Stimulus payments aren’t supposed to count against eligibility for social insurance programs like disability benefits, but some people might have lost benefits because of too much money in their bank accounts.
The Social Security Administration has suspended disability benefits for some Supplemental Security Income recipients because the stimulus payments pushed their bank accounts above the program’s archaic $2,000 limit, according to legal aid attorneys. ...
It’s likely that relatively few of the program’s nearly 8 million beneficiaries have been affected. ...Everyone on SSI is subject to the resource limit, which hasn’t been updated since 1989. It’s $2,000 for individuals and $3,000 for couples, with exclusions for a home, a car and certain other assets.
Because the coronavirus stimulus payments are technically tax credits, they shouldn’t have affected eligibility for any social program, whether it’s food benefits or Social Security. Under federal law, tax credits don’t count as income or “resources” for eligibility purposes within a year of their receipt.
But the Social Security Administration is a huge agency with lots of employees, and it’s possible some have made mistakes, said Stacy Cloyd, director of policy and administrative advocacy with the National Organization of Social Security Claimants’ Representatives. What should happen, Cloyd said, is that when the agency sees more than $2,000 in someone’s bank account ― the overall balance is all the agency sees ― it should investigate and then back off if the cash came from a tax rebate within the past year.
“If the resource limit were $10,000 this would be a lot less of an issue,” Cloyd said. President Joe Biden has proposed updating the asset limit, but Democrats haven’t yet reintroduced their bill to change the policy. ...
May 20, 2021
Stimulus Payments Cause Problems For Some SSI Recipients
From HuffPost:
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
33 comments:
Why is someone on disability getting unemployment benefits?
This is about the stimulus payments, not enhanced unemployment benefits. But to answer your question anyway, parents of disabled children who receive SSI may receive unemployment benefits, and those do count as deemable income to the child recipient.
Claimants getting SSI are getting unemployment and now SSA has told the employees to not count the unemployment and pandemic assistance as income pending finalized instructions which makes no sense...
If you have $10000 in savings are you needing welfare? How many working people have $10000 in savings?
How were people on disability benefits economically impacted by lockdowns due to the pandemic?
The Covid unemployment has also been an issue. Most of my clients are pretty much starving. They will take any free money. I have had clients who have not worked for years getting Covid unemployment. Not exactly sure how it happens.
And yes, the $2000 resource limit is ridiculous and antiquated just like the DOT.
They weren’t and how is someone getting ssi also getting unemployment and pandemic assistance and we are being told not to count it as income..and .doesn’t unemployment mean your ready and willing to work but yet you are getting ssi and say you are disabled and unable to work ??
@9:23
Stimulus payments by definition are not unemployment benefits. The point of the stimulus checks were not to replace lost income, although I'm sure it served that purpose for some people, it was meant to provide a pool of additional disposable income to ensure the American economy (which is consumer-driven) did not stall due to loss of consumer confidence (i.e. if everyone stops buying stuff, everyone gets fired, because basic capitalism is a thing.) Also, as 9:36 points out, deeming of income is an issue. Another, less common situation, is where an ineligible (i.e. not disabled) spouse of an SSI recipient had minimal earnings, not enough to disqualify the recipient from SSI under deeming of income rules.
@11:19
I have approximately that in savings and if I were faced with any sort of medical procedure that's going to be gone in the blink of an eye. Seems like providing some basic welfare is a valid alternative to forcing price controls on the health insurance and medical industries, but I'm good with either.
@11:33
1. Cost of basic goods went up due to consumer demand, particularly cost of basic medical suppled.
2. Disabled folks generally have more risk of medical emergencies and unless I am mistaken, medicare/medicaid doesn't cover the costs of purchasing masks, rubbing alcohol, etc. Also, plenty of people of disability benefits have some earnings, either due to attempts to return to work or even in the circumstances where a disabled person might not be able to sustain substantial gainful activity, but might be able to earn a few hundred dollars a month through gig work.
3. Those costs might appear minor, but those on disability benefits are on a fixed income, unlike the general populace, and any changes in cost of living are going to hit them harder and faster than other communities.
11:34 what should the resource limit be? Should it be higher or lower than the average savings of the working citizen that is paying the taxes? Should a welfare recipient have more recourses than a working person?
