User Fee Capped At $89 In 2014

     The user fee cap will be $89 in 2014. This is the limit on the amount that Social Security can charge attorneys and some others for withholding their fee from and the past due benefits of clients that have represented before the Social Security Administration. It's the amount charged in most cases. It's a simple one-quarter computation. By contrast, payroll companies charge $.80 to $2.00 to perform the far more complicated calculations needed to issue a payroll check.

It's Tough To Get On SSI Child's Benefits

     The Philadelphia Inquirer has an article on the Supplemental Security Income (SSI) child's benefit program. Despite what you've heard, it's tough to get on benefits. How tough? So tough that most Social Security attorneys refuse to take on any SSI child case.

"You Can't Change The Rules"

     Older Americans really, really don't like the idea of changing Social Security. However, removing the cap on wages covered by the F.I.C.A. tax does appeal to them.

"I contributed to it. It's my money," said Joan McDonald, 65, of Annapolis, Md., who retired as an accountant this year and began collecting Social Security. "The plan was, 'Contribute this and you get this.' You can't change the rules."

Is Raising Social Security Benefits An Idea That Has Entered The Political Mainstream?

     The Pacific Standard reports on Duncan Black, who blogs under the name Atrios. According to the Pacific Standard, Atrios has introduced into the political marketplace the startling notion of increasing Social Security benefits.

     For obvious reasons, I like to think that bloggers can make a difference. However, I'm not sure that the notion of increasing Social Security benefits was ever a completely unknown idea or that Atrios has moved that idea closer to becoming reality. Over the years I've often heard those on the left saying that Social Security benefits should be increased, not cut. Those views were on the periphery. I'd say they remain on the periphery. Time will tell whether this idea really moves into the mainstream. 

     My gut feeling is that Atrios is simply responding to the larger theme that long term demographic trends strongly favor the Democratic party and liberal policies in general. If events unfold as this theory holds, the Republican party, as currently constituted, would lose almost all of its power over the next ten to fifteen years. Would Social Security be increased if this comes to pass? Maybe. It's just too far off to tell.

Save For Retirement -- Yeah, Right

     From a press release:

... [M]ore than half the middle class (59%) are very clear that their top day-to-day financial concern is “paying the monthly bills,” an increase from 52% in 2012. Saving for retirement ranks a distant second place, with 13% calling it a “priority,” as four in ten middle class Americans (42%) say saving and paying the bills is “not possible.” As a result, 48% are not confident they will be able to save enough for a comfortable retirement, and 34% of the middle class say they will work until they are “at least 80” because they will not have saved enough for retirement, up from 25% in 2011 and 30% in 2012. These results come from the latest annual Wells Fargo (NYSE: WFC) Middle Class Retirement study(PDF*), a telephone survey conducted by Harris Interactive of 1,000 middle class Americans between the ages of 25 and 75 and interviewed July 24 to August 27, 2013. ...

Get Out Of The Bubble, Ina

     Proving that she lives in a bubble, Ina Jaffe reports on NPR, with amazement, that many older people rely almost exclusively on the income from their Social Security benefits, something that's hard to do. If you find this amazing, all I can do is recommend that you look around a bit. These days few people have defined benefit pensions or significant retirement savings.

Social Security Works Getting Weird

Fox News Wants To Correct The Record -- Republicans Did Too Vote For The Ponzi Scheme Known As Social Security

     Could this be a faint ray of light from the right? Fox News has a story about how Democratic Congressman Charles Rangel got it all wrong when he said that the Social Security Act passed in 1935 without any Republican votes. As Fox News correctly points out, there were lots of Republican votes for Social Security in 1935. Is Fox News proud that Republicans voted for creating a dole, welfare, massive dependence, a Ponzi scheme, the descent into socialism and communism and the destruction of traditional American values? Will Fox News tell us in the future that many Republicans voted for Medicare, Medicaid, Supplemental Security Income (SSI), Temporary Assistance to Needy Families (TANF) and Food Stamps?