From Robert Farrington, writing for the Washington Post:
Living with a disability comes with all kinds of challenges, but the financial impact of being unable to work can be absolutely devastating. Imagine not being able to support yourself due to your disability, but also not being able to save money so you can continue qualifying for government aid including Supplemental Security Income (SSI).
To qualify for SSI, your countable resources must not be worth more than $2,000 for an individual or $3,000 for a couple. No matter how you cut it, that’s not very much.
This situation creates a kind of forced poverty for many individuals with a disability and the family members who care for them. But many experts say that the 529 ABLE Account, which was first introduced in 2014, can help curb this ongoing problem. ...
Contribution limits are extremely generous. With a 529 ABLE Account, individuals with disabilities are able to save up to $15,000 per year in 2019. On top of that, a designated beneficiary who works can contribute their income up to the poverty line for a one-person household, notes the IRS. ...SSI income and resources rules are barbaric so we create a loophole so the well to do can help their disabled family members. I've got a better idea. Why don't we just make the SSI income and resource rules less barbaric so every family can benefit! I think the illustration that the Post picked for this column -- a pretty blonde girl who's a double amputee -- pretty much sums up what's going on with ABLE.
23 comments:
Anyone who actually works with the SSI program knows it's illogical to raise resource limits, without a total revamp to policy. While I would agree that there are some ridiculous limitations which should be updated- such as counting life insurance cash value- SSI is a program of last resort. It's welfare, plain and simple. It is designed to provide a minimum standard of living and is designed as such. The Able account provision is for people who were disabled before they could contribute to Social Security or other investments, not for an extra spending account to maintain a higher standard of living than those who worked and paid into Social Security. Updating policies reguarding exclusions is absolutely needed. For instance, perhaps excluding a vehicle for each driver in the household, rather than just one and excluding life insurance cash value completely. Additionally special provisions to establish a bank account for saving for a home, which can only be used for that purpose. Removing the in kind support and maintenance provisions, holding out, and reduced benefits for couples provisions would help as well. There are so many more additional safeguards needed to efficiently administer accurate benefit amounts amongst rampant fraud. We should be establishing more data sharing agreements in order to catch overpayments timely, require single parents to file for child support, as well as limit how many children can receive SSI in one household. Raising resource limits is wasteful without meaningful updates to program policy.
Back in 1974, $2,000 in the bank represented about 1 years worth of fed living arrangement A benefits. Now it's 2.5 months of benefits. And even a "token" adjustment of raising the limit to $3,000 is in keeping with the punitive welfare mindset of the program and reflecting that sh*t costs more and there ought to be a balance between the requirement to be a pauper and the perception of milking the system.
And if the poster actually believes that SSI is designed to "provide a minimum" standard of living, you'd expect more explicit support for a larger benefit than $771 as the poverty level is $12,490 a year. SSI is short $250 a month from that standard.
But as an aside - rampant fraud - seriously? Rampant?
And finally, the whole "can't fix just any one part of it - have to fix it all" simply results in the status quo. The resource limitations are fast approaching their 50th birthday, it's time to recognize that fact.
Noted liberal Richard Nixon had it right. Negative income tax should replace SSI.
5:17 makes some very good points.
10:41 not so much. Yes there is rampant fraud if you include not reporting; return to work, lottery and gambling winnings; marriage, moving from one living arrangement to another, unreported bank account, etc. That is why we have redeterms, most importantly enforcement RZ/LI using IRS supplied resource and income information. Revising exclusions will likely lead to even more semi fraud where people use the exclusion resources and deal with the outcome and overpayments later as they do now.
The median Americans savings in America is less than $5000, so you want to give a needs based program (welfare) greater allowances for resources than the median American? That is going to be an easy sell!
I decided to look into these SSI rules... The rules seemed designed to be a hassle for both the Agency and the recipients, with the "hope" that people on it will "get tired of the hassle and just get a job." What is it with these people who seem to have no concept (or, have their disabilities that "THEY HAVE OVERCOME") or caring about people who have been determined to be "truly disabled?" In other words, even SSA, by their rules, has determined them disabled.
$771 a month is enough to live on in only a handful of areas in this country. If that is the most we will provide, why not allow their families, friends, churches and communities to openly help them with the threat of punitive retaliation? Furthermore, it would clearly be cheaper to administrate if these draconian measures were eliminated. Are these rules really saving us money? Or does it just cost more in lawyers and accountants fees to find the loopholes?
