In January 2016, retirees won't be getting an increase in Social Security, this article reports. Read more.

"It's always the case that lower income people feel the effects from inflation more. Example: many retired persons don't drive much anymore, so don't save that much from lower gas prices.

But utility bills and groceries have all gone up. Medical bills have gone up; property taxes may go up in many places. So they don't get a COLA for what they spend most on." __Kwhite

#2: Sen. Warren rips Primerica president during Senate panel on DOL rule

An account of the dialogue during a subcommittee hearing on the Department of Labor's conflict-of-interest proposal in the Senate, and our reporter notes the details. Read more.

 "The question posed isn't whether private sector plans are awful or not, it's whether being advised to cash out a public pension was in the best interests of the customer or not. My experience in 20 years in the financial services industry is that public and union pensions, rightly or wrongly, are generally financially advantageous for the retiree.

The guaranteed payouts in public pension plans, if chosen, are typically significantly higher than current lifetime income products that were available in 2011, mostly due to the low interest rate environment driving retail products. Retail income products are continuously priced based on current economics, while public plans are re-priced far less frequently. Again, sticking to the actual question from the senator, was it good advice to 238 public pension pre-retirees to leave the plan?

Depending on the products being offered, it may have been better to leave the plan for some. Having competed against such plans for a sale, it's highly unlikely that all 238 were given good advice and in my experience I would expect the public plan to be a better option for most of those pre-retirees.

Using retail investment products for a portion of their retirement finances, in order to take on more risk and possibly more reward, is frequently good advice, for a portion of their non-pension retirement funds. Portion being the operative word." __Vested

#3: Teamsters plan moves to cut retiree benefit

Cuts to existing retiree pensions were announced this spring by the trustees of the financially-strapped Teamsters Central States multiemployer pension fund, inspiring quite a lot of emotions among our readers. Read more.

"Tim…I sincerely appreciate the apparent sincere response. FYI, I too completely disagree with anyone trying to change our rights relating to the 2nd amendment. In MI, Wisconsin, Maine, Kansas, Illinois, all GOP state governors are trying to confiscate the deferred compensation due for those who serve this country here at home (retired public servants) and thereby violating federal contract laws, one of the oldest and most important laws in this country.

Further, those GOP governors are also violating their own state constitutions that guarantee that deferred compensation for retired career public servants. Those are not liberties, rather they are personal property "rights" earned by those who finished their tour of duty when they retired, and who rights of that personal property are being attacked by the GOP governors.

To me, those governors are attempting to rally support around the concept of confiscating that personal property and making those who serve this country victims of fascist type of behavior." __beadsunderfoot

#4: 3 bad choices a DC plan lets you make

We reported on findings of a paper that says defined contribution plans need to start working more like defined benefit plans, if workers are ever going to have a secure retirement. Read more.

"OK, so the simple solution to improving any defined contribution retirement plan is to dis-allow any lump-sum distribution option and require the offering of a single-life annuitization option. That's simply and easily accomplished.

Will the follow-up article describe the risks and pitfalls of defined benefit retirement plans, such as the drastic under-funding, mis-management, cronyism, and zero responsibility for failed outcomes that are rampant in many plans today, primarily those that purport to benefit union- and government workers?"__John

#5: DOL fiduciary rule puts broker-dealers in Catch-22

Investment advisor Michael Kitces pointed out to our writer what he sees as a catch to the argument against the DOL fiduciary rule: brokers are not now advisors, nor can they legally put themselves out as advisors, so how can the DOL's rule prevent them from offering what they now can't legally offer? Read more.

"Great article! This rule has come around due to one thing; Roboadvisors. If you take people and put them in cookie cutter portfolios with the majority of funds being in stocks/etf's that all chase the momentum of the status quo, then you will have a bolstering of the failed central planning policies that has rigged up the whole market.

Also you enforce the fiduciary rule and suddenly it becomes very cost prohibitive to be any sort of independent broker, further funneling more lemmings into these roboadvisor funds that can skirt the fiduciary rule by pointing out the expense charges are the lowest possible (because that's a sign of fiduciary duty; not the possible recommendation of securities that fail every fundamental measurement of not being rigged to implode)…

Another example of how the Big Banks and Wall Street put little guys out of business and make it seem like the rule actually benefits consumers. It's a takeover of the baby boomer wealth generation (the last of America) so that they can wring out the last vestiges of wealth from this country." _LibertarianUSA42