Latin America's CORV calls for Rights of Older Persons and an end to Elder Abuse

Dear Global Action on Aging Friend,

 

Latin Americans are making vigorous efforts to end elder abuse throughout Latin America and the Caribbean.  I think you will be interested in reading their materials. . .wherever you live.  Here is statement that CORV prepared for the June 15th World Elder Abuse Awareness Day.

 

STATEMENT OF CORV

STOP THE ABUSE AND MALTREATMENT!

OLDER PERSONS CLAIM FULL RECOGNITIONAS PERSONS WITH RIGHTS AND NOT AS CLIENTS OR PATIENTS 1. In our meeting as a civil society held in Costa Rica in 2012 we expressed that "the
rights of older persons continue to be violated. Actions in relation to older persons
and aging lack coherence between the speech that emphasizes these rights and the
compliance thereof. In this context, older persons continue to suffer from multiple
discrimination; different types of abuse and violence, poverty, and lack of access
to justice "  (Declaration of Tres Rios, par. No. 1).

2. One year since our meeting, in which we agreed to move from plan to action, we

now declare that IT IS POSSIBLE TO STOP THE ABUSE AND
MALTREATMENT OF OLDER PERSONS, recognizing health as a human
right and not a commodity. Each time attention is postponed, medication is not
provided, or access to required health services is denied, an assault is committed on
the lives of older persons and international agreements that demand priority and
proper and timely attention be given are violated. THE VIOLATION OF OUR
RIGHT TO HEALTH IS ALSO A VIOLATION OF OUR RIGHT TO LIFE!

3.  The lack of income, low pensions, non-recognition or not granting of universal
pension and non-indexation of pensions to the cost of living is one of the worst
forms of discrimination and reproduction of poverty among older persons. It is
inconsistent that in legislative frameworks the aged over sixty years are
recognized, while for providing non-contributory pension the age is set at sixty-five.
In this case it is an abuse that comes from the political, administrative and
legislative institutions themselves, which is identified as STRUCTURAL ABUSE.

4.  It is a violation of the rights of older persons not to have an adequate standard
of living that guarantees them and their family, health, wellbeing, and in particular
food, clothing, housing, medical care, the necessary social services, the right to
security in the event of unemployment, sickness, disability, widowhood, old age or
other lack of livelihood in circumstances beyond their control. (Art 25. Declaration
of Human Rights).

 

If you wish to learn more or sign on to this Statement, contact Enrique Mac Iver in Santiago, Chile, at this phone number (56-2) 633 0032 in Chile or at E-mail: sociedadcivilpersonasmayores@gmail.com 
 

 

 

 

Coordinación Regional de Organismos de la Sociedad Civil

de América Latina y el Caribe sobre Envejecimiento, CORV 
POVERTY IS THE WORST FORM OF VIOLENCE (Mahatma Gandhi) IT MAKES
THE REALIZATION AND THE EXERCISE OF SOCIAL, ECONOMIC AND
CULTURAL RIGHTS, INCLUDING POLITICAL AND CIVIL RIGHTS IMPOSSIBLE.

5. We note that our countries have already signed three international agreements aimed at full recognition of the elderly, which are the Regional Strategy on Aging
(2003), the Declaration of Brasilia (2007) and the Charter of San Jose on the rights
of older persons in Latin America and the Caribbean (2012). However, these agreements have not been translated in facilitating real ways of participation of older personsand their organizations in decision-making at all levels, as indicated in the actions recommended in the Madrid Action Plan on Aging (2002) and reaffirmed in the cited agreements. The failure to consider the will and existence of older persons and civil society institutions, devoted to working for the rights of older persons, is a kind of discrimination that reveals another form of abuse, structural abuse.

6. On the occasion of World Elderly Abuse Awareness Day 2013 as theRegional Coordinator of Civil Society Organizations on aging and old
age, CORV, we express our solidarity and we encourage social struggles
of the organizations of older persons and of workers in the region for their rights
for decent pensions, for timely and preventive health and for integration and
exercise of all the rights, the real path of Good Treatment and of Good Living,
which is the cry of every voice, every face of older persons, and of all citizens.
June 2013

With thanks for your solidarity, Susanne Paul at Global Action on Aging


 

Why Cut Social Security while NOT taxing Wall Street?

Dear GAA Reader,

Dean Baker wrote an instructive article for the Huffington Post asking why older persons must endure possible cuts to Social Security while the Wall Street bankers who brought on the Wall Street collapse in 2008 smile easily as they rake in more money.

Baker says, "Since Social Security benefits account for more than 70 percent of the income of a typical retiree, President Obama's proposed Social Security adjustment would reduce benefits by an average of 3%."

According to Baker's research, "a wealthy couple earning $500,000 a year would see a hit to their after-tax income of just 0.6 percent from the tax increase that President Obama put in place last year." Small change for them!  While the rich have little pain, most US  seniors will feel the hurt as their Social Security check drops 3%.

Do you think that US seniors should pay for the current economic crisis?  If you say "no", then support Senator Tom Harkin's proposed legislation that would put a .03% tax on stock trades and other financial assets. Such as measure, Dean says, could raise $40 billion per year or over $400 billion over a decade once it went into effect.

