From KDFW:
... [A]n Arlington [TX] man is being told he owes back money that was paid to his mother — in 1978. ...
The SSA is asking Jimmy Byrd to pay them more than $1,400 that was paid 45 years ago to his mother who died back in 2011. He could not believe his eyes when he opened a letter from the SSA last month.
"I read the paperwork, and it was from January to June of 1978," he said. "Back in 1978, I was only 17 years old." ...
Byrd filed an appeal.
"Two weeks ago, I received a second letter stating I'm going to have to pay it, and I thought that's not right," he said. "I got in my car, went back down to the social security board."
Bryd told his story again.
‘The gentleman looked at me from behind the counter and said, 'You know, that is just the way it is,’" he said.
Byrd signed an agreement to have $100 a month deducted from his $1,800 social security check for the next 14 months. ...
Why, oh why, is there no statute of limitations on overpayments? These cases happen all the time. Of course, this overpayment would have been wiped out with a waiver request but it's easier to tell someone "that is just the way it is" than it is to help with a waiver request.
It would not have been waived unless he was financially unable to repay it back.
ReplyDeleteIf we can hold a minor relative responsible for a claimant's overpayment the funding issue is solved. This should be extended to in laws also.
ReplyDeleteI it could and should be waived = against equity in good conscience "
ReplyDeleteAges old overpayments are much more common than underpayments but would you advocate for a statute of limitations on underpayments as well?
ReplyDeleteI think limiting collection of overpayments on people other than the overpaid person does make sense. But why should someone who is on disability while young and is overpaid due to work never have to pay that back when they file for retirement? They may have a 40 year overpayment with no interest.
I’m all for limitations on overpayments and underpayments.
ReplyDeleteSometimes(alot)i wonder what kind of world i'm living in. If a person isn't at fault then it should be waived.
ReplyDeleteBut Social Security says you have to not be “at fault” AND unable to repay. So even if you’re not at fault but can afford to pay it back, fork it over.
Delete@151pm. A recent overpayment that is not the claimant's fault is a bit like a bank error if the person can afford to repay it. If a bank made an error in your favor, and I had that happen once, you'd expect them to recoup the loss whether you can afford it or not. But if you aren't at fault and 30 years later SSA comes for an overpayment that is hard to prove and dispute, it can see waiving it for just not being at fault.
DeleteOne issue is that some claims specialists seem to think that an overpayment came out of their check and won't find not at fault no matter the circumstances. Of courses, there are others that go the other way.
there is another argument that the $1400 he is being asked to repay is a gross underestimate. The value of that $1400 in 2023 dollars is approximately $6600.
ReplyDelete
ReplyDeleteAs 3:18 said, he's getting off easy. The money he has to pay back is only a fraction of the value of what is owed, considering 45 years of inflation.
Why didn't they do a 36 month repayment agreement? $39 a month is easier to deal with.
ReplyDelete12:14, there is a de facto statute of limitations on underpayments: if he went in and said his mom was owed $1400 from 1978 they wouldn't pay him, would they? Even if he had documentation?
ReplyDeleteLoaded question. Underpayments stay on records but can only be claimed by eligible individuals. So I would need much more information than just that random scenario.
DeleteThe unable to repay is sometimes viewed more liberally by an ALJ or a magistrate. I would certainly appeal, an $1800 social security check isn't that much if it's your only income.
ReplyDeleteAlso, some of these are so old, some people can't remember what happened or what they were doing when they were alleged to have been overpaid.
He should file a waiver, not an appeal.
DeleteHe shouldn't HAVE to do EITHER!
Delete