Will the "great reset" cause the masses to embrace FI(RE)?

[rescueme]

You also get Medicare when you're on Social Security Disability. I overheard someone the other day talking about going to "get [their] Disability payments turned back on."

There is a two year waiting period after you are on SSD before Medicare is available. The exception to this rule is if you have been awarded SSD for renal failure, your waiting period is two months. There is no health benefits (currently) for the 24 month waiting period.

What you may have heard is that SSD benefits are "turned off" if you do work and make beyond a certain amount of money. This is common for a lot of folks on SSD but do not spend their life "sitting on the couch" all day.

My own disabled son, drawing SSD does work in a sheltered workshop. His pay is often based upon piece-rate and due to his disability operates at a high prloduction level than most of the folks. We have to constantly monitor his pay (on which he pays income, SS, and all other taxes BTW) to ensure he does not exceed around $240/week - gross.

While he does get Medicare, he also pays the part B (SSD deduction, just like normal SS) along with preimums for a medigap policy.

Being poor or low income due to conditions beyond your control is something that I believe most on this board would not consider a "lifestyle" that they would want. Even though my son does not live with us (shares an apartment with another disabled person), he has the same expenses as most folks, including paying for his food, car, insurance, etc. Life is not a "freebe".

For that person that was getting their "benefits turned back on" were probably making more than the SSD limits and did not get any benefits while they were gainfully employed. There is no "double dipping" in the program (I know).

One last thing. Don't confuse SSD with SSI. SSD is "earned" as part of your SS contributions over the years. SSI (and any welfare benefits) are granted to those who did not work (for various reasons). Those on SSI get Medicaid, not Medicare.

There are comments of both "systems" on this thread; just to show the difference.

 

[Milton]

However, unless we as a society are ready to implement mandatory sterilization and/or removal of children from their parents, it will mostly be children who will suffer when we crack down on the scammers...

It is odd that training, examinations and/or documented experience is required for such relatively mundane activities as driving a car, owning a firearm, selling insurance, etc. etc. ... but absolutely no qualifications are imposed before one procreates and raises a child.

The above is even more strange when one considers the extensive background checks that are required of prospective adoptive parents, foster parents, daycare providers, and cub scout leaders.

Why does society presume that a 'natural' parent is prima facie a good caregiver?

 

[SunsetSail]

It is odd that training, examinations and/or documented experience is required for such relatively mundane activities as driving a car, owning a firearm, selling insurance, etc. etc. ... but absolutely no qualifications are imposed before one procreates and raises a child.

The above is even more strange when one considers the extensive background checks that are required of prospective adoptive parents, foster parents, daycare providers, and cub scout leaders.

Why does society presume that a 'natural' parent is prima facie a good caregiver?

The right to procreate is protected in the Constitution at one of the highest levels of all rights. Regardless of whether it is correct, any changes to this would be a steep uphill battle. The other things you mentioned are lesser protected rights (firearms) or privileges that can be removed by the government without much limitation.

The Constitution certainly makes the presumption that a natural parent is better. As a parent to young children, I admit to a certain primal (and likely unreasonable) fear that if this right is diluted at all the government might be able to take my children away from me in unjustified circumstances.

 

[haha]

As a parent to young children, I admit to a certain primal (and likely unreasonable) fear that if this right is diluted at all the government might be able to take my children away from me in unjustified circumstances.

A completely reasonable fear, IMO. Whatever the government does, it overdoes and does stupidly.

Ha

 

[Martha]

I agree that many people shouldn't have kids. Including middle class and rich people, who have an easier time than the poor in hiding their dysfunctions. Unless you are Brittany Spears. But we won't go there even if sometimes we should. We are not going to go about doing licensing and home inspections for everyone. Some slopes are too slippery.

On the disability issue . . . .

I used to work on disability appeals back when I was in law school. A friend of mine is a disability appeal lawyer. People who are entitled to benefits get turned down all the time. He works full time on disability appeals in a city of 80,000 and it isn't like he is the only one doing that work. He is paid only if he wins so he only takes on the cases he is pretty comfortable that he can win. Currently there a one to two year wait to get a hearing, depending on your part of the country. IIRC about 70% of applications for disability (SSD and SSI) get turned down. But if you appeal you have more than a 50% chance of success. Your success rate is even higher if you have an attorney help, who can make sure all required records get into evidence. The appeal success rate is too high and means too many are being turned down and suffering as a result. Many who should appeal don't because they lack the competence to see it through and don't have support like family to help them see it through.

