Part B costs are going up. However the cost of living increase (COLA) for next year is only 0.3%. That is only a couple dollars per month for some people, if that. So depending on how much each gets the extra Part B cost may or may not be absorbed by the COLA increase. Another situation would be the person who has their part B premium waived who would not be affected by the increase.

What whatchmelol said. I got my notice a few days ago, and wonder of wonders the increase in my Part B EXACTLY matches the minuscule COLA, and that my SS payment will stay the same. I'm now waiting for an 'increase of premium' notice from my supplement provider, they never send them until the change window closes in Dec. I've not used any insurance since I retired 5 years ago, I guess I better start and get my money's worth.

Mine is exctly the same as last year.

It's possible their Part D prescription drug premium was increased, as mine was. It is tied to S/S payments.

I find it infuriating that grocery costs are not factored into COLA decisions. They use the price of gasoline (which has been down, of course), but not the price of food.

My monthly benefit is supposed to increase by a few dollars but so will the cost of my part b Medicare so I will be getting the same amount each month as I am this year.

The selling price of housing is used to figure COLA, might work for the general cost of living, but how many seniors change houses every couple years? Rental costs may be a more reliable yardstick, but aren't used.

Several years ago my oldest son told me he didn't expect to be able to collect ANY Social Security when he retired, but expected to be taxed for it and Medicare. This was when he had about 40 years til retirement.

Sadly our children will never see a dime they have paid in. I think it is wrong to be able to collect on it if you haven't paid into. It. We will never even get close to receiving what we have paid in the last 45 years. From when I first started receiving SS I am receiving $43.00 less. They always talk about giving you a raise then raise something else. Thank goodness we don't depend on it. I feel so bad for those depending on just SS to live on. I don't see how they make it..

This situation is just infuriating. SS funds were completely mismanaged by the government, but those who paid in for many decades are the ones to suffer. No one should have to choose between paying medical costs and putting food on the table. Or affording heat in winter and/or air conditioning in summer. And the COLA tie-in is ridiculous. If politicians had to live on an average SS payment, I have no doubt there would be meaningful annual raises and other financial assistance. But since most of them are affluent, we have to read this nonsense: Last year, neither veterans nor Social Security recipients saw an
increase in their payouts, with federal officials citing a drop in
consumer prices as evidence that an increase was not needed.

Social Security is not now and was NEVER intended to be a retirement plan.

People say they aren't getting what they paid in. It isn't a savings account! It wasn't put aside for you.

I don't care that I will never see a dime of it, but I do wish it would be overhauled or abolished.

Some of you are not well informed about Social Security.

Do you get out what you put in? Well, most retirees currently and over the past decades have gotten much more out than they ever put in.

The social security tax paid by workers is an income tax that
ultimately goes into the general balances for federal government
spending. There is no "Fund", bank account or money balance for anyone essentially because any shortfall could be made up by general federal funds.
Benefits are separate, the payments in are not connected to payments
out. Each can be (and are) adjusted up or down without affecting the
other.

Let's take an example, using the benefit estimator on the SSA Website.

An employee earning $50,000 per year will pay SS tax of 6.2%, or $3100 at the current rate. (Decades ago, the SS tax would have been much lower on this level of income). The employer pays a like amount. At retirement, this person will receive $17,000 per year. Do the math - the annual benefit is 5 1/2 years of contributions. If this person worked for 35 years, after 6 years of receiving benefits, the recipient is now receiving more than they ever put in. And because of lower contribution rates decades ago, the breakeven point actually will come sooner. That's tells the story. Because of so many years of a low social security tax base, today's retirees have and will continue to receive benefits far in excess of what they ever put in.

The law requires payment adjustments to follow cost of living changes based on statistics determined by a different government agency. This isn't a job or union contract where annual raises are provided. If no change in the COLA, no change in benefits. It is what it is. The information gatherers determined consumer prices were stable, so no adjustment is made.

But wouldn't it be so much better if Medicare and SS taxes were put into a fund of some sort and invested so said funds would grow, maybe it could be called The Social Security Trust Fund or some such thing and be untouchable?

The General Fund, the black hole of ALL governments that swallows up taxes.

kentrees, okay, let's follow that along for a moment.

