Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Politics for Pros- moderated -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: LindyBill who wrote (95606)	1/17/2005 10:24:40 AM
From: Lane3	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 793939

Bill, we've talked about this before. Remember how confused I was that they were talking about changing the cola from wage to price indexing when the cola is already based on price inflation rather than wage inflation? It turned out that they are talking about the growth in INITIAL benefits rather than colas. Go back and read it again. It doesn't make sense any other way. The people writing about this continue to muddle it.

To: LindyBill who wrote (95606)	1/17/2005 10:43:04 AM
From: Lane3	Respond to of 793939

If you read the second sentence, it is doing what I said. The first year benefits will not really be affected much, it is the years after that. I will "stunt the growth." Sorry, forgot to address this. What this means is that wages grow faster than prices. If you shift today from wage indexing to price indexing on the initial benefit, there won't be much difference in the computed initial benefit between someone who retires this year vs. next year. But over the years the spread will increase so that by the middle of the century the difference in program costs will be huge.