The Consortium for Citizens with Disabilities (CCD), the major umbrella group of non-profits concerned with the rights of the disabled, has posted a letter it has sent to Congressional leaders concerning changes in SSI which it desires in the budget reconciliation bill currently being negotiated. The letter may give us an idea of what is in play. It doesn't promote the idea of a major boost in SSI but it does say that:
Some of the President’s commitments are very affordable: increasing the income disregards is only $60 billion over ten years, eliminating the rules prohibiting help from family and friends is only $31 billion, and updating the resource limits is only $8 billion. Other smaller changes we have long supported have negligible costs of under $500 million over ten years (including expanding SSI to the territories, excluding retirement accounts from resources, eliminating dedicated accounts, and other technical changes from the SSI Restoration Act).
26 comments:
Only $60 billion, only $31 billion, only $8 billion, only $500 million.
It is always easier to spend someone elses money and taxpayer dollars seem to spend the easiest. Why doesnt CCD hold a couple car washes and bake sales and raise that $99.5 billion? Then they can say only.
Over TEN YEARS. So, probably 5 billion, 2.9 billion... Less than 10 billion PER YEAR. Sure, they are talking about spending WAY TOO MUCH on other spending. On the other hand, how much would SSA save on administration costs by making it much simpler to administer?
@11:02
I have no issue for each taxpayer to pay approximately $3.50 per month ($6 billion / ~144.3 million taxpayers / 12 = $3.465 per month) to allow the disabled to not suffer.
100 billion? That's like seven aircraft carriers. We need that money for the military not for citizens right?
Retirement accounts not countable? Crazy. Agree with eliminating dedicated accounts.
The current resource limit is a travesty which enforces continued poverty. Raising it to 4k/6k would not quite bring it up to the equivalent in 1989 dollars (the last time it was updated).
@12:48 - The disabled need more people like you (and those who think like you) to fight for them. If it's broken down that way, it's easier to see that in reality, most people give that to those panhandling on the street (which is fine), but then when it comes to the disabled on SSI or even SSDI, some see it as a handout. The breakdown says it all. It doesn't cost a lot per person to help out society. When they start throwing out huge numbers, it makes it look like "only" is a LOT of money. Is it a lot of money? Yes. Can we, as a society afford it when it's broken down per person? Yes.
I agree with anonymous 3:14. However, given the politics, I suspect that there will be no change. The poor have no money to contribute to politicians and reelection is all they care about. The need of citizens and the good of the nation be damned. Very sad, but reality.
SSI has always been needs based assistance. Yes it should be updated for resource/income limits and living arrangement decisions made a little simpler. But just eliminating the needs based element creates a new monster entitlement. Double those "only" figures. What exactly does the CCD do? The website has some impressive titles but cannot see real evidence of assistance. Never heard of them before.
314 you do understand the majority of WORKERS do not have $6000 in the bank, but you want them to pay people that are not supposed to have any income or resources to have more than a worker that is paying for the welfare?
Then they just need to do the bake sale and make $3.50 from everyone, at least then you get a cookie.
@4:15
Keep in mind that the $6000 (current $3000) is for a couple rather than an individual.
Two issues here:
(1) The resource limit discourages saving and responsible spending.
(2) The resource limit is now so low that that it is very easy to exceed if there are other sources of income in the household, producing an unwarranted overpayment. The most common scenarios are where a child beneficiary has a parent who is working and the paycheck hits the account at the same time as the SSI payment - or a landlord is slow to cash a rent check and it looks like a beneficiary has money that they do not have.
@3:51
Thanks!
@4:15
1. The median retirement account balance for an American household is $65,000, and given SSI counts all resources, not just savings accounts, raising the cap to $6,000 will in no way threaten to allow SSI recipients to exceed the savings of the average worker.
2. SSI was never intended to be only for people who do not have "any income or resources," it was intended to provide assistance to people with "limited" income or resources. As 3:14 correctly notes, the cap was set in 1989 and does not adjust for inflation. If it did, the cap would be raised to $4500 individual / $9000 couple. As a matter of math, it was designed to permit an amount of savings which you assert is more than the average worker has in savings (and again, the average worker has a great deal more in savings than you say).
3. Federal minimum wage is $7.25 (i.e. $1,256.67/month). The average amount paid in SSI is $570.01 per month. I do not expect the average SSI recipient will actually be able to save significantly, but I believe the change is appropriate so SSI recipients are not harmed because they received a lump sum payment of some kind, or their spouse's paycheck came a week early. I can't imagine the stress caused by bi-weekly pay periods; twice a year, at a minimum, any SSI recipient whose spouse works is going to endanger eligibility due to how low the resource limit is currently.
Very few SSI recipients save anywhere near $2000. So the raise in the resource limit will mean something to a small percentage of recipients. People complaining about the resource limit being too low haven't interacted with a lot of SSI people.