If you think these are good ideas, share them with your colleagues, friends and family. Ask them to write their Congressional Representatives and urge them to enact legislation that Harkin proposes.

We older persons must stand up to support ideas and policies that assure fair,  just and adequate incomes for all of us.  We are many.  We can do it!

Have a good week!

Susanne Paul for Global Action on Aging

Immigrants to the US and Social Security: Ripe for Ageism and Disabilty Bias

New America Media reveals a new version of Old Bias:

SAN FRANCISCO--As the debate over immigration reform tugs predictably back in Washington, an undercurrent of ageism and disability bias has been flowing beneath more obvious racial and class implications.

Take, for instance, the recent USA Today op-ed co-authored by former U.S. Sen. Jim DeMint, R-S.C., now president of the conservative Heritage Foundation, which warned, “The truly enormous costs come when unauthorized immigrants start collecting retirement benefits.”

DeMint and his colleague continued, “Social Security, Medicare, food stamps and other entitlement programs already impose huge, unfunded liabilities on taxpayers.” The op-ed goes on to declare that “an amnesty” proposed for 11 million unauthorized immigrants will add significant taxpayer costs because unauthorized immigrants average only a 10th-grade education.

Doing the Right Thing

Rather than being a burden, however, according to the Social Security Administration’s chief actuary, those presumed drains on the system have been a boon. They add $15 billion a year to Social Security in payroll taxes, only taking out $1billion annually in benefits. In the long term, immigration reform would modestly cut Social Security’s deficit, not worsen it.

According to Pew Research, that’s partly because of future rising income and home ownership levels for those immigrants’ children.

“Those opposed to immigration reform have attempted to use vital programs, like Social Security, as an economic excuse to avoid doing the right thing,” said Max Richtman, president and CEO of the National Committee to Preserve Social Security and Medicare (NCPSSM).

In a policy brief last week, NCPSSM cited Edward Alden of the Council on Foreign Relations, who has said that immigration reform would actually lead to higher wages and allow immigrants to pay more towards Social Security.

"They’re going to pay more into the Social Security system. The CBO has run these numbers in the past, in the short-run there’s a big boost for the Social Security system," Alden said

White House and Senate ‘Roadmaps’

According to a new policy analysis by the National Hispanic Council on Aging (NHCOA) and National Council on Aging (NCOA), today’s approximately 11 million unauthorized immigrants include 1.3 million individuals ages 45-54, and another half million who are 55 and older.

NHCOA’s Jason Coates and NCOA policy analyst Joe Caldwell examined “roadmaps” to citizenship outlined so far by the White House and the Senate’s bipartisan “Gang of Eight,” with legislation to come in a few months.

Both proposals signal long waits before eligible immigrants could even apply for lawful permanent resident status (green cards) and citizenship. And their access to health care and economic security benefits, especially important to elders and those with disabilities, is in doubt.

Under the current proposals, unauthorized immigrants could end up waiting a decade or more to qualify for health care and other safety-net programs.

While the Senate plan would link the waiting period for being able to apply for green cards to some assurance of border security, the White House has proposed allowing undocumented immigrants provisional status for six-to-eight years before they could become permanent residents. (Both the administration and Senate frameworks would expedite the process for “DREAMers,” agricultural workers, and highly skilled immigrants with advanced degrees in such areas as science and technology.)

Once an immigrant waited through those years on provisional, or temporary status and qualified for a permanent status (the green card), he or she would begin the five-year process toward naturalization. During that time, the White House and Senate proposals would deny them access to federal benefits, such as Medicaid, Supplemental Security Income and the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (food stamps). President Obama’s proposal would deny access to subsidies under the Affordable Care Act. People could have to wait more than a decade for assistance.

Older adults would also have to wait that long to access Medicaid, which is the primary payer of long-term care in the U.S. States can waive the five-year waiting period normally required once someone becomes a permanent resident, but only for pregnant women and children, not for individuals with disabilities or seniors.

Statistics show that six-in-ten undocumented Hispanics is without health insurance.

They would also have to wait another five years -- that is about a decade after starting on the path to citizenship -- to qualify for federal Medicare.

Many of those 11 million undocumented people are overrepresented in low-paying and often physically demanding occupations, frequently incurring high rates of work-related injuries, and contributing to high rates of disability and chronic conditions over time.

Looming Shortage of Care Workers

The NHCOA-NCOA report also calls on the government to strengthen and stabilize the shrinking direct-care workforce, such as the nursing aides who assist patients with such crucial daily activities as getting dressed, taking medication, preparing meals and managing money.

The advocacy groups say reforms should afford these workers the same streamlined and expedited visa process as those proposed for scientists, engineers and workers in other high-need areas, because the nation is facing a looming shortage of care workers.

The paper explains that as the U.S. population ages, U.S. demand for long-term care will leap from today’s 12 million to 27 million by 2050. The country will need 1.6 million additional direct-care workers by 2020 and 3 million by 2030.

Immigration reform is vital for meeting that projected need, say NHCOA and NCOA, because almost one in four current direct-care workers is foreign born. About half today are naturalized citizens and others have legal status, “but a significant portion is estimated to be unauthorized.”

