Fox News is saying that the President's budget proposes to end "file and suspend." I don't recall seeing that. Is this report accurate?
Even though I was planning to do this myself, I don't know that ending it is necessarily a bad idea. So few people know about file and suspend that it may be nothing more than a hidden treat for the unusually sophisticated. Can there be any significant amount of money involved in ending file and suspend? I thought that only a few were employing this strategy.
Even though I was planning to do this myself, I don't know that ending it is necessarily a bad idea. So few people know about file and suspend that it may be nothing more than a hidden treat for the unusually sophisticated. Can there be any significant amount of money involved in ending file and suspend? I thought that only a few were employing this strategy.
9 comments:
Here's a better article: http://www.investmentnews.com/article/20140307/FREE/140309935
The dumb thing is that to end it will take money out of the economy... Duh..
i don't see the point of ending it. it doesn't involve much administrative work. anything that reduces benefits of the elderly is bad in my book.
There is one other scenario not listed in the AARP article. My wife passed away last year. She had good earnings and was on Social Security Disability. I will be 66 in August 2014 (Full retirement age). In December 2013 I filed for Widower's Benefits. Although I am not at Full Retirement Age my benefits started in January 2014. In the year you turn full retirement age you can earn $40,400 for the months before full retirement age is effective. I can manage my earnings from January to July. By deferring my own Social Security Retirement I will receive an additional $800.00 per month when I turn 70.
If benefits are to be touched in such a way that they diminish, I'd rather it be in a way that only/very heavily impacts (negatively) wealthier individuals/couples.
Someone said that they oppose any decrease in older folks retirement benefits. They must be older--I don't know about the rest of you, but I have no problem whatsoever closing this loophole that allows couples who both earned good money throughout their lives game the system to allow for an extra beach house payment every month as a way to cut money from SSA if money must be cut.
12:12, yes, let's take from those that paid the most into it. Your socialistic, communistic ways are truly a credit to your charitable soul.
Which is it--socialism or communism? Contrary to what the brainiacs you watch on Fox News would have you believe by their interchangable use of the terms, the two systems these words describe are quite different, and neither word describes what would be happening by closing this loophole.
You betray your charitable soul by so angrily advocating for the most well-off to keep everything, even a windfall for rich couples that is an unintended creature of a complicated computation, not the intended outcome of the program.
We use file and suspend in our practice for disabled adult children who were on SSI but could move to CDB/DAC if the dad files and suspends. Then dad continues to work and not claim until age 70, but the adult child gets to receive a larger check than SSI only, and triggers Medicare. Medicaid is such horrible, terrible "insurance" that people are desperate to get off it.
I dunno, Mr. Lillesand. Many of the claimant's I see as an attorney at ODAR use Medicaid and seem to get pretty regular care and access to specialists, tons of testing, etc. They sure have a lot more medical evidence (i.e., received lots more care) in their records than the working stiffs making low wages before their debilitation...
Post a Comment