social security changes

[Options]

SSDI is its own animal, much like Medicare, which is why discussions are separate. SS "reform" alone is a big enough issue without compounding it with discussions of SSDI or Medicare. Ultimately, they'll be treated separately, and probably as they get closer to their own crises dates (whatever that turns out to be).

 

[Tandemlovers]

In case you haven't seen it, here's an excellent summary of the current leading proposals for eliminating the SS shortfall (as of 2014) from Boston College Center for Retirement Research (I take these proposals more seriously than those of any "candidate"):



http://crr.bc.edu/wp-content/uploads/2011/08/SS-Fixit_9.4.14_WEB.pdf

Very good explanation of what we are facing. Thanks for the link.

 

[Senator]

I am surprised that no one has ever mentioned raising the maximum age you can collect without getting an increase.

If you could delay collecting SS for as long as you wanted, even past 80, and get an 8% raise for each year you delay. It would be revenue neutral, but many people would be betting their life in collecting longer.

Or they might keep saving SS to fund a nursing home/LTC if they needed it. Or saving money for their spousal death benefits.

it would not cost a dime and might save a bit more.

 

[GrayHare]

I am surprised that no one has ever mentioned raising the maximum age you can collect without getting an increase.

I think it's because the (vast?) majority of people start benefits as soon as they can. Few people wait until age 70 now, and even fewer would wait until 80.

Since the FRA has been increased once already the slippery-slope effect makes it an easy target for another increase. When SS benefits began during the 1940s the average duration of payments was just 4 years. Returning to a 4-year average now would be a huge change, but a 10-year average might be palatable. That would put FRA around age 72 or so.

 

[pb4uski]

......Notwithstanding we would have most likely F&S (can't now miss age cutoff) seems a small price to pay and it does/did have that "loophole" feeling about it.

+1. IIRC it will cost us about $20k so most likely it just means that DD and DS will get $10k less each in the end.

 

[Independent]

Nary a mention of SS disability in that article. The only way to keep SSI solvent in the long term would be to fund it separately from SSDI.

John

Just so we don't get lost in the acronyms, the federal government has a program called Supplemental Security Income which is a means-tested program for old or disabled people. It's funding is completely separate from the Social Security program we normally talk about, but it is administered by the Social Security Administration.

So they usually use "SSI" to refer to Supplemental Security Income.

 

[Independent]

In case you haven't seen it, here's an excellent summary of the current leading proposals for eliminating the SS shortfall (as of 2014) from Boston College Center for Retirement Research (I take these proposals more seriously than those of any "candidate"):

http://crr.bc.edu/wp-content/uploads/2011/08/SS-Fixit_9.4.14_WEB.pdf

For the real techies, the numbers for the proposals probably come from this page https://ssa.gov/OACT/solvency/provisions_tr2008/

It has lots of options.