Policy changes offering these workers authorized immigration status would improve the quality of care, says the paper, by allowing for improved background checks, providing workers opportunities for training and career advancement, building registries to assist individuals and find workers, and enabling workers to legally drive.

“Comprehensive immigration reform will help millions come out of the shadows. Many of the half million older adult immigrants [among them] have worked for decades and contributed millions to Social Security,” said NHCOA’s Jason Coates. Rather than begrudging them income and health security protections they have earned, he added, “We should reward their contributions to the to the United States.”

Will President Obama sell Out US Seniors and our children for a Deal with the Republicans?

Salivating Over Social Security Cuts

Dear Global Action on Aging Friends,

Wherever you live, please note the very real possibility that President Obama will seriously weaken or even destroy the Social Security Program for a "deal" with Republicans over the US Budget.  Not only will such action undercut the modest living standard of US elders but it also threatens young workers who have contributed to the program since they entered the workforce. 

Mind you, US citizens have already seen the Federal Government "borrow" from Social Security to support other programs--and failed to re-pay the debt.  Read excerpts from Robert Reich's Blog (April 10, 2013) for the full story:

ohn Boehner, Speaker of the House, revealed why it's politically naive for the President to offer up cuts in Social Security in the hope of getting Republicans to close some tax loopholes for the rich. "If the President believes these modest entitlement savings are needed to help shore up these programs, there's no reason they should be held hostage for more tax hikes,” Boehner said in a statement released Friday.

House Majority Leader Eric Cantor agreed. He said on CNBC he didn't understand "why we just don't see the White House come forward and do the things that we agree on” such as cutting Social Security, without additional tax increases.

Get it? The Republican leadership is already salivating over the President's proposed Social Security cut. They've been wanting to cut Social Security for years.

But they won't agree to close tax loopholes for the rich.

They're already characterizing the President's plan as a way to "save” Social Security - even though the cuts would undermine it - and they're embracing it as an act of "bi-partisanship.”

"I'm encouraged by any steps that President Obama is taking to save and preserve Social Security,” cooed Texas Republican firebrand Ted Cruz. "I think it should be a bipartisan priority to strengthen Social Security and Medicare to preserve the benefits for existing seniors.”

Oh, please.

And the day Ted Cruz agrees to raise taxes on the wealthy or even close a tax loophole will be when Texas freezes over.

The President is scheduled to dine with a dozen Senate Republicans Wednesday night. Among those attending will be John Boozman of Arkansas, who has already praised Obama for "starting to throw things on the table,” like the Social Security cuts.

That's exactly the problem. The President throws things on the table before the Republicans have even sat down for dinner.

The President's predilection for negotiating with himself is not new. But his willingness to do it with Social Security, the government's most popular program - which Democrats have protected from Republican assaults for almost eighty years - doesn't bode well.

The President desperately wants a "grand bargain” on the deficit. Republicans know he does. Watch your wallets.

GAA Readers:  Write the President and your Congressional Representatives to protest!  Organize a Demonstration (with your family and friends in your Community) demanding a stop to this disastrous plan to ruin US Social Security! Take action to alert citizens, young and old! 

Susanne Paul for Global Action on Aging

US Citizens: Resist and Oppose President Obama's efforts to cut Social Security and other Old Age Programs!

(CNN) -- President Barack Obama intends to cut Social Security and Medicare in his proposed changes included in his proposed budget plan.  He also plans to add new tax increases (on the richest US citizens?), in an effort to reach a deal with Republicans on deficit reduction.  Please do what you can--phone, write, call, demonstrate--against these changes that could potentially reduce even further the quality of life for US seniors across the country.

The progressive group, MoveOn.org, has labeled the President's proposed changes to Social Security as "unconscionable" and Democracy for America called the cuts "profoundly disturbing."

"Millions of MoveOn members did not work night and day to put President Obama into office so that he could propose policies that would hurt some of our most vulnerable people," read a statement from Anna Galland, executive director of the group.   Well, it looks like the President fooled them! 

The "new" Obama plan will likely mimic the proposal that he made last year that included $400 billion in savings from Medicare over 10 years.  US seniors and our families must stand strong to resist this drastic change in our life chances in old age.  And younger citizens must look at this precedent:  the US Government has borrowed from Social Security . . . .but has it paid off its existing debt to citizens and the Social Security Program?  Ask your Congressperson.   Get the facts!

If you have comments, please send. 

With thanks for your advocacy by, with, and for older people (and those who will one day be "old") in the USA.

Susanne Paul for Global Action on Aging

US Social Security Must be Protected

Today, March 31, 2013, the New York Times Editorial Board argued why President Obama must keep hands off US Social Security in any deficit reduction strategy.  Here are extracts of the Editorial Board's argument.

       

"In last year’s “fiscal cliff” debate, President Obama offered to reduce the annual cost-of-living adjustment, or COLA, for Social Security benefits, a spending cut favored by Republicans and scorned by Democrats. Republicans rejected the offer because Mr. Obama wanted tax increases in exchange, while Democrats said it would be too harmful. More recently, Senate Democrats did not include Social Security reforms in their budget and specifically rejected a COLA cut. The House Republican budget also steered clear of explicit cuts to Social Security, a move partly aimed at isolating Mr. Obama.

