Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
From the AARP link..they claim they saved us from this.
"Millions of Social Security recipients were going to have their benefits automatically cut by 20 percent in 2016. That’s been stopped. No current recipient will lose a cent of their Social Security benefits."
The reduction in payments was for SSDI. SS wasn't going to have 20% automatic reduction in payments.
I wonder how many people caught that faux pas.
I would have put that comment in the article but they require one of the social network logins.
I don't do social network.
Yes it was for the disabled under Social Security. But, the people with disability, millions upon millions represent a major demographic.
I think a number of you know I worked at SSA for 35 years, until I retired in 2008. Then I was called back to help them again with disability claims in 2009 and 2010. Baby boomers who lost their jobs during the recession of 2008 were totally panicked. At this point, even a recovery, which is still happening slowly, was not helping the baby boomers get a job. So, they tried for SS disability. They really had no other options. This is not to say they were approved- it is still quite difficult to be approved, but for those who have paid a lifetime, and were approved, it was truly an earned benefit.
Those folks were in addition to the folks who were struck with some horrible illness- at a young age, middle age, close to retirement, or before FRA. SSA disability is just as critical and vital to families as SS retirement and SS survivors.
To think that a 20% cut in all those benefits might have gone through without this deal would have been a disaster. People only spend money when they have hope. That reduction would have put the economy in a tailspin once again.
I'm not saying you are rich. Far from it. They deleted a tangible benefit that you could take advantage of. No doubt about it. But compared to the single person that makes the same as just you, and can only increase his benefit by delaying, and not file at all vs by collecting off a spouses benefit, while letting his grow, while his spouse is ALSO collecting....yes, you are.
And undoubtedly, the richer you are (imagine a Dr & lawyer husband and wife) the huger that benefit was. Same age, at 66, one files and collects the Max, about $2700 a month, the other collects $1350 for doing nothing except waiting. They don't need the money to retire, so thats $1350x 12 x 4 = $64800 that they invest, WHILE the delayer is gaining 8% a year on his max, so at 70 his SS would be about $3900/mo. So You can sure see why that deeming had a huge bullseye on its back in the eyes of the Joe Average.
You don't need to be a doctor or lawyer. You just need to be at or near the income cap during your working years and have good pensions and or investments. Lots of couples in the DC area and elsewhere in the country are. The reason I asked you earlier about how you would react and describe the top 5/10% of working income vs having that same amount in retirement is because I have the sense that being in the top 10% or all income earners in retirement is viewed differently by some when compared to working years. 150K is about the top 8 percent.
Yes it was for the disabled under Social Security. But, the people with disability, millions upon millions represent a major demographic.
I think a number of you know I worked at SSA for 35 years, until I retired in 2008. Then I was called back to help them again with disability claims in 2009 and 2010. Baby boomers who lost their jobs during the recession of 2008 were totally panicked. At this point, even a recovery, which is still happening slowly, was not helping the baby boomers get a job. So, they tried for SS disability. They really had no other options. This is not to say they were approved- it is still quite difficult to be approved, but for those who have paid a lifetime, and were approved, it was truly an earned benefit.
Those folks were in addition to the folks who were struck with some horrible illness- at a young age, middle age, close to retirement, or before FRA. SSA disability is just as critical and vital to families as SS retirement and SS survivors.
To think that a 20% cut in all those benefits might have gone through without this deal would have been a disaster. People only spend money when they have hope. That reduction would have put the economy in a tailspin once again.
So I'm having trouble reconciling how this deal saves SSDI.
Government said a very small number of couples did file and suspend.
If you already did it you're grandfathered.
No new ones though.
How did this save SSDI ? Are they predicting how many would have filed and suspended and moving that money to SSDI ? If it were such a small amount then how does that save SSDI ?
I looked up..SSDI cost $141 billion.
They estimated file and suspend at $9 billion
According to that math SSDI is still going to be empty next year.
So certainly I must be missing something here.
Do you know for a fact this is true? Because I really would like to know. Relative was married to a widow w/4 children. The SS the family received for the four children allowed a decent lifestyle. He couldn't have married this woman, otherwise - and he raised those kids. So, I'm not opposed to dependent benefits - just wondering when dependents are qualified. SS site seems to imply adult/disabled children, otherwise proof of death of the parent. But, I could be misreading.
Do you know for a fact this is true? Because I really would like to know. Relative was married to a widow w/4 children. The SS the family received for the four children allowed a decent lifestyle. He couldn't have married this woman, otherwise - and he raised those kids. So, I'm not opposed to dependent benefits - just wondering when dependents are qualified. SS site seems to imply adult/disabled children, otherwise proof of death of the parent. But, I could be misreading.
All kids and even grandkids if you raise them.
They get 1/2 of the earner's benefits up til they are 18 (19 if in school).
About 4.4 million kids receive SS benefits each month.
About 650,000 are just kids of retired adults.
SS is not means tested -- if it were I am sure many of the wealthy workers would choose NOT to contribute to the government's plan but would elect to invest for themselves...
You can't change the rules in the middle of the game and that is really what this bill has done...anyone less than 62 this year is going to lose an "option" for how to access SS benefits they have been told they were entitled to APPLY for in certain situations. Maybe that was unintentional benefit of the 2000 law but it was in existence for 15 yrs
Why only 3 days of warning as to what was in the bill?
Why only a 6 mo implementation wait period?
It will force more people to file for their benefits wo waiting or doing spousal only in coming years because people are finding it more and more difficult to stay employed full time as they age...
They won't benefit over the long term since they likely will draw a reduced benefit...but I think that was the point.
And I wonder if the fact that gays can now be legal,spouses and claim spousal benefits has much to do with closing this "option" and no one will address that fact
By allowing that benefit to gay couples you in effect have added tremendous number of eligible spousal recepients that were not part of the actuarial computation that SS runs on...
And I wonder if the fact that gays can now be legal,spouses and claim spousal benefits has much to do with closing this "option" and no one will address that fact
By allowing that benefit to gay couples you in effect have added tremendous number of eligible spousal recepients that were not part of the actuarial computation that SS runs on...
Hmmmm and another hmmmmm!
Gotta think about it before I give a Bada Bing! On the other hand many younger folks are not getting married and down the road that could be real problematic.
All kids and even grandkids if you raise them.
They get 1/2 of the earner's benefits up til they are 18 (19 if in school).
About 4.4 million kids receive SS benefits each month.
About 650,000 are just kids of retired adults.
I think one part of this new budget plan lowers the age to 16 instead of 18
I gues because kids can work at 16 but their earnings are not counted in family benefits
Not dependent on school status if I read it correctly
Will impact many homes w/older kids/grandkids
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
