I’m not going to try to explain it but tomorrow Social Security will publish proposed regulations to alter the In-Kind Support and Maintenance (ISM) rules that reduce Supplemental Security Income benefits by one-third if an individual receives reduced cost food and shelter. The proposal is to apply nationally standards that already exist in several states as a result of litigation. The proposal would reduce the number of individuals affected by the ISM rules. That’s a good thing. Of course, the ISM rules ought to be abolished altogether but that would take legislation.
Let’s get this into effect well before next year’s election.
17 comments:
From a technical perspective, the vast majority of recipients have reduced benefits due to in-kind support and maintenance received from in-kind shelter. Solely having in-kind support of food is almost nonexistent. So much money and time and development is wasted on in-kind support and maintenance. So many senseless and time- consuming appeals are spent on this topic. And the truth is that benefits reduced for income support and maintenance are not enough to live on, even with someone is receiving ISM.
* even when someone is receiving ISM
If I get this right, this will nationalize a policy currently in effect in a few places that says that if a recipient pays a landlord a rent greater than the value of the 1/3 reduction value that it's a business arrangement de facto and also enough for an A living arrangement and there is no impetus for further explorations into costs, shares, etc involved.
So, if the landlord is a parent whose adult SSI child lives in the family home with him, then drawing up a rental agreement (or room and board?) for a monthly rental cost in excess of this value would be viewed as legitimate on it's face?
I like it. Better for so many families and easier on the entire SSA staff.
@9:47
Yes, that was my reading of it as well, the issue would be if the rent was equal or greater than PMV (currently $324.66). That sounds a LOT easier to implement than the current rules.
So it’s completely removing the question regarding the NH being related to the landlord as a parent or child?
Just wondering. Will they then notify all existing claimants with that reduction that they can now come in and if they show payments of that amount, get there benefits redetermined at least going forward?
12:06 - the example of the recipient in a home with ineligible spouse in a home owned by recipient's parent certainly seems to support the idea that such individuals can have a business arrangement as much as non-related people do. I mean, the last 7 years have shown that certain ex-President's families have legal business arrangements despite them being in and among their family. If that's OK for the wealthy, then why not for the rest of us? But more seriously, why would something that is explained in the rationale in defining income have an exception for a business arrangement between parents/children or other close relatives? Why would a business arrangement of non-relatives be different from a business arrangement of non-relatives if the focus is on the amount.
In short, "Accordingly, our nationwide policy would be that a ‘‘business
arrangement’’ exists when the amount of monthly rent required to be paid equals or exceeds the PMV" seems to have no such parental or familial exception..
4:51, shouldn't they know already what folks are paying? In a perfect world, they could scrape that data and do the redeterminations automatically and just send notices. I'm sure it's not that simple with SSA's systems and there isn't a lot of free time for anyone to do it, but it seems theoretically possible. This could be a good job for OARO since they do other missed entitlements work, and I wouldn't want to add anything else to Operations' plate when it seems like the big backlogs are there.
Listen, I don’t charge ISM either way. I was simply asking if they were removing that question from the application.
I’m all for just paying the FBR no matter the living arrangements. I think the SSI program in general is just a way to keep people in poverty anyway. The rules encourage them to lie or hide things so their benefits aren’t reduced.
All the missed entitlement work done by those groups just golfers dumped on the field offices. News flash, we can’t even handle the work we currently have.
As someone who does this work, this is an important change, especially when combined the removal of food. Still work to be done on ISM but the two pending NPRMs are a great beginning.
Apologies. My aforementioned comment on food-only ISM was in reference to the following proposed change, not the one linked above in the blog.
https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2023/02/15/2023-02731/omitting-food-from-in-kind-support-and-maintenance-calculations
Bottom line, they are actually looking to simplify the program and help people, the would just get rid of ISM altogether.
ISM is subjective. Be nice and work with me, I'll interpret circumstances in your favor. Be a prick, I'll do everything that I can to reduce your check.
I’m sure I am in the minority here, also very old fashioned, but I would never charge rent to a disabled adult child of mine who had to live with me. It wouldn’t matter to me if it increased the payment, it is my child. Having them live with me isn’t increasing my rent/mortgage and if I had to get another job to feed them, not a problem.
They don’t actually charge rent which is why ISM exists. The are plenty of cases where parents think just like you and it’s not an issue.
Then there’s the parents and/or family members that try to live off the. Asks of their disabled children/adults.
I’m with you by the way. I already have to pay for a place to live and all the bills etc. why would I charge my child who clearly needs help?
But, if you don't, you reduce your child's income. So, I am in favor of eliminating the reduction all together. I am more in favor of a maximum they can be charged for rent.
They won’t be charged rent regardless. That’s why I don’t ever develop ism anymore anyway. We encourage them to lie just to get a higher benefit. Take the dang money, no one cares.
Post a Comment