@704. Average is much different than median. In 2019 average household savings was over $40000 while the median was just over $5000.
https://advisorsmith.com/data/average-savings-account-balance/
7:34 pm
Chicken and egg. I used to be a CR and today interact with a lot of "SSI people" and "none have anywhere near $2k" in their account because fear of going over is real. Many would love to be able to put aside something when possible, for same reasons as you and I would, but being essentially restricted to one account for practical purposes, with the SSI check, possible T2 check, pay rent and for many depositing a small but actual paycheck, keeping any money "as savings" may lead to losing benefits by accident. I bet you if the ceiling were changed, you'd see many more "SSI people" putting aside a few more bucks to be able to better take care of their lives.
I received a call from a lawyer friend about his client. A woman receives SSI of $825.25 (includes NJ $31.25 supplement). She received inheritance of around $50,000 and wants to keep as much as possible to provide for future needs.
Under current rules, she is very limited in what she can do. She can buy a home but that amount is not likely to go too far in New jersey or buy a car or spend it. She wanted to put it in trust for a disabled child (not clear if that child is getting SSI at this point)
There are some ways to spend the money that are not too bad such as prepayment fo rent or other expenses but generally the person is stuck under current rules.
In creasing the Resource limit in the amounts discussed is not enough.
Only pointing this out for those who don't seem to understand how these rules actually work
SSI people live in a cash society, with barter and know the rules and how to get around them.
7:59 it is a welfare program, if she has $50000 she should have to spend it before having the tax payer give her any money. That is how welfare works. Always remember that Fair is a place where they judge pigs.
@10:44
I'm aware of the difference between median and average, but I used the term "average" because most people are not.
The median retirement account balance of a household is $65000.
https://www.census.gov/library/stories/2020/11/gaps-in-wealth-of-americans-by-household-type-in-2017.html
And again, I'm not talking about savings accounts.
10:43 AM You're right! SSA doesn't treat claimants fairly. That's after life hasn't treated us "fairly." People like YOU haven't treated us "fairly." While we did our best to work, employers didn't treat us "fairly." But, to borrow from John Mellencamp, "We sucked it up and did the best we can!" Our reward? People like you saying, "There must be SOMETHING you can do?" or, "I have pain from time to time, too." Then we have to navigate this system... Which seems arbitrary, makes you wait, and doesn't seem to give a DA™. So you're right, Fair is where they judge pigs.
@1208
From the link you posted...42.7% of households did not have a retirement account.
Some of these are on SSI but most probably aren't. For those who want SSI recipients to have retirement accounts protected, consider that a large percentage of non SSI people don't have retirement accounts themselves.
SSI recipients don't need retirement accounts. If they stay eligible, they will get SSI their whole life. Unlike those that work, they won't suffer a reduction in their income when they hit their 60s.
Poverty exists. It has since the beginning of humanity, some had more than others...a shinier rock the better piece of meat a dryer warmer place to sleep. It will always exists, there will never be a time where everyone will be totally equal. The human animal does not want to be equal, never has and never will.
I agree that the treatment of the poor is a reflection of the country, and well lets face it we really never have been the shiny city on the hill when it comes to poverty. You want to give the poor a higher standard of living while we are living in a time where we cant get people to agree to wear a mask and take a free shot to keep people from actually getting sick and being dead.
@8:21
12:08 here. Yeah, but the majority of workers do, which is contrary to the prior claims made by others that raising the resource cap to $6000 would be more than the average worker has saved.
As to SSI recipients not suffering a reduction in their income when they hit their 60s, that's because they have no income to reduce generally; but if they DO, yes there is the income offset and unlike with non-disabled folks there is no buffer of $118,240 before any offset applies. It's an immediate $1 reduction for every $2 earned. Well, that's not entirely fair, SSI recipients can earn EIGHTY FIVE DOLLARS before the offset applies.
@9:08
Providing an individual the means to not die does not equate to elimination of poverty. The current system for SSI recipients is so outdated, I'm not aware of any that do not have to rely on friends, family, or charity to just survive.
Does anyone have an answer for how to fix the SSI program. I see a lot of complaints on both sides but I've yet to see any way to make the program appreciably better. I don't know the answer myself which is why I'm asking.
For example, a Google search shows the average SSA Disability pmt is $1,234.00 per month. Is the idea to get SSI's monthly payment to match that of those that have worked?
@11:41
No, SSI is meant to provide for the basic needs of an individual (food, shelter, etc.), but DIB (the $1234 figure you mention) is meant to provide a measure of economic security for a worker, based on their past work history. Generally, based on the calculations, that's more than SSI. But not always.
As to complaints being on both sides, sure but one side is legitimate. The other side, wants it to be disbanded due to general mistrust of the administrative state, and the false impression that it is full of fraud.
Post a Comment