Share your concerns about Social Security

[AARPMiller]

1)     In the article,  Social Security Fears, many Social Security myths are addressed. What concerns you the most about Social Security? 

[drawpoker]

SSI (Supplemental Security Income) is not the same as Social Security.    

Social Security is an entitlement program in which its beneficiaries paid into the system,  either  through payroll withholding or filing Schedule SE.    

SSI is not an entitlement program.  It is welfare.  

Unlike Social Security,  SSI just like any other welfare program,  has rules and eligibility criteria in order to qualify. 

You have to apply locally for welfare payments and assistance.    There is no system to send out "statements" to tell you how much you qualify for,  as this form of welfare bears only minimal relationship to record of lifetime earnings.   Whatever benefits you may qualify for through SSI do not come out of the social security trust funds;  they come out of the public treasury,  hence,  why it is termed to be welfare,  not social security.  

Got it?      

[scottadamzac]

I am getting a retirement benefit from my job. Is this included in the 15,000.00  you can earn after receiving social security benefits

[drawpoker]

Only earned income ( wages and self-employment earnings)  are counted.  Unearned income,  such as pensions,  investments,  capital gains,  etc,  are not counted by SSA in the annual earnings limit. 

http://www.socialsecurity.gov/pubs/EN-05-10069.pdf

[SeanTank]

The main thing that concerns me about retirees is not necessarily IF Social Security payments will be made, but HOW MUCH will the payments buy?  Price inflation is here to stay, and yes, at times it will fluctuate, but overall, my opinion is that the prices of goods and services will rise more than 3% per year.  For those with a fix income (e.g. pension, Social Security) this is obviously a problem.  Add in unexpected cost such as long-term care, and the squeeze will definitely be on then.  So what's a potential solution?  Once again, it's just my opinion, but diversifying into precious metals such as gold and silver is one way to offset the harmful effects of price inflation.  As the author of this article shows us, doing something as simple as 'hunting' for copper pennies and silver coins after checking out at the cash register can be beneficial to your bottom line.  Sorry a bit off topic but hopefully helpful!

[ph4231]

 the republican party has and will do more to take away our bennifits. they treat social security as a hand out instead of an system that we paid in to. also i have a friend that is on disability and moved to the state of new york. this friend has started being harrased by state agencies threathing to freeze and remove her from social securuty. is this for real? can states mandate our social security benifits?

[GailL1]

---

@ph4231 wrote:

 . . . . also i have a friend that is on disability and moved to the state of new york. this friend has started being harrased by state agencies threathing to freeze and remove her from social securuty. is this for real? can states mandate our social security benifits?

---

 For both SSDI and SSI, there are periodic disability reviews and many times these are conducted by the state although usually there is a questionaire sent to the beneficiary to be completed beforehand but I don't know if this is always the case.  This has long been the procedure.

The President's 2015 budget proposal reinterated these reviews for program integrity of both SSDI and SSI.

WhiteHouse 2015 Budget Proposal.   (see page 149)

This is only applicable to SSDI and SSI not the Old Age and Survivors benefits.

[rt3213290]

I am planning on filing for ssdi in 2016 at the age of 56..I will be drawing a pension from a private company in June 2015. I was forced to leave this company in 2007 because of osteo arthritis of both knees. Will this pension affect my SSDI decision or decrease my benefits?

Thanks Robert

[GailL1]

---

@rt3213290 wrote:

I am planning on filing for ssdi in 2016 at the age of 56..I will be drawing a pension from a private company in June 2015. I was forced to leave this company in 2007 because of osteo arthritis of both knees. Will this pension affect my SSDI decision or decrease my benefits?

Thanks Robert

---

  No to both -

  The only thing that SSDI is going to measure you on is your health condition and whether or not it meets their definition of disability.

From SSA:  SSDI 

"The definition of disability under Social Security is different than other programs. Social Security pays only for total disability. No benefits are payable for partial disability or for short-term disability.

"Disability" under Social Security is based on your inability to work. We consider you disabled under Social Security rules if:

• You cannot do work that you did before;
• We decide that you cannot adjust to other work because of your medical condition(s); and
• Your disability has lasted or is expected to last for at least one year or to result in death.

This is a strict definition of disability. Social Security program rules assume that working families have access to other resources to provide support during periods of short-term disabilities, including workers' compensation, insurance, savings and investments."

Follow the links provided in this page:

SSA: Disability Planner

[wbrummett]

 I am a disabled worker and I want to know is my ssi benefit going to be reduced when I turn 65 and have to go off of disablity benefits.

[GailL1]

---

@wbrummett wrote:

 I am a disabled worker and I want to know is my ssi benefit going to be reduced when I turn 65 and have to go off of disablity benefits.

________________________________________________________________________

You said SSI but did you mean SSDI ????