One problem is that people are either completely disabled under social security definitions, which are really tough, or not legally disabled and entitled to no disability assistance. Because of these disability standards we have a group of people that have mental and physical health issues, learning issues and other issues who cannot get assistance, but have to figure out how to get along. And they are not necessarily good at figuring things out. They have trouble finding jobs and trouble keeping jobs. Maybe they could work part time. Maybe they can work sometimes but not other times, depending on their mental health.

If they have kids they might get cash assistance temporarily under TANIF, but those benefits are limited and do have significant strings. You can't just sit on your ass and not look for work. What exactly are the conditions depends on the state. No good statistics have been kept on the results of TANIF/welfare reform. Success is defined by having people leave the rolls. But there isn't good follow up with people who were kicked off to see how they are doing. Most evidence suggests that they live in poverty, often worse off then they were before. And that is for the people they can find. I recall reading once about an attempt to follow up with a group who no longer was eligible for assistance. A good percentage could not be found.

What does gaming the system mean? How well do you know the person who you think is gaming? And why are people only sympathetic to those who are in a bad position through no fault of their own?

I know someone on public assistance who thought that she and her son should move in with her father as she has serious mental health issues and was having trouble caring for her kid on her own. It was a stupid decision. Her father is a drunk and is mentally ill. Anyway, she gave notice at public housing to move. She lined up friends to help her move. Her friends are not much more competent than she is. Most didn't show up and not everything got moved but she had to turn over her keys and get out, leaving all sorts of stuff.

It didn't work out with dad, no surprise. But she is screwed with public housing because she didn't leave the place clean and empty.

This was all her fault in a technical sense. But this is the way she is. She isn't competent enough to make the right decisions. Her support system did not catch on that she was screwing up.

Life just sucks for some people and to assume gaming the system or to say it is all someone's fault fails to recognize the complexity of the individual human experience.

We worry too much about cheaters and don't worry enough about all the people who live shitty lives.

FWIW.

 

[HFWR]

Life just sucks for some people and to assume gaming the system or to say it is all someone's fault fails to recognize the complexity of the individual human experience.

Agreed. Most of the "gaming of the system" that I was aware of involved people playing fast and loose with the facts, or faking a divorce, or visiting enough doctors to find who was liberal with their definition of "disabled". Granted, many of the people I was acquainted with didn't have many prospects otherwise...

We worry too much about cheaters and don't worry enough about all the people who live shitty lives.

FWIW.

I think that anyone who believes people on food stamps, SSI, or "welfare" are living the good life at our expense is deluded...

I'd like to refudiate that...

 

[Milton]

And why are people only sympathetic to those who are in a bad position through no fault of their own?

Perhaps because we are socialized to believe that responsibility is desirable; and reasonability implies imposition / acceptance of negative consequences for one's negative actions.

More to the point, resources are finite.

We all make mistakes, and we all act foolishly from time to time. I am not without a certain sympathy for people who are in a bad position through their own fault. However, my sympathy does not extend to a desire to support them with my money.

E.g., the person who drives drunk and winds up with quadriplegia is a tragic case ... but there are many more deserving causes requiring my support, not least of which is my FIRE effort.

I know someone on public assistance who thought that she and her son should move in with her father as she has serious mental health issues and was having trouble caring for her kid on her own. It was a stupid decision. Her father is a drunk and is mentally ill. Anyway, she gave notice at public housing to move. She lined up friends to help her move. Her friends are not much more competent than she is. Most didn't show up and not everything got moved but she had to turn over her keys and get out, leaving all sorts of stuff.

It didn't work out with dad, no surprise. But she is screwed with public housing because she didn't leave the place clean and empty.

This was all her fault in a technical sense. But this is the way she is. She isn't competent enough to make the right decisions. Her support system did not catch on that she was screwing up.

This is a complex subject, which I don't want to trivialize. However, the person in your example is apparently (?) mentally competent and as such is free to vote, sign contracts, etc. If (if!) that is correct, then - bankruptcy laws aside - she can't just throw up her hands and say "that's the way I am, deal with it".

Civil society would have great difficulty operating if it accepted the proposition that irresponsibility is a disability, or that anyone with an IQ below the median is a deemed victim.

