My buddy in Finland calls their safety net the "golden handcuffs". I told him here, they're handcuffs alright! Lead, painted with gold leaf leaded paint so you can just barely drag them along with ya, always to keep one below the poverty line. I sent him this graph, he now understands what I mean. He was astonished. I told him, "Hey, Kari! In return, we have lower taaaaxes than you!". Neither of us found that funny. Safety net recipients should never be below the poverty line or homeless, elderly or disabled (unless that's the life they chose). Dignity...it's a THING. Just not in the US social system, apparently.
Not much will make you poorer than waiting 2 1/2 years for an ALJ decision, only to get denied, then waiting another 2 1/2 + years to get approved. Add in the initial 5 months and 3 months to get paid...
Because other industrialized countries have better social safety nets. Yes, they also have higher taxes but those taxes provide for a better overall well being for the people.
Not coincidentally, Korea and the US are the two OECD countries with the strictest eligibility standards for disability benefits--Korea is actually stricter, but has more access to health insurance than the US and several other differences from the US.
People without jobs have less money than people with jobs.
And this is surprising how?
What level should disability be? Should it be middle class? Upper class? Should you get the salary you made before your condition? How are you going to pay for that? I just dont understand what people want from this program.
@10:13 you've made this comment before. You must understand that there's a difference between "middle class" and being so destitute that you can't afford food, medical care and a roof over your head, and be engaging in bad faith because you think it makes a point.
@10:13. Just to be at the poverty line, or slightly above would be acceptable. Until one lives so far below the poverty line, food becomes an option, rather than a need, one will not understand the hardships.
That’s a good question. What should the minimum income be for someone who can’t work or has blender worked. Would it vary by city or state due to cost of living in certain areas.
They make it seem so simple yet I don’t see many answers - Just complaints.
From HHS Reminder average 2022 SSDI payment is $1358/month or $16,296
2022 POVERTY GUIDELINES FOR THE 48 CONTIGUOUS STATES AND THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA Persons in family/household Poverty guideline 1 $13,590 2 $18,310 3 $23,030
SSI is less because for the vast majority they have not worked and paid into the system, but on this blog the belief is they are all just past DLI because they waited a decade to file.
So stop complaining, this is the actual numbers. You will have some above and some below but guess what the majority are in the middle like it is supposed to be.
@2:05 then you aren't looking very hard, because people frequently offer answers, like higher amount of money in ongoing benefits, raising the savings cap, quicker processing for disability applications so people don't decompensate while waiting years, making adjustments for local cost-of-living, etc.
The "should disabled people live in crushing poverty or have a middle class lifestyle with cars and concerts and filet mignon?" question is a false dichotomy and you know it. There's plenty of middle ground between living in the lap of luxury and being so impoverished that you have to take your consultation for a leg amputation while you sleep in a lice-infested cot in a homeless shelter in North Carolina, like that earlier story.
Are you willing to increase the percentage of SSA tax to pay for the changes you desire? Not have just the wealthy, but all employees pay another percent or two? You may be willing to pay more but Congress hasn't come close to doing it so unfortunately your position appears to be in the minority.
Yes, I am, and I absolutely wouldn't go with "Congress hasn't done anything" as the barometer for what's a popular position or not. Furthermore, half the suggestions I posted don't even involve raising expenditures.
Higher amount of benefits and raising the savings cap would definitely cost more money. Reforming how disability decisions may not but under the current system it would mean more bodies to get claims to DDS and back faster. Raising taxes generally isn't very popular and frequently leads to not being reelected. Convince the middle class to pay 1 or 2 percent more in SSA taxes so lower earners may receive a benefit that is as high as theirs doesn't sound like a winning proposition either. No one likes to see the worst case scenarios but they aren't the norm.
No, not all people on SSI "just missed DLI!" But their not all "bums" that "never worked a day in their lives," either. The truth, such as you presented for SSDI payments, is often in the middle. But, there are plenty of people who apply for SSI that NEVER had the chance to make SGA. Not all of them had child SSI, because their parents made too much. Or, didn't know it was available.
We raise SSI to the Federal Poverty Level (because it is a Federal program and we need some benchmark to work with), the number we have been given is $13,590 or $1132.50/month, that would be a stunning leap in benefit amounts for SSI. That would be about 83.39% of what the average tax paying beneficiary would earn for their years of working. Now this would be good for those dual eligible, as they would get the SSI amount added to SSDI to bring them up to poverty level, and they would have Medicare.