The question now is whether Mr. Obama will again propose to cut the COLA when he unveils his budget next week. We think he should not do so. The president might want to seem like he is willing to compromise by renewing his call for a COLA cut. But Republicans already spurned his offer and are unlikely to take him up on it now. They are more likely to paint him as a foe of Social Security, which would be reinforced by Democrats’ opposition to the cut.

       

Even if Mr. Obama avoided those pitfalls, a COLA cut is a bad idea, as we will explain in this editorial. It also is a distraction from the real problems of Social Security.

       

WHAT IS THE PROBLEM WITH SOCIAL SECURITY? The answer is a long-term shortfall. Social Security plans for solvency over 75 years, but because of demographic pressures and the weak economy, it is currently solvent only until 2033. After that, without reforms, it would pay about 75 percent of promised benefits.

Meanwhile, the nation is having a retirement crisis. Even before the recession, people had not saved enough to make up for the loss of traditional pensions. The downturn and slow recovery have made things worse. Less than half of households ages 55 to 64 have retirement savings, and of those, half have less than $120,000. Many near-retirees also have lost home equity or a job.

All that will leave most retirees heavily reliant on Social Security, which currently pays a modest benefit, on average, of $1,265 a month. Already, the majority of retirees — with annual incomes up to $32,600 — get two-thirds to all of their income from Social Security.

Even at higher incomes, up to $57,960, Social Security is the single biggest source, accounting for almost half. Only the top fifth of seniors, with incomes above $57,960, do not rely on Social Security as their largest source of income; most of them are still working.

Going forward, there is no escaping the reality that Social Security will be more vital than ever. To save it, we need consensus on direction and principles, among Democrats and across the aisle, along these lines:

       

SHOULD IT BE USED FOR DEFICIT REDUCTION? This is part of a larger question about whether any deficit reduction is appropriate when the economy is weak and unemployment high. The short answer to both questions is no. But as long as the deficit occupies center stage, the best approach would be for politicians to debate, and even agree, on spending cuts and tax increases to take effect as the economy strengthens.

Social Security reforms should be decided separately because the program is not driving the deficit. That distinction goes to chronic revenue shortfalls and rising health costs that propel spending on Medicare and Medicaid. Social Security did not cause today’s deficits, because the payroll taxes that support it have been more than adequate; and it will not contribute to future debt, because it is barred from spending more than it takes in.

The reason Social Security is wrapped up in the political budget debate is that government deficit projections assume Social Security will always pay promised benefits in full, even though the system is expected to run short in 20 years. That shortfall is reflected in deficit projections, so reducing it would improve the budget outlook.

The answer is to address Social Security’s problems, not to conflate reforms with the broader deficit reduction efforts.

      

HOW SHOULD SOCIAL SECURITY BE REFORMED? The drive to cut the COLA is based on the premise that the inflation gauge used to compute the adjustment overstates the rising cost of living. That is a flawed premise. A good case can be made that the gauge is an inaccurate way to track inflation for working-age people, but there is no empirical evidence that it overstates inflation among retirees, who tend to spend more on health care and other necessities for which there are few, if any, cheaper substitutes.

To ensure that the system is paying proper COLAs, Congress should instruct the Bureau of Labor Statistics to develop a statistically rigorous index of inflation among retirees. Until that is done, cutting the COLA on grounds that it is too large would be unjustified and disingenuous.

In the meantime, the debate over reforming Social Security will come down to tax increases versus benefit cuts. With retirements at risk, reducing benefits is dangerous, though trimming benefits for upper-income recipients, who live longer and draw larger benefits, could close about 10 percent of the system’s long-term funding gap.

Another overdue reform, which would close about a third of the gap, is to raise the level of wages subject to Social Security payroll tax to about $200,000 from the current $113,700. That would bring the taxable wage base in line with rising incomes among top earners.

A sensible change is to raise the payroll tax rate, currently 6.2 percent for both workers and employers. The rate has not been raised since 1990. A one percentage point increase could be phased in over 20 years and still raise enough revenue to close about half of the funding gap."

Global Action on Aging would also urge the US Government to pay interest on the funds that it has borrowed over the years from the Social Security system.  Surely that's fair!  

     

As the NYTimes concludes: "It is imperative that the frenzy that passes these days for deficit debate not engulf Social Security. There are rational and acceptable fixes to the program that could preserve it for generations to come, if political will can be found to enact them."      

Geneva Association's Pension Proposals

 

Participants at Geneva Association Conference Strongly Endorse the Four Pillars Concept 

by Krzysztof Ostaszewski+

Global Action on Aging urges you to consider some responses from participants at the December 2012 Geneva Association conference on the Four Pillar System.  Recipients received a short questionnaire asking their views on some key issues concerning the current and future situation of global retirement systems. Here are some questions and answers that will interest you.

A.  Are there any challenges to global retirement systems that are still going unnoticed?

B. Where will the solutions to the global retirement crisis come from?

C.  What are necessary changes in the workplace to make employment of silver (older)  workers effective, productive and beneficial to both employers and employees?