Life just sucks for some people and to assume gaming the system or to say it is all someone's fault fails to recognize the complexity of the individual human experience.

Agreed. That is why extensive social resources are applied towards fixing or at least alleviating some of the root causes of poverty, malnutrition, drug and alcohol abuse, mental illness, etc.

We worry too much about cheaters and don't worry enough about all the people who live shitty lives.

One's opinion on this issue is largely informed by one's own experience. In any case I submit that you are generalizing: some jurisdictions are much more generous than others.

 

[segfault]

What you may have heard is that SSD benefits are "turned off" if you do work and make beyond a certain amount of money. This is common for a lot of folks on SSD but do not spend their life "sitting on the couch" all day.

Forgive my cynicism, but I live in an area of the country where a substantial portion of the citizens draw disability. I sympathize with people who are using the system for its intended purpose. On the other hand, we have entire families where Mom, Dad, and one or more of their adult children draw disability.

 

[Martha]

Perhaps because we are socialized to believe that responsibility is desirable; and reasonability implies imposition / acceptance of negative consequences for one's negative actions.

More to the point, resources are finite.

Sure, but look at the distribution.

This is a complex subject, which I don't want to trivialize. However, the person in your example is apparently (?) mentally competent and as such is free to vote, sign contracts, etc. If (if!) that is correct, then - bankruptcy laws aside - she can't just throw up her hands and say "that's the way I am, deal with it".

She isn't saying that. I said she is not competent enough. Sure she can vote and most of the time contract. But that doesn't mean that she will make good decisions. There is a wide range of competency out there and there is no bright line. She is far from being sanguine about her situation and nothing I said should give the impression that she is. I said that her housing situation was her fault in a technical sense but there are reasons that she makes bad decisions. I said she is mentally ill. Sometimes she does better than other times but it substantially impairs her life. She takes a huge cocktail of drugs to keep her from having psychotic episodes and to deal with bipolar disorder. She was denied SSI and has appealed. Bankruptcy is meaningless for her. She has nothing to lose and nothing to gain by a bankruptcy. Bankruptcy is for the middle class and rich.

As I said above, under SSI/SSD rules you are either disabled or not. There are people who are may not be legally disabled but have all sorts of challenges. Health issues. Education issues. Transportation issues. Family issues. Etc. We just say they are on their own and responsible for their own destiny.

And it isn't just a problem for people with disabilities. One group that has big issues with settling into society are kids leaving foster care at 18. They are on their own. Four years after leaving foster care only about half of the young people find jobs. Homelessness is a problem. One out of three report mental health problems but the majority have no health insurance. Twenty five percent end up in trouble with the law, half the time due to drug and alcohol problems. http://www.casey.org/Resources/Publications/pdf/WhitePaper_ImprovingOutcomesOlderYouth_FR.pdf

So, when they are 17 we are responsible for them and fail at it. But at 18, they are responsible for themselves.

Of course we value responsible behavior, but we can also learn from knowing the reasons people may not act responsibly and see if there are things we can do as a society to make things better. And a little empathy for people's situations is a good thing.

 

[kumquat]

Sure she can vote and most of the time contract.

I'm a non American here and just asking so don't jump all over me. I have a dumb questions:

It is "she can vote and most of the time contract."

I'm guessing here but, can you be competent enough to vote but not to sign a contract. If so, I thought Canadian law was a donkey (to protect me from mods)​

 

[rescueme]

It is "she can vote and most of the time contract."

I'm guessing here but, can you be competent enough to vote but not to sign a contract.​

Actually that's not quite true assuming the individual was not declared "incompetent" by the court system.

My adult disabled son is on SSD, votes, and can enter contracts (and has done so, for his apartment).

However, he cannot receive direct SSD payments. The SSA administration names a third party (representative payee) to be responsible for the spending of those funds. This named person does not have to be a relative, but a person that looks after the interests of an individual (such as a lawyer/trust).

I'm also responsible to submit to an annual audit of how the funds were spent, including year to year savings (if any - that never happens; his living expenses are much higher than the SSD benefit is).

Even though being recognized by the SSA as disabled, from a legal standpoint since he is an adult and not declared incompetent by a court of law, he can enter into formal contracts with no counter-signature (one of the reasons I don't allow payment for internet in his apartment).

It's a slippery slope if you start trying to declare if somebody is competent based solely on their disability. Even a "single type disability" contains many variations (as my son, who is a high-functioning autistic) and to limit their life based upon a "tag" would really be a problem from the legal view (Martha can comment on my view).

