From Syracuse.com:
Joe Huppman didn’t hesitate to answer the urgent plea last month for retired doctors and nurses to help New York fight the coronavirus pandemic in hospitals stretched thin by a surge in patients.
Huppman, 64, of Camillus, volunteered to return to the Syracuse VA Medical Center where he worked as a nurse for 17 years until retiring in 2017. He’s now on standby to help if needed.
If he’s called to duty, Huppman and other retired medical personnel like him will be asked to make a financial sacrifice: The Social Security Administration will cut their benefits if they work too many hours, a penalty for exceeding annual earnings limits.Huppman and others who started collecting Social Security before their full retirement age of 65 will have $1 deducted from their benefit payments for every $2 they earn above the earnings limit of $18,240 this year.
Huppman shared his concerns with U.S. Rep. John Katko, who wants to change the law as the coronavirus takes its toll on the U.S. and stretches hospitals and first responders to historic limits. ...
10 comments:
the amount will be small in any event. If he does not earn over that $18,240 there will be no reduction. And, for the period after he reaches one year before full retirement age, in his case either 66 and 2 months if born in 195555 and 66 and 4 months if born in 1956, the deduction doesn't start until he earns $48,600 and then a one dollar for every three dollars of earnings.
If you want to argue for ending the retirement test altogether, I'm fine with that. The reduction for taking any benefit before what is called full retirement age is penalty enough. But putting in what would be a temporary plan that benefits extremely few people, really if any, seems a waste of time.
If he had retired on disabilty there would be no reduction. But then, Of all ridiculous vocational opinions, the most ridiculous is the one that they find nurses have transferable skills to. That said I do not think someone of his age should be urged to nursing duties during this pandemic
If he retired on disability and returned to work as an RN, then that would be more ridiculous than any transferable skills analysis (and yeah, how ridiculous to think an RN doesn't have skills that would directly transfer to school nurse, case manager jobs for nursing companies, telephonic triage nurses, or even phlebotomists... Ridiculous!). And there wouldn't be a reduction in his benefits so long as his return didn't exceed 9 months at SGA levels, but there would be an elimination of benefits beyond that.
I have little issue with eliminating any reduction in emergent situations like this. It's a good solution to help reduce a growing and immediate concern.
The AET/MET is a frigging disgrace and a double punishment for early retirees. It's long past time to get rid of it.
If you're in such need that you'll take 3/4 of your retirement benefit, why punish them for continuing to work while receiving it? With all the ineffective programs we have on the disability side for work incentives, why have a work disincentive on the retirement side?
If Social Security issues had real visibility, it's one of the first things that would have evaporated.
The SSA should not cut his earnings in these dire circumstances. It would be the right thing to do. Maybe not legally right but right.
If the wages are not reported when he works, SSA will discover them sometime in 2021. And he will be assessed an overpayment. And he can file a waiver of that overpayment, and I figure SSA can apply some sort of policy to waive that overpayment. If the local office won't, an ALJ probably would.
The annual earnings test used to apply to everyone up to age 70. Then it was changed to only apply up through FRA. Eliminating it kinda contradicts the concept that benefits are paid to retirees, because if you are working, you are not retired. It is not just an age 62 benefit, it is a retirement benefit. At least it is right now.
I don't think this is important. The only reason for the retirement income test as far as I can see is to protect people from themselves. Without the test, many more people would start Social Security at 62, have plenty of money if they're still working, and then when they stop working, they'll only have a small Social Security check. Any reduction in benefits due to the earnings test is made up by higher benefits later, so it is not just a reduction. So I think the rule is OK but I'm also fine with getting rid of it, for everyone or just for COVID-19 workers (although I agree with the commentor that said maybe retirees aren't the best people to be asking to work with COVID-19 patients, because of their age).
If anything, the annual earnings test should be reinstated up to age 70. Most of the people age 66 (FRA) and over who are working are doing jobs that pay pretty well. The poor folks are less apt to work after FRA, and if they are that poor, the higher FRA AET limit would make it so they don't have to worry about making too much. The AET was done away with to help doctors, lawyers and other folks who can earn a good living while collecting their retirement benefits post FRA. It was a bad idea 20 years ago and it's not any better now.
Re 441PM--Agree that it is something to help people who don't plan well to delay their retirement benefits until they stop working, reduce their earnings or hit FRA.
AET should be eliminated at least at age 65. You think people working FRA and above make good money? What history do you read? Many have to work. Pensions went by the wayside. 401ks are a joke like TSP. Many have lost a lot because of the stock crash.
I base my opinion re the AET on 40 years of experience as a CR/CS. Prior to 2000, when the AET was abolished for those above FRA, the numbers would have been similar but higher earners couldn't receive retirement until they actually retired or turned 70. I have probably taken 20-25K retirement claims as a CR in a middle class area that has many more low and middle income earners than high income earners. Not all high earners worked past FRA and not all low earners filed by age 65, but that was and still is the trend.
If you recall the file and suspend procedure, I don't know that I ever saw anyone with moderate earnings do it. At least one of the couple had pretty good earnings or was not retired.
The rules that are being eased, like paying people retirement for NOT retiring, have greatly benefited higher earners while lower earners have not taken advantage of the changes nearly as much.
Post a Comment