D. If you were to give advice to political decision-makers, insurance firms, pension plans and individuals (current and future retirees) in order to address the global retirement systems' challenges, what would you advise each to these groups?
 

In response to Question A, the participants chose “global ageing and increasing longevity” as the top challenge but a close second was "public finance and financial repression."

 

Other concerns listed were "low interest rates and low economic growth," "increasingly intrusive and productive regulation," "individual myopia," and "decreased willingness to engage in solidarity systems."
In response to Question B, the top choice was “breakup of the European Union or other significant political dislocation,” with “liability issues” as a close second; “insufficient disclosure of information to citizens” was also mentioned.

The clear winner among the answers to Question C was: “continued employment of the elderly and a flexible labour market,” i.e. the fourth pillar, as proposed by The Geneva Association and its Life and Pensions programme.  . . . . . "

We hope that political decision-makers will hear this message. Participants also, though far less strongly, endorsed financial innovation from insurance firms and private pensions, as well as programmes created by governments, as possible solutions to the retirement challenge.

In response to Question D, again, the winner was very clear: “tax and regulatory incentives to employers for the employment of ‘silver workers.” The second most common answer was: “removal of regulatory and tax barriers to employment of silver workers,” another endorsement of the role of the fourth pillar. 

Here are some examples of advice given in response to Question D:

Carefully balance concerns about financial sustainability and adequacy of benefits;

More transparency, financial education, and information about the value of benefits and cost of retirement;
Proper ethical standards for financial advisers; A new social contract;
Honesty in communicating the nature of the problem to citizens; address the long-term care problem;
Careful monitoring of longevity improvement by insurance firms;
Political decision-makers should show more flexibility, and pay attention to financial sustainability; 

Pay attention to health issues, as not all workers can work more and more years; Raise retirement age, but also protect low-income workers;

Governments should help grow the second, third and fourth pillars;
Pension plans should work on effective risk-sharing.

If you are interested in more information, contact the Research Director, Life and Pensions, The Geneva Association.

Susanne Paul, Global Action on Aging.

 

 

 

Most US Women lack a plan for their Retirement

Dear GAA Friend,

Have you wondered how you will pay for your retirement?  Do you have a plan?  If so, great!  You are in the minority.

According to a Huff Post 50 item, retiring women (26 percent) are worried that they won't be able to meet the financial needs of their family.  More than one in four women (28 percent) expect to take time or have already taken time out of the workforce to act as caregiver for a child or aging parent. Of these caregivers, 73 percent believe that this time out will impact their ability to save for retirement. Further, many reported that their retirement may involve financial caregiving; one in three women (31 percent) expects that when they are retired, they will need to provide financial support for a family member other than their spouse, according to the study's results.

Here are some of the other findings:
-- Only 14 percent of baby boomer women have a written retirement strategy. Some 45 percent do not have a plan at all while 41 percent have a plan that's not written down.
-- About 36 percent of baby boomer women expect to rely on Social Security as their primary form of income in retirement. Another 36 percent expect to rely on 401K plans while the rest expect to draw on a mixed bag of savings and assets.
-- Of the women who expect to rely on Social Security, only 34 percent say they know "a great deal" or "quite a bit" about their Social Security benefits.
-- About 61 percent of baby boomer women expect to work after 65 or simply do not plan to retire.
-- Only one in five baby boomer women who expect to keep working have a backup plan if retirement comes sooner than expected.

Few women have a backup plan if things don't work.

What can you do now?

Learn more about the details of your Social Security benefits, adopt and pay into a savings goal immediately, understand what a savings shortfall may look like and figure out what you'll do "if" such a shortfall occurs. As the author says, "There's no doubt that every woman needs her own retirement strategy."

Susanne Paul for Global Action on Aging

Can you afford to Retire in the USA?

Dear GAA Friend,

Although many US citizens are living longer and fewer are in physically demanding jobs, those who plan to work longer may be unrealistic. A recent survey found that 47 percent of retirees left the workforce unexpectedly, largely because of disabilities, other health issues or problems at work.

At present, the largest group of workers leaves the workforce at age 62. That is when they initially qualify for reduced Social Security retirement benefits, which represents a smaller monthly amount for those who take it before hitting their full retirement age. Just 14 percent of the retirees leave the workforce after age 65.  Only one in four of them works for pay in retirement.

The risk is that many workers as they get older cannot work for reasons beyond their control, including disability, ill health, and loss of a job and inability to get another.

US workers have to plan to work as long as possible. One-third of workers say they or their spouse have not saved anything for retirement. And only 57 percent says they are actively saving for retirement.

The result?  Many are unprepared to stop working. Nearly three in five workers have assets, beyond their homes, of $25,000 or less. A third of those withdrew savings to pay for expenses in the last year, a survey found.

A big problem, researchers have said, is that too few workers are covered by retirement plans on the job. Those that are covered most frequently have a 401(k) or another defined contribution plan. But as many as one in four of people with those plans dip into them for non-retirement purposes.