IOW, you are "legally competent" until considered by the courts not to be....
​

 

[Bestwifeever]

Interesting how this thread has moved from the OP re "will the masses jump on the LBYM bandwagon and spoil the magic of it for those who have been riding it for a long time" (at least that's what I think the OP's message is--or else we need a poll about Metallica ) to benefits for disabled people. Love these forums.

As someone who has several very smart grifters and grifter wannabes in the family tree, I find it so sad that these people always know exactly how to get what they need (both within and outside the gummint safety nets), or at least act like they do. We keep our distance from them, but my heart goes out to the people Martha talks about and of course rescueme's son. No solutions, just saying.

 

[Midpack]

Beyond the hijack aspect, it's interesting to me that the Kuran/Quran burning thread was shut down while this one persists in it's current direction...

 

[REWahoo]

Beyond the hijack aspect, it's interesting to me that the Kuran/Quran burning thread was shut down while this one persists in it's current direction...

Maybe it has something to do with the shut down thread having absolutely no link to anything involving finances/retirement/investing, purely politics and religion.

But that's just a guess.

 

[Gerbil Wheel]

Well the Jimmy Buffett/Metallica analogy turned out to be bit of a red herring in hindsight...like others have said, it costs nothing to join popular bandwagons (other than perhaps the price of admission).

But many of the responses hit on the intended query; that is, will the masses embrace LBYM with an eye towards FI or RE as a result of the structural/secular changes underway in the economy.

Time will tell...I do believe the Millennials will drive the eventual trend for the most part.

Check out a book called The Fourth Turning...the premise is fascinating.

 

[rescueme]

Interesting how this thread has moved.

A giant tree doesn’t only have one branch ...

 

[jimnjana]

No, I don't believe LBYM will become a new mantra in this country anytime soon.

I think LBYM has been a mantra for a small percentage of the population all along, I think the percentage of the population that lives LBYM has increased and will continue to increase. IMO, a significant percentage of the population has had a wake up call. I think the tea party movement is one outlet for this new found economic awareness, albeit a political one. My bet is that future growth in consumer spending will be anemic for years to come.

 

[HFWR]

While tangential at best, much like the topic of balancing the budget, the devil is in the details. What is "constitutional"? Who is "disabled"? What is in the "national interest"? How do we promote the "general welfare"? What "provides for the common defense"?

But back on topic, it could be that we have a reset toward LBYM, and a distrust of the stock market, much like after the Great Depression. Or not...

 

[haha]

Interesting how this thread has moved from the OP re "will the masses jump on the LBYM bandwagon and spoil the magic of it for those who have been riding it for a long time"

Actually, anything at all would have been an improvement on that idea.

Ha

 

[M Paquette]

Wow! Didn't think I would offend or insult anyone anyone on this board with my post. It was perhaps a trenchantly worded post, I admit. And perhaps politically incorrect. But the truth is the truth. Lots of people game the Welfare / Disability system, with its many programs, for financial gain and to avoid working. Those of us who do not come into personal contact with this reality may choose to pretend it is not there.

Just a reminder that lots of people who have been on welfare DON'T game the system, but are simply using it as a survival net.

I have a brother who lives in a small town where the major employer was a sawmill. The mill shut down, which had a nasty cascading effect on the entire town, as millworkers stopped spending, which caused small businesses supplying the workers and mill to fail, which unemployed more people, etc. Unemployment in the town reached about 40%.

The usual response I hear from those in love with ideological solutions is that these folks should just move and get new jobs elsewhere. OK. Know of any big sawmills that are hiring and willing to pay something to help with relocation? Any sort of heavy industrial businesses that are doing lots of hiring? No, in the US, please.

A lot of these folks were just scraping by. They can't come up with moving expense money plus first and last months rent. They're trying, looking for work, doing odd jobs, off-the-books work from weeding to farm labor, and about the only thing getting them food on the table is that welfare WIC card (modern food stamps). A fair number need medical care. (Work in a sawmill for 30-40 years and see how your pulmonary function holds up.)

Yes, I know that back in the Ayn Rand School for Tots we were all taught that "A is A" and "Helping is Futile", but we don't use the treadmill and workhouses any more. I'd rather get these folks some retraining and assistance to get back on their feet. The local welfare program gets these folks some food, a few hundred a month to cover expenses, and hooks them up with one of several training and relocation services operated by various charities.