SSDI (Social Security Disability Insurance Program)

SSI ( Supplemental Security Income) - the welfare (general fund)ability program for those who are not vested much into the Social Security program

If you are talking about SSDI rather than SSI then the answer is NO.

If you are talking about SSI then the answer is probably still NO. 

The SS (old age / survivors benefit) might be larger because it will depend on how much you have paid into & how long you paid into the Social Security system while working and if all the places you worked participated in the SS system by which there is a calculated offset.

Contact SSA by phone, your SS online account or at their local office, they can tell you for sure what will happen in your own particular case.

[gg637]

That the purpose for which Social security was founded will be eroded so much that seniors will fall easily into a poverty stricken existence.

[kayleerae]

I began receiving Social Security at 65.  I have since been deemed completely and permanently disabled due to several medical problems the worst of which is degenerative disc disease in my spine.  I would like to have my status changed to show I am disabled.  Why am I being told that is impossible as you have only one opportunity to declare this and that is when you first sign up?  Caroline Miller

[GailL1]

kayleerae wrote
I began receiving Social Security at 65. I have since been deemed completely and permanently disabled due to several medical problems the worst of which is degenerative disc disease in my spine. I would like to have my status changed to show I am disabled. Why am I being told that is impossible as you have only one opportunity to declare this and that is when you first sign up? Caroline Miller
==================================================
I'm kind of confused here . . . . .
What difference would it make since you are already 65 years old ?

[Jekbride]

My major concern is that Congress will not fix Social Security until it becomes a true train wreck and becomes "unfixable".  For years they could have taken the limit off earnings to gain more income.  They could also make sure everyone pays in--all government workers and teacher organizations, etc.

They could reduce "future" cost of living raises--this is not a decrease in benefits as described by some.  

[scheloskejohn]

Will they ever pay back the money they use out of Social Security for other reasons? That is like stealing our money that was suppose to support our retirement. If they would return that sum of money social security would be in great shape. By the way I work for over 40 years and paid all my taxes and they still would take care of foreign and welfare people before seniors would have work there whole life.

[GeorgeBMac]

Social security is under attack by Republicans who object to it on ideological grounds. They are not going to stop their attack and the only thing keeping them from bringing it down is that they do not control either the senate or the executive office.

But they have convinced large numbers of people the it is "broken" and headed towards bankruptcy - even though neither of those allegations are true. But, they use their lies to convince people that the current system needs to be scrapped.

If they succeed, the people of this country are in trouble.

[jh1440]

George -

You are absolutely right about this. I wholeheartedly stand against Fred Griesbach's efforts (along with those of "The Can Kicks Back" the "Balanced Budget Amendment" and the like). The idea that a country with a fully fiat currency like the US Dollar might need to "cut SS to save it" is utter nonsense. If people understood how their own national currency works, Fred would not be able to mount this attack on Social Security. When we were on the edge of the Great Recession, the Gov't could have afforded to suspend payroll taxes (while making up the difference to the OASDI Trust Funds itself) and raise the minimum SS pay to $2,000/mo. 

When a country uses a fully fiat currency that floats on the foreign exchange, the question is never about it's ability to leave enough of that currency in the private sector to support a brisk economy, rather it's a question of whether or not we have enough REAL goods and services to go around. The Federal Government should point it's efforts towards balancing the economy, not "the budget". Balancing the budget is for individuals, biz and local governments (i.e., users of the national currency). Not for the sole net issuer of the national currency.

[trailsnet]

That organizations like AARP, who are supposed to advocate for seniors, are allowing legislation like Government Pension Offset (GPO) and Windfall Elimination Provision (WEP) rob hard-earned retirement income from middle class Americans. AARP always talks the talk about protecting Social Security, but when it comes to GPO & WEP, they certainly don't walk the walk.

[ttryu]

Due to funding issue, social security benefits would almost certainly be cut down the road.  This is a major concern.  This would put more financial burden on younger Baby Bommers and the generations that follow.  This means we must be more intelligent on investing for our retirement down the road.  Unfortunately, many people are not ready in the position to accept the challenge. 

[erniepectol]

Keep it going!!!! Raise the limit on what is taxable. Cut out the fraud, esp. on disability claims!!!! I think you could double the limit and solve the problem. I've got to have Social Security to live in just a very few years!!!!

[medtech87108]

I'm not overly concerned about the system itself; I understand it is self-funding.  Working people pay the SS tax to keep the fund alive.  I think a concern of mine is if the younger people will not be able to find jobs that allow them to pay the SS taxes.

[northrancher]

I'm just confused about when to take benefits and what are the penalties for taking it early. I have two questions:

1) If I take benefits at 62 and switch to spousal benefits (my husband) at 66, can I resume my benefits at 70?

2) If I take benefits at 62 and I have no income, will I still be penalized if my husband makes over the allotted amount?