Tim
You failed to factor in all the other programs that SSI eligibility makes available. Utility asstiance, housing assistance, food stamps, Medicaid (medical and prescription) and an entire host of other things depending on the state.
Actually, in most states, housing assistance and food stamps require you to live by yourself or without family members. Food stamps eligibility takes into account everyone that lives at a residency. I don't think this is good for people to live alone. Furthermore, single bedroom apartments are difficult to get for people with disabilities, due to credit checks, money for deposits, etc. Section 8 housing for singles is nearly impossible to get. So, by default, many have no choice but to accept the benefit cuts and live with family. I know I have been a burden to my family in the last 5 years while I have been waiting to be approved for SSDI. Why not simply allow the benefit without the offsets and allow people to decide whom to live with and how to spend the without all the punitive penalties?
Almost since the inception of the SSI program in 1974, policy has attempted to simplify the rules. And, throughout the years at various times, policy has tried to simplify the SSI program. Has simplifying it been done? NOPE.....it takes an act of Congress to change the laws & depending on the political climate & who has more clout, things don't change & the status quo continues. A complete overhaul of both the Social Security (Title II) & Supplemental Security Income (Title XVI) programs is needed; however the outrage would be deafening by the public, especially those currently receiving benefits. Not sure what the answer is, but creating yet another loophole is NOT the answer. Seems like attorneys & advocates are constantly trying to find loopholes with the programs. No matter what is done, there will be those that disagree with the change(s) proposed. It will revert to the squeaky wheel gets the oil.
Tim
SSI is based on the FLA Federal Living Arrangements and the amount of payment is based on the number of people in the household. To get the max as you reported they would have to be in an FLA of A as a single household.
The reason for the offset is because this is a needs based program, that means they have not worked enough to be eligible for SSDI and are therefor taking out of the system that they never paid into. Are you suggesting that people living with a spouse who makes $50000 or $100000 or $1000000000000 should be eligible for SSI, because that is what you are saying.
4:22 - SSI is paid out of general revenue, not trust funds. There is no "taking out of a system that they did not pay into". Wonder what else you have got wrong about this.
4:22 PM First of all, many or most of these people were never really able to work. Then there are those with issues with the date of last insured. They might have worked for 25 years with disabilities, but then were denied SSDI and were forced to eventually only accept SSI. I suppose if you are a Kennedy and have a trust fund, then you don't need it. In the real world... A spouse who makes 50,000...This isn't that much for a family of 4. Kind of a grey area. Ultimately, I think it should be thought of as disability pay, not welfare.
@3:17 PM Oh but you see creating a loophole for rich people IS the solution for the politicians we have. When their donors actually have to deal first hand with the devastation these policies cause (i.e. it is their family member) it magically gets their attention. The question is, can candidates who actually care about the working class get into office? There have been sparks of hope, but we shall see.
@7:52 if they have no earnings they havent paid taxes therefore they are taking out of a system they never paid into.
11:45 SSI is welfare, always has been always will be. You can put lipstick on it if you wish, but it is still welfare.
8:56 AM Why MUST you call it "welfare?" The only reason seems to be that you want to put a stigma upon it. You probably want to put the same stigma on SSDI, but that would be a less politically acceptable position. Naturally, you did not address, nor did others, that the policies make it difficult for them to live with members their families. Living by yourself is difficult or impossible from a practical standpoint due to the lack of single housing and credit checks. These policies are not practical for SSA or the disabled! Furthermore, I am not convinced they really save money, due to the cost of administration. So, what is the point of them?
@8:54
You are missing Tim's point, ignorant of the distinction between SSDI and SSI, or both. You are also assuming the average SSI recipient never had earnings. Plenty have. They were just either too low to qualify for SSDI (in excess of the SSI amount at least), or they had an untimely gap in employment making their insured status lapse. That's a pretty common occurrence given the average worker is actually reluctant to go seek benefits as opposed to try and keep working. You earn more, there is a degree of dignity to work, and there is the natural belief that some recent health development will likely just get better in time. Many SSI recipients did in fact pay for years into the system, just too long prior to becoming disabled for it to matter.