@12:54
The $2,000 asset limit was set in 1984. Just adjusting for inflation, that would be $5,140 today. But that ignores the increase in specifically medical costs. The consumer price index of medical costs for urban consumers has increased from 104 to 524 since 1984, a five-fold increase, which would support setting the asset limit at $10,000.
The asset limit is irrelevant to the "average savings of the working citizen" because the asset limit is not a matter of "saving," it's to allow accumulation of money to the extent necessary to pay for services.
As to whether a welfare recipient should have more recourses than a working person, they have exactly the same "recourses" as welfare recipients were working people. If you meant "resources," then I would say absolutely. Disabled folks face far larger costs on an irregular basis than non-disabled folks and they absolutely should be able to accumulate more assets to address those costs in advance.
A quick Google search comes back with the average American has a savings of about $3,500.00, so $2,000.00 could be raised to the average I suppose. However, if the goal is to get the person off of benefits, then $10,000.00 would be better. So, if the plan is to keep people in poverty and on the benefits, $2,000.00 or less seems to do that just fine.
@1:26 "Disabled folks face far larger costs on an irregular basis than non-disabled folks and they absolutely should be able to accumulate more assets to address those costs in advance."
They also get free healthcare, free prescriptions, rental assistance, food assistance, all being paid for by the taxpayer. What are they facing?
Hold on, I thought the consensus of the blog was that these people are in such horrid condition that return to work is impossible and all the program money spent researching and creating programs for RTW is just a waste. But if they were able to save $10k they could go to work?
Explain to me at what dollar point that miracle occurs?
@1:51
Free healthcare: Medicaid/Medicare both have limits on what services are covered. Custodial care is not covered and that's an obvious example of something required by many disabled folks which is extremely expensive. Over-the-counter medication is also not covered, nor is dental.
Free prescriptions: Each state has a unique formula as to how much of a prescription medicaid will pay. My understanding is that medicare does not. Also, both medicaid and medicare have formularies approving some medications and not others. If a medication is not covered, the individual is going to be paying out-of-pocket.
Rental assistance/food assistance: Disability does not establish eligibility for either of these types of programs. It is often one of multiple prerequisites, but it is incorrect to presume a disabled person is getting rental/food assistance.
All being paid for by the taxpayer: It was also paid for by the disabled individual while they were working, and the whole point of the disability programs is that these costs are going to get paid regardless; either by a disabled individual defaulting on medical bills they cannot pay and the cost gets passed on to other patients by the hospital/doctor, or through public funds.
@Anon 1:51
Sooo many ways. Just to name a few... Let's say SSI recipient wants to buy a used car for $4K to get to the doctor or to try looking for work. Can't save enough to buy it outright. Has to get a loan. He'll pay a lot more in interest before he's done.
Any set back that causes SSI recipient to miss a payment on a credit card or loan because he couldn't sock away enough money for a rainy day can easily result in heavy fees, penalties and damage to his credit rating, barring him from getting needed credit or loan terms in the future.
Medicaid denies coverage for power wheelchair repairs or replacement. SSI beneficiary has to fight for 3 months with a non-working wheelchair. He must go out of pocket for a lot of additional help and assistance if he cannot afford to front the likely substantial wheelchair repair costs during those months.
Can't afford to pay a fine or ticket when due? That can balloon into many times the original amount.
2:24 you said a lot of stuff, unfortunately none of it was correct.
Custodial care, if you are referring to LTC it is covered for low income individuals by Medicaid in every state.
Free Prescriptions LIS and other programs for low income cover the cost of medication for individual under 150% of federal poverty level.
Rent and food, if you are only receiving SSI less than $1000 per month you meet the requirements in every state for housing and food stamps.
Thanks for sharing.
So you all honestly think every SSI reciepient is keeping money in a checking account?
Seriously? You honestly believe that?
SSI people live in a total cash economy. They are totally and completely aware of what the limits are and how to work around them.
You can believe the fairytale you tell yourself, but dont expect those of us that work in the real world to remotely buy in.
Do not know exactly how much should be the income limit. But I know you know $2000 is too little. I would probably start at around $5000-10,000 somewhere in there. Nobody is living the high life with that little of savings.
Just like not revising the DOT since around 1991 is too long.