Thanks in advance.

[drawpoker]

) If I take benefits at 62 and switch to spousal benefits (my husband) at 66, can I resume my benefits at 70?

   Answered over in the other thread. 

2) If I take benefits at 62 and I have no income, will I still be penalized if my husband makes over the allotted amount?

    Never.    Soc Sec. is not like food stamps.  Or TCA.  It doesn't go by household income.  Only the beneficiary is subject to the rules of the earnings limits;   not other members of the same household,  so no worries there  you cannot be penalized.  Also,  if your husband lavishes you with expensive gifts,  diamonds,  furs,  Rolex  -  no matter,  it is not "income",   soc. sec.  doesn't care.  As long as he didn't acquire the money for the diamonds and furs by concealing income,  lol  

Thanks in advance.

You're entirely welcome !

[retiredtraveler]

"... Also,  if your husband lavishes you with expensive gifts,  diamonds,  furs,  Rolex  -  no matter,  it is not "income",   soc. sec.  doesn't care.  As long as he didn't acquire the money for the diamonds and furs by concealing income....".

   Hey, DW sometimes looks at these postings. You're a bad influence! 

[drawpoker]

Wifey asking too many questions,  eh.   Getting ideas?  

Here's a remedy for that.   Tell her that you have many,  many beautiful,  investment=grade Diamonds,  the most flawless,  perfect,  amazing gems that you have bought for her.  

Then just say that on the advice of,  er,  aarp message boards,  you put them within an IRA for the favorable tax treatment while they appreciate in value to an astounding amount.  

Uh oh   Better not make any jokes around here.  Over in that other thread I referenced for the poster here,  the box office is setting  records.  Went thru the roof.  Before the poster put up her new post tonite in that thread,  the views for the previous post had hit like close to 2,400.  And that post wasn't really stale,  fairly recent.    

Unless it is a malfunction in the count clicker  here  -  always a possibility with the site screwups here    =  that is pretty amazing to me so many people eating this stuff up. 

WhaddaYou  make of it.......??????

[GroveLady]

1. The fact that this is dated a couple of years ago says no one will read this. 

2. Disability is being decided on 1960s definitions.   Todays long term problems that disable people are things like Migraine and chronic headache that stops you from working for most of the year.  Yet is not recognized.   Lyme disease gives many disableing problems yet they are not considered.

3. They only recognize something broken and cannot be fixed for disability.  They are now being fixed. 

It makes no sense now if you read this in a few years you might understand our frustrations.

[judyz82]

My biggest concern is that our government become so corrupted that Wall Street is finally successful in privatizing SS.

[jg8987]

In my knowledge I believe that being disabled I should at least have enough money to cover all my bills, food prices, and a small bit of entertainment. On what I receive it is all gone the first day. I can barely round up enough for my medications. I am on quite a lot.

[cavankb]

I quote from the AARP article addressing survivor benefits "Widows and widowers can receive 100 percent of their deceased breadwinner spouse's full retirement benefit if they wait to claim until they reach their own full retirement age, currently 66 for people born from 1945 to 1956. However, a reduced survivor benefit can be taken as early as age 60."  However, many surviving spouses receive a nasty surprise when they find out that in order to do so they will have to give up their own retirement benefits.  Will this ever by remedied?

[drawpoker]

"a reduced survivor benefit can be taken as early as age 60."  However, many surviving spouses receive a nasty surprise when they find out that in order to do so they will have to give up their own retirement benefits. "

Not quite.   No one is ever forced to give up their own retirement (drawing on their own work record instead of spouse)  if that monthly amount is higher.  

Here is where I think you are confused.   As you say,  a widow (er) can start drawing on deceased spouse at age 60.  If she does,  she gets like 70.5 , 71 %  (I would have to look it up to be exact) of the spouses full benefit.  Spouse's full benefit meaning what he would have gotten at his full retirement age,  65,  66. 

Now, let's say,  in your scenario,   a widow does this yet she continues to work herself.  Full time,  at a decent salary.  Now,  because she is going to be going over the earnings limit, she is going to have to give back a good deal of that social security check she is getting on husband's account.   But,  if this is what she wants,  fine.   The reward would come in 6 years.  She could then switch her monthly benefits from spousal to HER record,  since she herself is now at full retirement age,   and get a fatter soc. sec.  check for the rest of her life.  She was not locked in to taking spousal benefits as you seem to think.  She could make the switch if it meant more $$$

Soc. Sec.  has always allowed people to pick whichever gives the most money if a person is eligible to draw on more than one account. 

I think what you are griping about is  -  if a widow or widower starts drawing spousal benefits at their age of 60,  you seem to think when they turn 66 or 67,  whatever is their own full retirmemt age,  the benefit checks should be bumped up to 100% (maximum benefit amount)

Sorry,  it doesn't work that way.