I want numbers, verifiable numbers, of recipients that are filing after DLI for SSI, i have seen this very very very rarely working in two of the most poverty ridden counties in Southern Illinois. It is not nearly as common as being portrayed here in this bias forum, not even remotely
As for calling it welfare, that is because that is what the program is. It is taking money from general revenue taxes to provide for the WELFARE of SSI claimants. It was taken away from states and standardized into a fed program under Nixon to make it more equal state to state. You think it sucks now, imagine what it would be in states with limited resources or governed by party members that would not extend Medicaid!
@3:37
It happens in most of our cases by far. The fact that you are in "two of the most poverty ridden counties in Southern Illinois" is exactly why you might not be seeing it often. Judging by your statement, I'm sure you would agree that observer bias is a real problem. As far as whether there is data supporting our anecdotal positions, I would hope so. The issue is, it would require deeper analysis than could be found just by looking at overall figures. I'm not sure there is any data published one way or another on the subject.
As to calling it welfare, Tim wasn't saying it wasn't welfare, he was taking issue for why using that term matters. It's irrelevant to the discussion.
I am not in favor of raising the resource limit but really don't see a lot of claims denied for having $5k in the bank and no other resources. Someone who hasn't worked much, enough for T2 anyway, rarely is going to have $5K or more in the bank when they file. People who manage money wisely are not the typical folks filing for SSI. They may never have had it, but if they did, most likely they weren't the best at managing it. It's not that common but not unheard of to see someone on SSI, living on less than $1000 a month, win some kind of lottery and blow through $100-200K in less than a year. Perhaps could have bought a mobile home, a decent car, spruce up their wardrobe/furniture/etc but instead spend $10K or more a month on who knows what.
BTW, the resource limit was not $2K in 1974. $1500.
Tim, you must not be too familiar with SSI folks. Most do not decide they are tired of it and go get a job. The reason they are on SSI is they haven't worked much or lately. Some have. Most don't want to take T2 benefits if it affects their SSI. "Don't take away my benefits!"
I don't know of any lawyers or accountants that are looking for SSI loopholes. There is very little money for them in that.
"Ultimately, I think it should be thought of as disability pay, not welfare." There is a program for that and it's called Social Security disability. Assets and resources don't affect eligibility.
Using the term welfare is not irrelevant to the discussion of whether or not resource levels should be increased. It's the whole point of SSI. No one is saying that individuals on SSI are not disabled, but that's only part of the criteria. If you have excess resources, you're not entitled to it. It's a welfare program for disabled individuals who have minimal means or resources to provide versus other welfare programs that even non-disabled individuals can collect.
There are certainly individuals that have remote DLIs due to disabilities that stopped them from working several years prior. Of course, if they got treatment within the last several years for their disabling conditions, they should be able to pursue a remote AOD and potentially get T2 benefits with a later onset in payment due to the 17-month rule.
A number of situations are far more common than this rate scenario. Career criminals
that have spent much of their adult life incarcerated are more common.
Individuals who did illegal work or under the table work apply, some of whom continue to do the activities during their alleged period of disability.
People who did work very hard as owner-operators or sole proprietors that thought it better to avoid taxes through clever accounting or, sometimes, outright tax fraud.
Spouses/partners whose partner did not want them to work out of pride or to raise the kids/care for the house before leaving them after several years of the relationship with nothing.
People who stopped working several years back to take care of a disabled/elderly family member before either requiring a higher level of care or the family member passes.
People with ongoing and severe drug and alcohol issues that can't beat it and regularly lose jobs related to the substance abuse issues.
People who simply have never and will never have the desire to work and are content to live in mom's basement for forever. Contrary to an earlier post, work ethic and the dignity of work are not inherent qualities in everyone.
Of course, a number of the above individuals are entitled to benefits because they are disabled. But the notion that SSI applicants are largely composed of people who have never been able to work or worked with disabilities their whole lives before being screwed by SSA on their DIB apps is ridiculous.
I hear a lot of remote possibilities, but I am seeing no numbers. Not even an attempt, a lot of creative writing and storytelling, no numbers.
There is one category of SSI applicant and recipient has not been mentioned in any of the previous posts. That is the naturalized US citizen, non-US born disabled or over age 65 individual. At least in California, where I worked as an SSI CR beginning in 1978, one of the very large percentages, (could easily be more than half, I never really counted) of SSI recipient is the non-US born. Immigrated to the US through some refugee, asylee, or other legal immigrant program; took the classes and tests to become a US citizen. Almost always living with adult immigrant relatives, some who are working in the community. That explains the lack of FICA earnings. Even with the minimum of ten years of work, the PIA is not very high.
Post a Comment