Pension ERISA anti-cutback Rule at Risk?

[daylatedollarshort]

DLDS would prefer to preserve benefits which screws you because the likely funding is higher taxes on you.

Not at all. I never said that in this post or anywhere else. Please do not attribute to me ideas that are not mine. I would make other changes to the U.S. budget that would come up with more money for SS for everyone, not less.

 

[pb4uski]

Ok, I guess I am confused then. You oppose chained CPI, which would reduce benefits.

You would prefer to preserve, expand or reduce benefits?

 

[daylatedollarshort]

Ok, I guess I am confused then. You oppose chained CPI, which would reduce benefits.

You would prefer to preserve, expand or reduce benefits?

I would take a broader look at the issue and compare the U.S. annual budget to other developed countries by category and make cuts and raise taxes based on metrics derived from best practices in other developed countries. Warren Buffett has some good ideas on increasing general revenues for starters and we have one budget area where we spend more than the next 13 nations put together. I can't go into more specifics because that gets into a broader political issue.

But the reality is no matter what I think is a good idea it isn't likely to happen anyway. I'm leaving a lot of pad in our retirement budget for future Medicare, SS and pensions cuts and I think I'll keep working part-time.

 

[pb4uski]

That sounds like the sort of answer a politician would give. Doesn't address the question that is asked.

 

[daylatedollarshort]

That sounds like the sort of answer a politician would give. Doesn't address the question that is asked.

You are asking a politically hinged question which if I answer in more detail will get this thread shut down. I would raise taxes or take the money from other national budget categories and not balance the budget at the expenses of retirees. No point in going into more detail as it won't change what is really going to happen anyway, and will just end what has otherwise been a very thought provoking thread.

 

[pb4uski]

Ok, so I told Greencheese that you would preserve benefits and you say above that your would not balance the budget at the expense of retirees, which sounds to me like one and the same thing. I also told Greencheese that you would raise his taxes and you concede above that you would raise taxes, but we just don't know for sure whether it would be on Greencheese or not, but it would come from somewhere so it is a good chance it would hit Greenchese in the wallet. So my statement to Greenchese that you so vigorously objected to wasn't all that far off base even though you didn't necessarily say so directly.

 

[daylatedollarshort]

Ok, so I told Greencheese that you would preserve benefits and you say above that your would not balance the budget at the expense of retirees, which sounds to me like one and the same thing. I also told Greencheese that you would raise his taxes and you concede above that you would raise taxes, but we just don't know for sure whether it would be on Greencheese or not, but it would come from somewhere so it is a good chance it would hit Greenchese in the wallet. So my statement to Greenchese that you so vigorously objected to wasn't all that far off base even though you didn't necessarily say so directly.

It was way off. I am not in favor of cutting social services. I'd expand them if anything and raise taxes only on certain groups who can well afford it (the Buffett plan is $500K+ in annual income, which is not the average poster in this forum) and cut other budget areas not providing social services. I won't be replying any more on this particular post as I am sure this is not a fascinating back and forth to other posters and readers.