Readers react to the recent New York Times editorial calling raising the Social Security retirement age.
By the way, my response is: That’s so not happening!
Readers react to the recent New York Times editorial calling raising the Social Security retirement age.
By the way, my response is: That’s so not happening!
From the Center for Retirement Research at Boston College:
The first place most people say they would go for information about Social Security’s various benefits is family and friends.
That’s true whether they are Black, White, Asian, or Hispanic. But after family and friends, there are few similarities in whom each group consults. And their preferences, revealed in a new survey, reflect differences in their socioeconomic circumstances and social networks.
White workers, who are wealthier overall than Blacks and Hispanics, stand out for being more likely to say they would ask financial advisers and accountants about Social Security. Black and Hispanic workers more often would rely on social services agencies, and Blacks also ask for help at church. ...
From what I've seen, Hispanics and Blacks may not be suffering because they can't ask their stock broker or accountant about Social Security. I've not found financial advisers or accountants to be knowledgeable about Social Security matters. They may be worse than useless. If you ask the average financial adviser or accountant what the requirements are to get widows benefits from Social Security what do you think the chances are that you'll get accurate and complete information? Do they know the age requirements? Anything about the actuarial reduction? Anything about widows disability benefits?
Click on the link above to read the article for yourself and see how many errors you come up with. Click on the image below to see the problems I found -- beyond the article's pathetic description of disability determination.
In February of this year the Social Security Administration published proposed rule changes to omit food from in kind support and maintenance calculations for Supplemental Security Income benefits. Social Security has now asked that the Office of Management and Budget authorize publication of these changes as final rules.
The description of a bill passed by the House Ways and Means Committee:
The Clergy Act
Introduced by former Speaker Kevin McCarthy (CA-20) and Representative Mike Thompson (CA-04), H.R. 6068 creates a window for clergy members to opt back into contributing to and receiving Social Security.
- Creates a time-limited, voluntary open season for members of the clergy to revoke their Social Security exemption and opt into Social Security coverage.
- Under current law, members of the clergy may apply for an exemption from paying certain taxes on income associated with the performance of ministerial services. The exemption also applies to receiving future benefits. Once the exemption is made, it currently cannot be reversed. Roughly 2,000 members of the clergy receive an exemption every year.
If this advances, and I wouldn't bet on even such innocuous legislation advancing, it may attract amendments which would make it more interesting but which could also cause it to fail.
Man receives $20,000 in back benefits from Social Security. Five days later he received an overpayment notice from Social Security saying he owed $11,000.
I'm so inured to this sort of thing that the newspaper article didn't register with me at first. It didn't seem odd. It should but it's not surprising if you work in this field.
At last night's Republican Presidential debate candidate Chris Christie called for means-testing Title II Social Security benefits, comparing them to Food Stamps. He also wanted to increase full retirement age, although he didn't specify how high he wanted to go. In addition, his challenger, Nikki Haley urged changes in cost of living adjustments.
As someone once said, "A program for poor people is a poor program." (By the way, who said that? I don't remember.)
From The Social Security Administration’s Major Management and Performance Challenges During Fiscal Year 2023, a report by the Office of Inspector General at Social Security:
... As of September 23, 2023, SSA had increased its staff size from 56,423 full-time permanent staff in FY 2022 to 59,591 in FY 2023. FY 2023 hiring helped SSA reverse the recent trend of declining employees in more recent years ...
SSA curtailed additional anticipated hiring in June 2023 in response to the passing of the Fiscal Responsibility Act of 2023 (Pub. L. No. 118-5). SSA lowered each of its component’s allocation of employees because it did not want to hire employees whose salaries future budgets may not support given that the Act limits non-Defense funding in FY 2024. ...
While it hired many new employees, SSA reported it still had challenges recruiting and retaining employees because its positions are complex and require more training compared to similar positions in private industry. SSA’s Office of Operations acknowledged its self-online-training model is less engaging than in-person training and does not work well with all new hires. Also, SSA cannot offer its frontline employees some workplace flexibilities other agencies can, such as full-time remote work. Employees who separate from SSA reported they were leaving to take higher-paying jobs or because they felt overworked at SSA. ...