paid enough. I’m sure Sen. Sanders has suggestions about that. A couple of options are doing away with tax breaks for the rich and big corporations and having stronger labor unions. You can probably come up with other ideas.