 

[Milton]

I think the percentage of the population that lives LBYM has increased and will continue to increase. IMO, a significant percentage of the population has had a wake up call.

Personally, I agree with FIREdreamer, Joshua and rescueme: being unable to spend money you don't have - because no one will give you credit - is not the same thing as making a conscious, voluntary decision to diligently put aside part of the money you do have.

Human beings have surprisingly short memories. Greed, stupidity and laziness are commonplace. When credit becomes available again, I suspect that many people will abandon the new religion and resume their free-spending ways.

I don't believe it will [stick] because it was not as painful as the Great Depression.

Agree. The recent recesssion was nothing compared to the Depression.

The usual response I hear from those in love with ideological solutions is that these folks should just move and get new jobs elsewhere. OK. Know of any big sawmills that are hiring and willing to pay something to help with relocation? Any sort of heavy industrial businesses that are doing lots of hiring? No, in the US, please.

Some truth to this. It's also true that many government-funded retraining schemes are rather unrealistic (there is a limited market for newly-minted 54-year-old computer programmers).

On the other hand, people (especially young people) have to be realistic about their own situations, and read the writing on the wall. One can no longer drop out of school and expect to get the sort of unskilled or semi-skilled, unionized job that one's father or mother enjoyed. Globalization has changed things (and for the better).

 

[dfdski]

First off, thanks to everyone who has posted on this thread. I've been lurking on this forum since last May (joined in June) and this is one of the reasons I continue to come back.

Sure, there's not much FIRE content here - but the range of opinions and, well, topics in this one thread alone are impressive. And the respect shown for each other? Coming from years of posting on online sports forums - I'm floored.

Personally, I agree with FIREdreamer, Joshua and rescueme: being unable to spend money you don't have - because no one will give you credit - is not the same thing as making a conscious, voluntary decision to diligently put aside part of the money you do have.

Human beings have surprisingly short memories. Greed, stupidity and laziness are commonplace. When credit becomes available again, I suspect that many people will abandon the new religion and resume their free-spending ways.

Agree. The recent recesssion was nothing compared to the Depression.

I agree with this. One thing that the recent recession has that the Depression didn't is advertising-run media. (Can't think of a better term.) Everything - television, radio, internet - throws in your face how much better your life will be if you don't LBYM (or at least ignore it).

I wore hand-me-downs until high school, when I bought my own clothes. Me and my siblings not only bought our first vehicles, we paid for insurance. If we couldn't afford it, there was always the bus. (And I took a bus 12 miles to classes in my second year of college while living with my parents.)

Forget about "peer pressure". The "media pressure" to do the opposite of LBYM (LAYM?) is enough to stem any mass change in this country.

 

[chinaco]

This is an emotional topic for many people. They seem to either latch on to the emotions of:

"How dare you kick the poor,needy, and down-trodden unfortunates of society"

Or

"Bums at best, criminals at worst"


Unfortunately we have both and there is no effective way to sort them out.

I think we all would agree that the people that game the system should be cut-off.

One of the most prevalent forms of the fraud is to work for cash and collect benefits.

Another common scam is for the woman and children to get on welfare and the (ne'er-do-well boyfriend or ex-husband move in the section 8 house and hold down a job). I read once about a guy getting a divorce and abandoning the family (on paper) so the family would get welfare and he would work.

This does happen... more than you might think! But it is not fair to paint all with that brush.

 

[jimnjana]

Personally, I agree with FIREdreamer, Joshua and rescueme: being unable to spend money you don't have - because no one will give you credit - is not the same thing as making a conscious, voluntary decision to diligently put aside part of the money you do have.

Human beings have surprisingly short memories. Greed, stupidity and laziness are commonplace. When credit becomes available again, I suspect that many people will abandon the new religion and resume their free-spending ways. .

Not disagreeing, just pointing out that a shift from saving more has not happened yet, and the trend appears to be intact.

BEA : Personal Saving Rate

 

[travelover]

.............
Another common scam is for the woman and children to get on welfare and the (ne'er-do-well boyfriend or ex-husband move in the section 8 house and hold down a job)..............

I saw way too much of this when I was working for Habitat for Humanity. I finally got tired of working on houses for able bodied people that had more household income than I did.

Too bad, 'cause most of the clients really did deserve and appreciate a break.