So we move 3.4 million SSI (SSA data) only people out of poverty and 1.2 million (SSA data) people that are SSI/SSDI. Roughly 37.9 million people live below the Federal Poverty Level (Census data), 11.6% of the US population.
Now According to the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, about 9.5 million of people who spent at least 27 weeks in the labor force were poor. That year, the working poor comprised 6.3 percent of all individuals in the labor force. So I guess, in the name of "fairness" we need to bring them up to at least the level of SSI.
Things are really starting to add up now. Not sure how you pay for this but we are starting to talk real numbers. Somebody, somewhere is going to have to foot the bill, someone will have taxes go up. And we still have a large group not covered that are below poverty level.
Its 11:06 again and I forgot the retirement age folks. Guess they would have to be moved up to the same minimum benefit amount of $13,590 as the disabled beneficiary.
According to the latest U.S. Census Bureau data, the share of older people (not sure but I believe the definition is over age 65) in the U.S. living below the poverty line rose to 10.3% in 2021 from 8.9% in 2020. That means nearly 6 million more out of poverty but again a significant cost.
@1106 Some of those getting less than $13,590 per year in SSA benefits never made that amount working. As it is, the very lowest wage earners get 90% of their average indexed monthly earnings when they file for SSA. If we pay the lowest earners much more than under the current system, we'd need to bump up the middle and upper class too.
To sum all this up, nobody should be forced to live in poverty being on any national safety net programs. PERIOD. But, alas, it does happen. Some states do have extra help for those on disability (not sure about old-age, but probably), to bring them up to a certain level depending on the state in which they live. For instance, Alaska gives an extra $360 +/- to SSI/SSDI recipients, California, I believe it's around $200 +/- and Massachusetts like $65 or so, that's due to cost of living being higher in those states. There are other states that give supplements too. Most, however, do not, and I believe that's where the "below the poverty line" people are stuck. The extra help from the states that do that, only equal it out to meet the very minimum cost of living. It's not like claimants are getting extra money for vacations... it's to equal out the difference in the economies.
1:43 the amounts you list add up to less than the federal poverty level, so they are still poor. Are you suggesting it is the responsibilty of the States to make up for the shortfall of Federal Benefits? Isnt this why SSI was taken away from States in the first place and made a Federal Program?
@140 pm. It would be very difficult to get laws passed to raise the benefits of those who worked part time or seasonal and barely made enough to qualify for SSA to be equal to someone who worked their entire life at say a $30k per year job. Public support for SSA would dwindle. "If I'm not going to get more than someone who barely worked, I'd rather have the money put in a 401k instead." SSA was never meant to he a person's sole income. It was supposed to be the 3rd leg of a stool. The other 2 are private pensions and savings/investments.
Some are poor. Some qualify and receive reduced housing through section 8, food stamps/EBT, medicaid, free Medicare paid by their state, reduced utilities, in home support and services, reduced tuition at state colleges and many other small perks. Is it better to be on SSI than not? No. Some can lead a lower middle class lifestyle.
1:43 here. Those are extra amounts SOME states give because of cost of living, that is ON TOP of their SSA benefits if they make less than a certain amount (set by the state) and are not considered countable income by SSA. I'm not speaking of TANF or other state programs, this is specifically for SSA recipients (and some other cases of destitution). California uses SSI to distribute those benefits, actually. Other states have their own programs, some that use SSA's determination, and some that use their own determinations. It comes along with medicaid and other state assistance. Is it the states responsibility?!?! No, of course not. However, the states that do have this extra cash for the disabled/elderly payments DO realize that the cost of living in their states are rather high (Alaska, California, Massachusetts...etc..etc.. Those are the three I know about, I believe there are more). I suppose to prevent homelessness and strain on the foster system they do this? Maybe it's actually in the best interest of said states' disabled/elderly population to keep them off the streets and provide medical care. Who knows, but regardless, some are still at or below the poverty line, some are slightly above, meaning they may NOT get the extra help. Those program income limits are set by the state.
30 comments:
Poverty is policy in the richest country in the world. They just don't give a Damm.
@1:13-Tell it!