@3:41
Your language is unclear. If you mean that SSI recipients are hiding cash around to avoid the asset limit, that's fraud and no I don't believe the average recipient who is reliant on SSA benefits is actively engaging in fraud. If you mean SSI recipients constantly spend down their assets to maintain their eligibility, yeah they do and forcing individuals to limit their assets by engaging in a "total cash economy" results in significant hardships when faced with an unexpected expense. As to whether I expect you to "buy in" since you "work in the real world," plenty of SSI recipients did work in the "real world," but no I don't expect you to "buy in" until you file for benefits at which point you will immediately realize your error.
They counted the Alaska PFD this year too! They ignored the "Hold Harmless Act". They said it was a "glitch". *eye roll*
If ones roof leaks, $2000 is not going to fix it sufficiently. If ones car breaks down and it's a serious issue, $2000 is not going to fix it, or replace it with a reliable vehicle. That being said, SSI makes it REALLY hard to save money anyway, they keep one in poverty. $2000 is unrealistic to save, even. SSI generally only pays the bills.
$10K sounds high for a resource balance. SSI is a welfare benefit. If they have $10K, let them live on that until they have spent the bulk of it. Why should SSI be paid to someone who has more savings than the average American?
SSI is not a program that is trying to lift people out of poverty. Most 65+ year olds or disabled folks on SSI are going to be on it for quite a while until some change in their life other than being able to save $10K.
3:39 PM, May 20, 2021:
You're not telling the whole story. Not everyone who qualifies for Section 8 or other low-income housing assistance is able to receive it. It is not an entitlement, even if the person is on SSI. And food stamps (SNAP) often do not cover all food expenses for the month.
I cant believe that you people actually think they put the money in the bank.
Do you put out milk and cookies for Santa?
@8:05
If you were correct that nobody on SSI is saving then we would be seeing nobody denied SSI due to being over-resourced. We are seeing it though. As a practical matter what happens sometimes is people get small windfalls. Recover $5K from a personal injury lawsuit. Inherit $8K from a parent's will. Whatever the source, the question becomes, can I save it for a rainy day which is sensible and practical, or must I rush to spend down to under the $2K resource limit before the first day of the next calendar month, which is stupid and wasteful.
They dont spend it all 9:10. I work with this population everyday. After they are approved and the check is in the bank for the representative how much contact do you have with people you get on SSI?
They stash it. They work cash jobs under the table, they go scraping, they sell things on MarketPlace. Yes there are some that dont, and are not capable of doing those things but there are plenty that do.
I dont blame them, you do what you have to do to survive, sometimes that means bending the rules. Tell me to my face that in representing people for disability that you never once ever in your career represented a person that you thought could work in some capacity. But you play inside the rules and you get paid and you survive. No different than keeping some cash on the side or making a little jack on a cash side hustle.
9:10 AM
Yes, people are denied for being over the resource limit. But once their resources go below 2K, and they start receiving SSI, the vast majority never save that much again.
12:54 PM
I see you are preemptively jealous of people on SSI getting a higher resource limit. What a sad life you must lead to be jealous of SSI recipients.
Resources are not necessarily cash in the bank. It could be the junk car grandma gave so your son cold drive himself to school or a part time job.
Some working people, who may only have a few thousand dollars in savings, don't like the idea of paying a welfare benefit to someone who has $10,000 in the bank.
It's not a matter of jealousy, it's a matter of fairness.
I agree that the $2k/$3k limits are too low but also that $10k is too high for a need-based program. What I'd like to see are more robust exclusions. The car situation 7:44 brought up is a good example of something that should be excluded. I've also seen a lot of people denied for family real estate with multiple co-owners that doesn't fall under any of the very narrow property exclusions, when there's no realistic way for them to use that property for their own support.
Although a few cases, resources may have been counted incorrectly, but it is routine for Claims Specialists to apply the exclusion for 12 months and the MSSICS computer file makes it easy to do. I doubt this is a big problem and should be easily fixable. Of course, there is one example that is an exception.
@747 One car is excluded as far as the resource limit. If someone has two cars, the most valuable car is excluded.
10K would be over a year of benefits for a person with a FLA-A, how many working Americans have a year of income in the bank?
Post a Comment