How any government works is:

Money received + loans received = money spent + loans repaid

You've just put a new spending line into the federal budget - "Payments into retirement accounts". Where does that money come from? Are you suggesting a reduction or redirection of current social security benefits? An increase in taxes or borrowing? It has to come from somewhere.

Politicians like to use all kinds of sloganeering and populist comments to gripe about government finances. When it comes down to focusing on real changes, few understand the system well enough to make positive contributions to a conversation. Most don't understand it at all.

I never ever complained about paying into SS, nor would I let my DH. My father died when I was 8 years old and my Mom raised 3 kids 8 years, 6 years and 10 months old on the $200 a month she received from SS. She remarried when I was 16 and then she banked the SS coming in for the three of us. If I remember right I got $500 when I was 18.

My brother and sister went on to college and received payments for a longer time. I know my kids are worried about if it will be there for them. They don't have the pensions like we have and are saving in their 401k's etc.

I looked this up...wondering how anyone is getting an increase...

"Social Security will have money to pay retirement benefits for decades to come, even if needed reforms are not made. It's just that the program won't have the means to meet all its scheduled obligations. Social Security's trustees estimate the program, in the absence of reforms, will be able to pay only about 75 cents on the dollar by 2034."

lets be blunt. the party in charge turned down a slight raise.

Elmer, an increase in SS-Medicare taxes. Whether that is in the form of an actual increase in percentage or an increase of the earnings that are subject to SS taxes. POSSIBLY means testing. All goes into a dedicated fund managed for max income-minimum risk.

As far as Medicare, so long as healthcare in this country remains broken, I don't see much in the way of savings. Unless Medicare can somehow be severed from privately insured healthcare and made a single-payer stand alone.

Being the cynic and pessimist that I am, I wonder how truthful our government has been, is, and will be about finances. When I was a kid, I read lots of scifi. All the fantastic inventions, explorations and whatever seem to have been funded by a hybrid private industry-government entity, with the emphasis on the private. The government was pretty much a puppet. It looks to me like we are heading in that direction, and have a head start.

Maximizing income and minimizing risk work at cross purposes - pick one, you can't have both at the same time.

Nothing is accomplished if the increment is put into savings, because without the tax increase, isn't that what people would be doing with the money anyway? If you want to force savings (a bit draconian), that can be done outside the SS system anyway, require people to set up IRAs with approved national banks. That might be unfair and difficult for those at the lower levels of income, without discretionary funds to set aside.

For me, those who choose not to save should have the consequences of doing so just as do those who do. Social security is welfare for senior citizens, it was intended to provide a bare minimum safety net. Not as a replacement for personal savings and individual responsibility.

Truthfulness of government? Eh, I'm not much of a conspiracy theorist. I'll leave that to you and your imagination.

Was just cleaning up my desk and found my SS notice of change in my benefits. I will get $11 less monthly in 2017. The last time, I got $55 less each month. Somehow I don't see this as "progress". Medicare just keeps going up and then there is the "income-related monthly adjustment amount". Right - I'm SO rich...

Why do we set an earning limit on taxes due? Why don't Americans earning $500,000 a year pay 6.5% on the entire amount, not just up to $127,200.

Why should the person earning $50,000 pay $3,250 on his entire earnings while the person earning $500,000 pays $8,268 instead of $32,500? Mr. $50K is paying 6.5% on his paycheck. Mr. $500K is paying 1.6% of his.

Oh...Is this part of the 'trickle down' economics plan -- the one that doesn't work?

Chisue, I think we can expect that disparity to get worse. All indications are the new administration is likely to favor the rich getting richer.

chisue, FICA tax was designed to pay for social security benefits and it's been overcharging for that purpose since it started. Also, remember that self employed people (as I was) pay double the amount, currently 15.2%. It's a heavy tax and more isn't needed.

alisande, economically it's a free country. There's a (maybe inadequate) safety net for those who falter or fare less well than others, but isn't each individual alone responsible for their lot in life and to take care of themselves and any others they support? I won't go along with any Robin Hood sentiment, those who obey the law and work hard to do well are entitled to their rewards. Those who don't strive and try anything possible to improve their own financial adequacy or well-being will do poorly and are entitled to those consequences too. There should be far more programs to help people redirect their lives and learn market-demanded job skills but beyond that, hmmm.

My DH is getting a $4 raise. He says that comes to about 13 cents a day. Now what can we buy for 13 cents? LOL