My buddy in Finland calls their safety net the "golden handcuffs". I told him here, they're handcuffs alright! Lead, painted with gold leaf leaded paint so you can just barely drag them along with ya, always to keep one below the poverty line. I sent him this graph, he now understands what I mean. He was astonished. I told him, "Hey, Kari! In return, we have lower taaaaxes than you!". Neither of us found that funny. Safety net recipients should never be below the poverty line or homeless, elderly or disabled (unless that's the life they chose). Dignity...it's a THING. Just not in the US social system, apparently.
Not much will make you poorer than waiting 2 1/2 years for an ALJ decision, only to get denied, then waiting another 2 1/2 + years to get approved. Add in the initial 5 months and 3 months to get paid...
Because other industrialized countries have better social safety nets. Yes, they also have higher taxes but those taxes provide for a better overall well being for the people.
Not coincidentally, Korea and the US are the two OECD countries with the strictest eligibility standards for disability benefits--Korea is actually stricter, but has more access to health insurance than the US and several other differences from the US.
If their system is better, and it may well he, why do more Europeans emigrate to the US than vice versa!
People without jobs have less money than people with jobs.
And this is surprising how?
What level should disability be? Should it be middle class? Upper class? Should you get the salary you made before your condition? How are you going to pay for that? I just dont understand what people want from this program.
@10:13 you've made this comment before. You must understand that there's a difference between "middle class" and being so destitute that you can't afford food, medical care and a roof over your head, and be engaging in bad faith because you think it makes a point.
@10:13. Just to be at the poverty line, or slightly above would be acceptable. Until one lives so far below the poverty line, food becomes an option, rather than a need, one will not understand the hardships.
That’s a good question. What should the minimum income be for someone who can’t work or has blender worked. Would it vary by city or state due to cost of living in certain areas.
They make it seem so simple yet I don’t see many answers - Just complaints.
From HHS
Reminder average 2022 SSDI payment is $1358/month or $16,296
2022 POVERTY GUIDELINES FOR THE 48 CONTIGUOUS STATES AND THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
Persons in family/household Poverty guideline
1 $13,590
2 $18,310
3 $23,030
SSI is less because for the vast majority they have not worked and paid into the system, but on this blog the belief is they are all just past DLI because they waited a decade to file.
So stop complaining, this is the actual numbers. You will have some above and some below but guess what the majority are in the middle like it is supposed to be.
@2:05 then you aren't looking very hard, because people frequently offer answers, like higher amount of money in ongoing benefits, raising the savings cap, quicker processing for disability applications so people don't decompensate while waiting years, making adjustments for local cost-of-living, etc.
The "should disabled people live in crushing poverty or have a middle class lifestyle with cars and concerts and filet mignon?" question is a false dichotomy and you know it. There's plenty of middle ground between living in the lap of luxury and being so impoverished that you have to take your consultation for a leg amputation while you sleep in a lice-infested cot in a homeless shelter in North Carolina, like that earlier story.
Are you willing to increase the percentage of SSA tax to pay for the changes you desire? Not have just the wealthy, but all employees pay another percent or two? You may be willing to pay more but Congress hasn't come close to doing it so unfortunately your position appears to be in the minority.
Yes, I am, and I absolutely wouldn't go with "Congress hasn't done anything" as the barometer for what's a popular position or not. Furthermore, half the suggestions I posted don't even involve raising expenditures.
Higher amount of benefits and raising the savings cap would definitely cost more money. Reforming how disability decisions may not but under the current system it would mean more bodies to get claims to DDS and back faster.
Raising taxes generally isn't very popular and frequently leads to not being reelected. Convince the middle class to pay 1 or 2 percent more in SSA taxes so lower earners may receive a benefit that is as high as theirs doesn't sound like a winning proposition either.
No one likes to see the worst case scenarios but they aren't the norm.
No, not all people on SSI "just missed DLI!" But their not all "bums" that "never worked a day in their lives," either. The truth, such as you presented for SSDI payments, is often in the middle. But, there are plenty of people who apply for SSI that NEVER had the chance to make SGA. Not all of them had child SSI, because their parents made too much. Or, didn't know it was available.
I think Tim what you propose does exist, but in very very very very low numbers.
Okay, so we dont want people living in poverty.
We raise SSI to the Federal Poverty Level (because it is a Federal program and we need some benchmark to work with), the number we have been given is $13,590 or $1132.50/month, that would be a stunning leap in benefit amounts for SSI. That would be about 83.39% of what the average tax paying beneficiary would earn for their years of working. Now this would be good for those dual eligible, as they would get the SSI amount added to SSDI to bring them up to poverty level, and they would have Medicare.