Although US citizens are aware that retirement requires substantial savings, they are often unable to put away enough as they wrestle with expenses and burdensome debt.

While it appears that workers are not being smart about their retirement needs, what is the responsibility of their employers and the US government that makes the rules about Social Security? Why are their any exceptions to paying into Social Security for US workers?  What about the "minimum wage"?   Isn't it too little to support oneself?  How can people in the US have a "good old age" if their government and bosses have held their wages down? 

What do you think?   What was/is your experience? Please send GAA a comment on this important topic.

Thanks and have a good week, Susanne Paul for Global Action on Aging

 

 

US Retirement Age getting Older and Older

Steven Greenhouse, a New York Times reporter, published a very provocative article on March12, 2013, detailing how US citizens are delaying retirement until older and older ages.

Why?  Greenhouse says that some "older persons" still feel young and want to work or devote themselves to a new project or compelling interest. Others stay on the job, worried that they may have serious medical bills in the future, and seek additonal resources in the event that Social Security and Medicare prove insufficient.

Another group thinks that their savings are inadequate or anticipate having to support their parents in their old age, thus reducing resources for adult children.  Costs of higher education for children has increased  drastically over the past decades and pulled down their savings. Some potential retirees have helped their own parents to live in a nursing home and thereby reduced their personal savings for retirement.  Still others have footed the bill to send children to college, depleting their "retirement savings."     
  

What is happening now?  Many more older US citizens are living into their late 80s and 90s and outliving their retirement savings.  What does this mean?     

      

Greenhouse cites a Boston College study that found that "53 percent of Americans were 'at risk' of being unable to maintain their pre-retirement standard of living once they retire, up from 30 percent in 1989. A study last May by the Employee Benefit Research Institute found that 44 percent may not have enough money to meet their basic needs in retirement."

        

Today, one-third of retirees in the United States rely solely on Social Security, with benefits averaging just over $15,000 a year for an individual and $30,000 for a couple.  Can you live on this income? It can't be easy.

      

A generation ago, most workers with employer-based retirement plans were enrolled in traditional pension plans promising a monthly stipend for life after retirement.  But that's changed drastically.  The BLS (Bureau of Labor Statistics) data shows that only a quarter of all workers now enjoy a "traditional pension plan."  Only 26 percent of all workers are in such pension plans, including 17 percent of private-sector workers, according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics. Most people whose employers do offer retirement plans are enrolled in 401(k)’s instead, and 58 percent of workers are not participating in an employer-based retirement plan, according to the Center for Retirement Research at Boston College.

 

What's the future of those who will "come of old age" in the years and decades ahead?  Will we/they live in poverty and misery with fore-shortened lives?  Will the US economic system support or sustain its elder citizens?  Or will the 1% who control so much US wealth today ignore their fellow citizens?  What do you think?  Please share your views in our comments section.

 

Susanne Paul for Global Action on Aging 

 

 

China covers some 484 Million Citizens with a Pension Plan

Xinhua Web Editor, Mao Yaqing, reports that nearly 500 million Chinese are now covered by a pension plan.  The program extends to over 300 million urban Chinese and has doubled the percentage of those with pension coverage since 2007.  This is an outstanding achievement for the people of China. 

 

China's pension system covered 484 million people as of 2012. "Gross revenues for social insurance funds totaled 2.85 trillion yuan (457.45 billion U.S. dollars) and gross expenditures reached 2.21 trillion yuan in 2012, 2.63 times and 2.8 times that of five years ago, respectively, the ministry said. Basic endowment insurance per capita has increased 86 percent compared with five years ago," according to the news account. China's social insurance funds comprise five parts: basic endowment insurance for the elderly, basic medical insurance, unemployment insurance, work-related injury insurance and maternity insurance. As the world's most populous country, China faces enormous challenges to support its current and future older citizens.  Only fifteen years ago, China was creating a fully developed pension program for its population. Now, the results can be seen for its urban citizens.   As in other nations, China must also face the needs of its citizens in the country-side where pensions appear more difficult to create, fund and distribute. If you have first-hand knowledge of these developments, please share them with Global Action on Aging.    Susanne Paul Global Action on Aging

0

Older Japanese: A Crisis or an Opportunity?

Japanese Daily Press Reporter Ida Torres reports on older Japanese citizens who are dying alone as public and family support disappears.  The growing number of older persons 65 years and old will shortly constitute one in three Japanese citizens.  This is a triumph for the Japanese society that has  produced sufficient food, health, shelter and more throughout their lives, enabling citizens to live a long life.  

Some bemoan the decreasing birth rate.  However, we can see this situation as a breakthrough to lowering the world population and the resources that it will consume as the global climate changes.  The question, really, is whether the government and Japanese people are willing to support via taxes or other means, their elder citizens, and take responsibility to replace the disappearing family systems. 

What’s happening in your country?  Do public taxes or other programs support quality caregiving of older citizens?  Please comment to Global Action on Aging

Susanne Paul for GAA

Why are Older People in South Korea Committing Suicide?

