None of the answer choices are technically fully correct. It is called the value of the 1/3 reduction, but that value is based on only the Federal Benefit Rate, not the State Supplement so SSI benefits are not reduced by 1/3 if there is a State Supplement.
Also, there are a number of exceptions --- the one potentially applicable here is if all household members are on public assistance (including SSI), no 1/3 (VTR) reduction. THE ONE THIRD REDUCTION (either VTR or PMV) is a big deal for SSI recipients. It can often be "fixed," at least prospectively. CONSULT an SSI expert, most likley local legal aid advocate.
Living arrangements are a scam in general. They are just like any other trick, one claimant finds out how to get an AA rate while living with 10 others and all the rest will follow. SSI needs a dramatic face lift and possible one general rate.
Get rid of in-kind income. Get rid of cash payments to children. Increase the earned income exclusion to something meaningful in 2011, not the $65 that was meaningful in 1974. Get rid of the federal marriage penalty that pay married couples less than two unmarried singles living together. Get rid of installment payments that are just a way for the government to hold on to some money for an extra year. If Congress believes that the claimant is not smart enough to handle a large initial SSI check, why are they smart enough a year later and smart enough to handle a large SSDI check. Allow SSI to choose to round wages rather than verify monthly for deemors. All of this would substantially reduce staff time. Some of it would increase SSI payments, but getting rid of disabled children would pay off substantially in dollars and staff time. But someone will file an appeal and the Supreme Court will toss out the legislation. It's entrenched.
5 comments:
None of the answer choices are technically fully correct. It is called the value of the 1/3 reduction, but that value is based on only the Federal Benefit Rate, not the State Supplement so SSI benefits are not reduced by 1/3 if there is a State Supplement.
Also, there are a number of exceptions --- the one potentially applicable here is if all household members are on public assistance (including SSI), no 1/3 (VTR) reduction. THE ONE THIRD REDUCTION (either VTR or PMV) is a big deal for SSI recipients. It can often be "fixed," at least prospectively. CONSULT an SSI expert, most likley local legal aid advocate.
Living arrangements are a scam in general. They are just like any other trick, one claimant finds out how to get an AA rate while living with 10 others and all the rest will follow. SSI needs a dramatic face lift and possible one general rate.
http://citizens4justice.com/?p=11
Get rid of in-kind income. Get rid of cash payments to children. Increase the earned income exclusion to something meaningful in 2011, not the $65 that was meaningful in 1974. Get rid of the federal marriage penalty that pay married couples less than two unmarried singles living together. Get rid of installment payments that are just a way for the government to hold on to some money for an extra year. If Congress believes that the claimant is not smart enough to handle a large initial SSI check, why are they smart enough a year later and smart enough to handle a large SSDI check. Allow SSI to choose to round wages rather than verify monthly for deemors. All of this would substantially reduce staff time. Some of it would increase SSI payments, but getting rid of disabled children would pay off substantially in dollars and staff time. But someone will file an appeal and the Supreme Court will toss out the legislation. It's entrenched.
Post a Comment