Senator Sherrod Brown, whose Senate Finance Subcommittee held a hearing yesterday on the outdated SSI program, is saying that "at a minimum" the budget reconciliation bill now pending in the Senate "will include his proposal to raise the asset limit for SSI beneficiaries."
11 comments:
Yes it should. The resource limit is totally divorced from reality. It punishes older people who despite very little income, are punished if they save the smallest amount.
If you really want to help claimants and reduce administrative costs, get rid of the 1/3 reduction just because Uncle Fred lets the claimant sleep on his couch. The "loan agreement" process to avoid the deduction is just too burdensome for most claimants.
If you cannot do that, then just allow the claimant to agree to pay Uncle Fred an amount at least equal to the 1/3 reduction and approve any loan agreements with this provision. I understand that this is how it is handled in some states as a result of a court decision. That should be expanded to all states and get rid of all the calculations about household expenses and number of persons in household etc. and make things simpler for everyone.
The majority of SSI recipients don't save anywhere near the current limit as it is. So this sounds great, but won't make much difference in their lives.
As for the 1/3 reduction, it is a pain. The loan agreements are a joke. At the beginning of the application process they say they don't pay anything and don't have to pay anything. Then the light bulb turns on and they claim a rental agreement. I don't know you you reconcile that without eliminating the 1/3 reduction. But is it fair to pay full welfare benefits to someone who does get free rent?
7:06 pm:
"But is it fair to pay full welfare benefits to someone who does get free rent?"
Most of the time our clients are staying with friends or relatives who are sharing the little they have with someone who has nothing. So if the claimant has the ability to pay something, both the claimant and the person providing the shelter/food will be on board with the claimant paying rent. What you are doing with the current situation is penalizing the family and friends who take in the elderly and disabled.
As far as claimants saying they pay nothing at the beginning of the process, what are they suppose to say? Someone who has no funds to pay anyone answers that they do not have to pay anything. What other answer would you give when you have zero dollars to pay anything? Do most of them feel that they have an obligation to those who are helping them? In my experience, yes. Are unrepresented claimants experts in how the SSI system works? No.
Re rental agreements. In a world full of rules, where you can not be personally liable by forming an LLC - where a company has different tax rules than a person, where the source of one's income determines if it's countable or not for a program, it seems only fair that once in a while one can bend the rules in one's favor. I've contacted the IRS regarding whether the "rent" paid in such an arrangement is income to the "landlord" and was told that if it's not a business, they don't care. They have no desire to get involved in how roommates or families pay their bills. And we all know just how much of a time sink documenting the 1/3 reduction is for all parties. It's invasive, often demeaning and stunningly ineffective. Not when you can avoid that if you write up a rental or room and board agreement that satisfies the rules. And if this is a "loophole" of sorts, I can guarantee that closing it will be one of the more odious and complex procedures yet devised. And still be ineffectual.
A big problem with asset limit deals with claimant's who received substantial past-due benefits after fighting their cases for years. After being homeless or close to homeless, they receive some money and rent a place within their means. However, the past due benefits have to be consumed within a certain time or their SSI gets cut off. Maybe they'd like to have some saving in case a hurricane destroys all their belongings, or some other emergency comes up. However, they're not allowed to do that. Instead they have to spend down their long sought past-due benefits, like it or not, and then if a catastrophe hits, be out in the street. Where is the logic in that?
A lot of good ideas in the proposal, but unfortunately nothing to get rid of the 1/3 reduction for sleeping on the uncle's couch. It makes no sense. If the person was sleeping in the street he doesn't get the 1/3 reduction in past due benefits. If he was on his uncles couch he gets a reduction. Why punish him for having been lucky enough to have a roof over his head while he was awaiting, sometimes years, to get his benefits approved? Of course the uncle would expect to get paid once the claimant gets his past-due benefits, but good luck convincing SSA of a valid loan agreement. In virtually every single case, the application will say there was no loan agreement, and seldom if ever does the claimant recall even being asked by the District office about loans at the application time. Also, SSA's rules of what constitutes a bona-fide loan are so convoluted that seldom do any of the D.O. reps really understand them, so they just deny virtually all alleged loans from family members outright, and say move on. The 1/3 reduction rule for in kind support has to go. It's unfair, it's convoluted, and it punishes claimants who had to wait years to get their benefits approved, by making them lose 1/3 of their past-due benefits.
Big one missing.....Couples rate should be eliminated. CS's spend more time Terminating and then re establishing records (for SSI recipient) whenever a couple "seperates" once the figure out the can each get more money as individuals. Not to mention it is also is a TWO pin process which means another person has to review both records and write up a Report of Contact as well confirming the Start Date month and Budget month are coreect. Also Holding Out questions are silly and should be eliminated as well. If you Don't know what Holding Out is you should look it up. Try not to laugh out loud.
I think it makes perfect sense for a welfare recipient to have more assets in savings than more than 50% of working people. That makes perfect sense.
Most Americans Lack Savings
PERSONAL SAVINGS IN THE U.S.
by
Maria Vultaggio,
Dec 18, 2019
The economy might be strong in the U.S., but nearly 70 percent of Americans have less than $1,000 stashed away, according to GOBankingRates’ 2019 savings survey. The poll, released December 16, revealed 45 percent have nothing saved. The survey questioned 846 respondents November 25 to 26.
The discovery baffled Bruce McClary, the spokesman for the National Foundation for Credit Counseling. “It’s puzzling to me that if the economy is doing so well and that we’re so close to full employment, that consumer confidence is up … that we haven’t seen the numbers move much in people’s ability to save,” McClary told Yahoo Finance. “I find it very troubling that people can’t come up with $1,000 in a savings account to cover expenses without borrowing money.”
So Maria, it makes more sense to you that a claimant, who spent years waiting to be approved and receive past-due benefits, should be forced to spend down the past due benefits (on things he doesn't even need) in order to continue receiving benefits as opposed to being able to save it for an emergency?
They will get 3 months retro SSI at first. 6 months later they'll get 3 months. Another 6 months they get the balance. Retro benefits do not count aas a resource for 9 months.
Post a Comment