The New York Times published a saddening account today (February 18, 2013) of older South Koreans who are taking their own lives -- some silently and others with a public message -- to protest against a nation that they feel has abandoned them in their old age.   In this case, the Times reports, an old woman "staged her death as a final act of a public protest" . . . "She drank pesticide overnight in front of her city hall after officials had stopped her welfare checks, saying they were no longer obligated to support her now that her son had found work."

The reporter says that over-65 years old suicides have grown by a factor of four in South Korea, one of the highest rates in the world. Why?  Apparently older South Koreans don't receive sufficient Social Security or have much in savings.  Many have paid for their children's schooling or homes and consequently have few resources for themselves.  Yet many adult children are not reciprocating by supporting their parents in old age and often even fail to claim their parents' bodies at death or perform other important rituals at life's end. 

These issues affect many older people across the globe.   Is the social fabric in your country disintegrating?  What is the suicide rate among elders in your nation?   Do you find that adult children in your country ignore and abuse their old parents?  Are you worried about your fate?  Share your thoughts with Global Action on Aging in the "comments" section.

We can turn such situations around.

Susanne Paul for Global Action on Aging

Will Japan honor its Older People in 2013 and Beyond?

According to Wikipedia, the aging of Japan is thought to outweigh all other nations, as the country is purported to have the highest proportion of elderly citizens.  One out of five elders is over the age of 65 today. The age 65 and above demographic group increased from 26.5 million in 2006 to 29.47 million in 2011, an 11.2% increase. The Japanese Health Ministry estimates the nation's total population will decrease by 25% from 127.8 million in 2005 to 95.2 million by 2050. Japan's elderly population, aged 65 or older, comprised 20% of the nation's population in June 2006, a percentage that is forecast to increase to 38% by 2055.

What does this mean for older Japanese citizens?  While the number of nursing homes has increased, it is still insufficient to serve all those who are on waiting lists.  Employers find it hard to hire caregivers since candidates can find easier and more highly paid work. 

Japan is spending half its health budget on older persons. . .and the once very prosperous nation has a huge financial deficit. Now the government has introduced a new health insurance scheme with special cards for those over 75 years old; however, elders don’t like to be singled out; they call it the “hurry up and die” program.

Just under a third of Japanese 85 year olds have Alzheimer’s or another dementia which matches the rate in the UK.

The Japanese dilemma now lies ahead for all major world economies. A rapid growth in the oldest citizens is a success story for humankind.  However, it can also create a heavy responsibility for families if governments have ignored the growing financial  and social obligations to their elder citizens.  In Japan, as in many parts of the world, the debate is now how the obligation should be met.

What's happening in your country?  Do you feel that your govenrment has programs and funds in place to extend appropriate care to you in your old age?  Please send Global Action on Aging your ideas and comments.

Have a good week,

Susanne Paul for Global Action on Aging

Age Discrimination in the Netherlands? Read on!

Dear GAA Friend,  Our long-time aging activist friend, Marya Pijl, describes how the Dutch government is taking actions that will hurt its older citizens. A decade ago, many of us looked to the Netherlands as a leader, encouraging citizen involvement in designing and instituting progressive aging policies. Here's what Marya has to say about the present situation:

“I wish there were demonstrations here, but my guess is that most older people don’t have the slightest idea what is coming over them. They will only find out when it is too late. The government does not inform us until after the laws, introducing the changes, are passed and the unions of older people and patients only write polite policy papers and publish them on their website, and then think they are doing a great job.

My latest discovery has been that the national government actively practices age discrimination. The premium we still have to pay for the long-term care insurance (AWBZ) in 2013 has risen to 12.65% of one’s income up to the amount of € 33.363 for those who were born after 1945 and up to the amount of € 33.555 for those who were born before that date. The difference is not much, but the principle is entirely wrong. Now that this principle seems to be accepted, the difference in premium for the two age groups can, probably without much opposition, be further extended and it is easily imaginable that this will happen. It is uncertain what will happen to the premiums for the AWBZ after the insurance has been changed to become a provision for the poor, but it seems that the government has no concrete plans to abolish the premiums together with the insurance. Maybe it will just be turned into a tax measure.

I am really so upset about what our government (now with the Labour Party in it, imagine!!) is doing and I don’t know how this can be stopped."

Defend US Social Security; Keep it Strong!

Dear GAA Reader,

Across the globe, governments everywhere are abandoning older persons and cutting old age benefits that assured a "decent old age."  Here in the US, the Richest 1% want to reduce or destroy our US Social Security.  You and I must work together to defend our Right to our Social Security.  Here are some basic facts about US Social Security that you can use in arguments, in speeches, in conversations with your children and friends as well as open-minded opponents: 

US Social Security is the bedrock of a "good old age."

In 2012, over 56 million Americans will have received $778 billion in Social Security benefits.  Some 36 million retired workers received a monthly average benefit of $1,234.  (Not a lot of money to support housing, food, transport and costs in old age.  But it helped.)

Disabled workers received an average of a $1,111 monthly benefit.

Surviving dependants of disceased workers received a monthly average beneift of $1,190. 

Why is Social Security so important?   Because the majority of employers fail to offer pension coverage to their workers;  some 51% of the work force has no private pension coverage.  And 34% of the work force has no savings set aside specifically for retirement; wages are so low that saving is made very difficult.

