Your source for news affecting the U.S. Social Security Administration/© Charles T. Hall
It seems to me that the report shows MOST people who apply for Social Security Disability and SSI are not disabled under SSA guidelines. SSA's definition of disability is pretty narrow.
You ought to be ashame of yourself. People make more money working and who in the h. .will prefer social security over independence. People want their not the lil money they get from ssa. And by the way they worked and paid ssa insurance so it's their money crazy. You must never been without. Oh it will come. You won't be sitting making comments like that then. When you lose your health you have lost everything. Being in pain everyday of your life and wishing you could be like you once was is pure suffering . I will pray for you.
It would appear a LOT of people would prefer Social Security over independence. Further, a great number of people applying have NEVER worked or paid into the program. There are a lot of people that have lost their health and continue to work, Stephen Hawkings probably being the most severely ill. Stick to something you know about. Social Security isn't it.
That chart doesn't distinguish between SSDI and SSI, so we don't know who paid in and who didn't, so you can drop that argument. Being in pain everyday (of which I know plenty about thank you) doesn't make you disabled under Social Security Law. Why so angry? Numbers tend to be very telling although not always accurate. Looking at those numbers you would expect as the case goes through the stages, it should have a better chance to get approved assuming a medical disabling condition that meets the listings can be applied. At the ALJ level, just over 50% get awarded. It drops sharply at the AC level. ALJ's have more latitude, hence more allowances. But even given the extra latitude, it would seem about half of the claims are not valid disability claims under SSA. Does that mean the person is healthy, no, does it mean they have no pain, no. It means there is work you can perform at the SGA LEVEL. That level it very low so the denial rate is high. The chart also seems to indicate SSA could just eliminate the recon and AC levels altogether.
I've made similar comments before:Choice A: Receive SSI @ $700 per month from the government and work 20 hours per week, earning $7.25 per hour (under SGA) totalling $630/month = $1330 per month. Choice B: Work 40 hours per week earning $7.25 per hour (under SGA) totalling $1260/month.Anyone who argues there is no incentive to collect SSI is delusional. It's free money and for those working at minimum wage it certainly beats making french fries all day.
Choice A is incorrect--the SSI payments would be reduced by $272.50(after applying $ 20.00 general income exclusion, $ 65.00 earend income exclusion, and half the remainder) of the $ 630.00, leaving $ 1057.50 actual income.
The SSI payment is only reduced if the person actually reports their income.
Or don't work at all, file taxes at the end of the year with a little bit of self-employment income, claim EIC and child tax credits, and get yourself a few thousand bucks to add to your $770/month. And when SSA asks about it, just say your tax guy did it without your knowledge or someone is using your SSN. For plenty of people SSI is a much better deal. Consider things that can be taken from wages vs. what and how much can be taken from SSI payments--consumer debts, child support arrears, etc. For many folks, they are CLEARLY much better off bottomline-wise collecting SSI (which also provides free health care and immediate eligibility for public housing, food stamps, and other State-run programs) than working full-time at minimum wage.And there are many, many people who never even seemed to work even part-time at minimum wage. Before I started working at SSA, I had no idea just how many people drop out of high school and simply did not work more than rarely (or never reported income). If you haven't worked here and seen the earnings reports, I imagine you would be flabberghasted at the number of people who are in their 40s or older and whose lifetime reported earnings are less than $100,000, $75,000, or even $50,000 (and these aren't all stay at home parents or people who have been dealing with their allegedly-disabling symptoms even much of those years...). It is so common (even relatively common with Title II applicants) that when I see an earnings record with 15 years of straight SGA or even regular work activity under SGA--that, that is the eyebrow raising case. Yes, a lot of the hype about moochers and cheats is way overblown. But there is a large class of people who just never worked. Weren't disabled those years. Years when the economy was booming. Just didn't work. Amazing.
12:54PM. You are so right!
12:54...spot on. Sort of like the NPR article linked above. This is the underbelly of the economy that doesn't show up as unemployment. These people have NEVER worked and therefore aren't even qualified for that. I agree, it is shocking to see how little people have earned in their lifetimes, yet have still managed to keep a roof over their head, eat, have a car and raise children...paid for by SSI.
On board with 12:54 and those that followed. If you have never worked for SSA, you have no idea what this looks like. In fact, prior to working for the agency, I had never even heard about the SSI program. When you see all these reports and discussions about the agency and disability benefits, SSI is the gorilla in the room no one wants to talk about. I think if more people new about it and its problems, outrage would soon follow. But don't worry, no solvency problems with SSI, tax payers have deep pockets, no trust funds, lol.
Families who have children on SSI, and a modest amount of wages, and receive the EITc, are way better off than the stereotypical working poor that so much is made of. In discussions of poverty statistics and policy, SSI and EITC are virtually never mentioned, but they make a huge difference is disposable income.
12:54 is correct. I've worked at the DDS and now at SSD/SSI law firm for years, blows me away that people just don't work because their earnings are just so low. Makes one really believe that the American mantra about hard work is really just b.s.
Post a Comment