So we move 3.4 million SSI (SSA data) only people out of poverty and 1.2 million (SSA data) people that are SSI/SSDI. Roughly 37.9 million people live below the Federal Poverty Level (Census data), 11.6% of the US population.
Now According to the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, about 9.5 million of people who spent at least 27 weeks in the labor force were poor. That year, the working poor comprised 6.3 percent of all individuals in the labor force. So I guess, in the name of "fairness" we need to bring them up to at least the level of SSI.
Things are really starting to add up now. Not sure how you pay for this but we are starting to talk real numbers. Somebody, somewhere is going to have to foot the bill, someone will have taxes go up. And we still have a large group not covered that are below poverty level.
Its 11:06 again and I forgot the retirement age folks. Guess they would have to be moved up to the same minimum benefit amount of $13,590 as the disabled beneficiary.
According to the latest U.S. Census Bureau data, the share of older people (not sure but I believe the definition is over age 65) in the U.S. living below the poverty line rose to 10.3% in 2021 from 8.9% in 2020. That means nearly 6 million more out of poverty but again a significant cost.
@1106 Some of those getting less than $13,590 per year in SSA benefits never made that amount working. As it is, the very lowest wage earners get 90% of their average indexed monthly earnings when they file for SSA.
If we pay the lowest earners much more than under the current system, we'd need to bump up the middle and upper class too.
12:51 Why do we have to bump up the middle and the top? They are already above poverty?
To sum all this up, nobody should be forced to live in poverty being on any national safety net programs. PERIOD. But, alas, it does happen. Some states do have extra help for those on disability (not sure about old-age, but probably), to bring them up to a certain level depending on the state in which they live. For instance, Alaska gives an extra $360 +/- to SSI/SSDI recipients, California, I believe it's around $200 +/- and Massachusetts like $65 or so, that's due to cost of living being higher in those states. There are other states that give supplements too. Most, however, do not, and I believe that's where the "below the poverty line" people are stuck. The extra help from the states that do that, only equal it out to meet the very minimum cost of living. It's not like claimants are getting extra money for vacations... it's to equal out the difference in the economies.
Autism, schizophrenia, cerebral palsy, epilepsy, and many other conditions... about 1 in 20 have severe disabilities by age 18.
1:43 the amounts you list add up to less than the federal poverty level, so they are still poor. Are you suggesting it is the responsibilty of the States to make up for the shortfall of Federal Benefits? Isnt this why SSI was taken away from States in the first place and made a Federal Program?
@140 pm. It would be very difficult to get laws passed to raise the benefits of those who worked part time or seasonal and barely made enough to qualify for SSA to be equal to someone who worked their entire life at say a $30k per year job. Public support for SSA would dwindle. "If I'm not going to get more than someone who barely worked, I'd rather have the money put in a 401k instead."
SSA was never meant to he a person's sole income. It was supposed to be the 3rd leg of a stool. The other 2 are private pensions and savings/investments.
Some are poor. Some qualify and receive reduced housing through section 8, food stamps/EBT, medicaid, free Medicare paid by their state, reduced utilities, in home support and services, reduced tuition at state colleges and many other small perks.
Is it better to be on SSI than not? No. Some can lead a lower middle class lifestyle.
I am shocked, shocked, shocked by this statistic! [sarc] This one graph says a lot.
@2:44
1:43 here. Those are extra amounts SOME states give because of cost of living, that is ON TOP of their SSA benefits if they make less than a certain amount (set by the state) and are not considered countable income by SSA. I'm not speaking of TANF or other state programs, this is specifically for SSA recipients (and some other cases of destitution). California uses SSI to distribute those benefits, actually. Other states have their own programs, some that use SSA's determination, and some that use their own determinations. It comes along with medicaid and other state assistance. Is it the states responsibility?!?! No, of course not. However, the states that do have this extra cash for the disabled/elderly payments DO realize that the cost of living in their states are rather high (Alaska, California, Massachusetts...etc..etc.. Those are the three I know about, I believe there are more). I suppose to prevent homelessness and strain on the foster system they do this? Maybe it's actually in the best interest of said states' disabled/elderly population to keep them off the streets and provide medical care. Who knows, but regardless, some are still at or below the poverty line, some are slightly above, meaning they may NOT get the extra help. Those program income limits are set by the state.
So, really we dont want to eliminate poverty.
Post a Comment