In 1940, the life expectancy of a 65 year-old was almost 14 years; today it's almost 20 years.  So Social Security has to stretch out over longer lives.

By 2033, there will be almost twice as many older Americans as today --  from 43.4 million today  to 75.7 million.

There are currently 2.8 workers for each Social Security beneficiary.  By 2033, there will be 2.1 workers for each beneificiary. 

Use these statistics to defend and strengthen US Social Security.  Many of the richest 1% in the US
want to wreck Social Security for the rest of us.  Don't let them do it.

Contact your Member of Congress, make an appointment, bring along your friends and family and tell them, "Hands off our Social Security." 

In solidarity, Susanne Paul for Global Action on Aging

Dear GAA Reader,

Exciting news for all of us who are or will be old:  The UN General Assembly adopted a resolution on December 20, 2012, to begin the process toward defining the human rights of older persons--a process that will likely lead to adoption of a Convention or Treaty that requires UN Member States to insure  protection against abuse and discrimination for all older citizens.  In preparation for the vote, NGOs, such as Global Action on Aging  and many of our colleagues, called UN Missions and spoke with Third Committee delegates, asking for their support.  I discussed these issues with representatives from Arabic-speaking countries.  All treated me courteously and spelled out their worries about moving too quickly toward such a resolultion without ample time to study it carefully.  

Earlier this fall, El Salvador had introduced a resolution; it was revised several times to meet the objections voiced from other countries.  Interestingly, the United States and the European Union opposed the El Salvador resolution and lobbied the Member States to oppose the measure.   Nevertheless, it passed although a number of nations abstained.  Now NGOs are turning our efforts to engaging aging organizations in every part of the world to contact their government representatives and urge them to support such a measure.  Will you please be in touch with your National Aging Authority to ask for its support to assure the human rights of older person?  And what will happen next?   The UN will likely host another Open-Ended Working Group in summer 2013 to define the issues more clearly.  If you want more information or want to become involved in this process, please write to me at this Blog.  Or, write to s.paul@globalaging.org.

As our planet moves toward its shortest day in the north and the longest in south, Global Action on Aging wishes you a productive year in 2013, rich with blessings and opportunities to make the world more welcoming of older people wherever they may be.

Happy holidays to you and your loved ones,  Susanne Paul for Global Action on Aging

PS  If you wish to support the work and activity of GAA, please send a check or money order to
GAA, PO Box 20022, New York, NY 10025  USA    Thanks!

Chinese Premier wants more Social Pensions for Ctizens

The Chinese newspaper, Global Times, reports on October 15, 2012, that Premier Wen Jiabao has urged the government to step up its funding of social pensions for Chinese citizens. But what is a "social pension?"

It's any government-sponsored program with the following four characteristics: (1) laws or statutes that define the benefits, eligibility requirements and other features; (2) explicit provision is made to account for the income and expenses (often through a trust fund) of the program; (3) participants pay taxes or premiums to fund the program; it serves a defined population, and participation is either compulsory or the program is heavily enough subsidized that most eligible persons decide to participate.  In the US, social pensions include Social Security, Medicare, the Railroad Retirement program,and state-sponsored unemployent insurance programs, and others.

Do you have a social insurance program in your country?  If not, start campaigning today to get one.  Many NGOs that work alongside older people are demanding social pensions to insure that everyone in the country has a pension and other support when they need it.  Also, social pensions will be a key feature in any Human Rights Convention (treaty) that the UN drafts in the weeks and years ahead. 

Tell us your situation. Do you have a social pension now? Will you have one in the future?

Have a good week, Susanne Paul for Global Action on Aging

No Place for Elders in Kuala Lampur

Adult children and other family members are increasingly abandoning their 60-years-plus elders who have been hospitalized, according to reporters Lim Wey Wen and Yuen Meikeng writing in The Star, on October 8, 2012.  Earlier in 2011, some 200 seniors in this Malaysian city were left behind.  Nearly all came from poor families.  Six months into 2012, over 250 older people had been left in the hospital following their discharge.  NGOs that run public shelters had already filled their beds earlier in the year.

Why is this happening?  Poverty in families and in public funding for older people underlies this terrible situation.  In the most recent data collected in 2004, about 675,000 older parents received no funding from their children. 

What is your situation?  Would your adult children or other family members help you financially if your resources were exhausted?  Please comment.

Thanks, Susanne Paul for Global Action on Aging

UN Member States may Start Work on a Convention to Guarantee the Human Rights of Older People

October 6, 2012

Dear GAA Friend,

EXCITING NEWS:   A UN Member State may well suggest next week (October 9-12, 2012) that the UN General Assembly consider a resolution to begin work leading to a Human Rights Convention on Aging. 

Nearly 100 Member States will have to vote in favor of the resolution for it to pass.  If successful, Member States would then begin to consider what human rights should be included in a Convention.

The prospect that the UN may move in this direction soon is very welcome news to older people everywhere, as well as NGOs, including Global Action on Aging.  We'll keep you posted on this exciting development in the days and weeks ahead. 

Have a great week, Susanne Paul for Global Action on Aging