The Senate approved the ABLE Act last night and sent it to the President. Here's a description of ABLE:
Modeled after tax-free college savings accounts, the ABLE bill would amend the federal tax code to allow states to establish the program.
To qualify, a person would have to be diagnosed by age 26 with a disability that results in "marked and severe functional limitations"; those who are already receiving Social Security disability benefits would also qualify. Families would be able to set up tax-free accounts at financial institutions, depositing up to $14,000 annually to pay for long-term needs such as education, transportation and health care.
The contributions would be in after-tax dollars but earnings would grow tax-free.
The ABLE accounts would be able to accrue up to $100,000 in savings without the person losing eligibility for government aid such as Social Security; currently, the asset limit is $2,000. Medicaid coverage would continue no matter how much money is deposited in the accounts.
14 comments:
sounds like a simplified special needs trust
Just another tool to keep people on needs based government benefits. Thank God the taxpayer has all the money needed for the ever going give me more population. And when will it be seen that it is not fair that some can establish these funds but most families do not have the resources to do so making it necessary for the government to "help" those people with more money, tax credits, etc.?
Did you know that - The Census Bureau reported in a study released this week that 65 percent of American children lived in households taking aid from one or more federal program as of the fall of 2011.
"Almost two-thirds (65 percent) of children," said the Census Bureau, "lived in households that participated in at least one or more of the following government aid programs: Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF), the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP), the Special Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women, Infants, and Children (WIC), Medicaid, and the National School Lunch Program."
http://www.cnsnews.com/commentary/terence-p-jeffrey/65-percent-children-live-households-federal-aid-programs
More work for the already overworked field office employees....
@ 12:08 PM The keyword is 'needs' I get SSI, though the way the law is written I think cause I'm 54, I'm not allowed to participate at all in the 'Able Program', though I am disabled and unable to work, but then I'm not able bodied and I sure didn't need a lawyer to get SSI...
One has to have evidence of a disability starting before age 26, that's age discrimination, My disabilities don't appear until I was 40, how long does it take for Osteoarthritis to show up? I don't know.
But still this age provision is wrong and should be contested in the courts and overturned...
http://www.marketwired.com/press-release/congress-passes-able-act-major-victory-persons-with-disabilities-their-families-1977849.htm
As Anon 3:22 demonstrates, you can't please everyone, and anything you give one will be demanded by all. The never-ending morass of government dependency.
I believe the age provision of the Able Act, violates the equal protection clause of the US Constitution, specifically the 14th Amendment...
14th Amendment: Equal Protection Clause
ABLE Act
@ 3:28 PM So you like to discriminate? Yer a sorry SOB...
@3:28 PM But then you Quote a Conservative Blog, 'It ought to be hauled off as Garbage', a partial quote from StarTrek, may as well be KOCH funded and it probably is too...
@ 12:08
Even if I buy into your (incorrect) assertion that the adults running that 65% of households are just lazy or whatever, why should I be in favor of cutting those benefits that help INNOCENT CHILDREN?
I know there are plenty of folks that do plenty to themselves, but SNAP cuts, Medicaid cuts, etc. etc. harm children. Innocent children. And cretins like you not only want that, you applaud it. You hate children who need and get gov't money because they are poor and would otherwise go hungry/homeless/without medical care. Essentially, you hate people because they are poor. Disgusting.
@ 3:22 / 3:29...sorry, laws that have age qualifiers are NOT illegal. I guess I should complain, I'm only 36, but SSA says i can't collect retirement until I'm 67...age discrimination!!!
@ 4:20...we don't hate poor people, we just think that there is a culture of reliance. Also, I do think that if you can't afford them, you probably shouldn't have kids.
@7:18: I feel that it is not reasonable to have children if you cannot afford to support them. That said, peoples' lives do change, often in unexpected, tragic ways. Can you understand that a self-supporting independent person can become seriously ill or injured and lose their usual income? Or does nothing like that happen in your world?
@3:28 Can I quote you? It is a great line. "The never ending morass of government dependency."
And the people sliding down deeper into the hole don't even envision that there could or should be a way out.
I know there are some statistics that show that the US has already passed the tipping point; more citizens taking from the pot than those putting in to the pot.
you still are focusing on the adults. Even if I concede everything you think about them, what about the negative effects on the children who benefit from those adults' (and their own related) receipt of SNAP, etc.?
If you and your ilk genuinely cared about children, every cry for cutting SNAP, etc. would be immediately followed by a call to take the savings and funnel it directly to poor and otherwise disadvantaged children. But you all don't, so one never hears such cries.
Post a Comment