Changes Americans are willing to make to fix Social Security

[Magus]

I disagree. Someone who is 60 or even 55 is not only close to the earliest age for collecting SS (62) and would have difficulty changing his plans so late, but that person may have already left his or her job as early as age 55, the age at which someone can begin withdrawing from his 401k upon job separation. Such a decision to leave one's job is probably irreversible. Using 55 as the latest age to keep the FRA unchanged not only addresses my concern there, but it will (by the time any measure would pass) address my other concern about not having one's FRA change twice after entering the workforce and paying FICA taxes.

1) This would not impact that many people in this situation and they are still eligible for a slew of other government benefits. Most people don't retire before 60 and most that do either can't work (and are on SSDI and not impacted) or could easily go back to work at the same or sometimes more money or are very well off and frankly won't be impacted by a few month delay
2) Most of those in that age range would only be impacted by a matter of months. Let's not over-state the pain they would have impacted. It's significantly less pain than a permanent 25% cut in benefits that's for certain.

 

[marko]

How do you feel about people drawing SS with minor children. They will get additional money for each kid usually until the child turns 18. They can flush that one first IMO.

A buddy of mine is 72 with three kids under 10. (I know: shoot me!)
It sounds like he gets extra $$ for those kids??

 

[SecondCor521]

A buddy of mine is 72 with three kids under 10. (I know: shoot me!)
It sounds like he gets extra $$ for those kids??

Yes. IIRC until each kid turns 18, and IIRC also subject to a family maximum.

 

[pb4uski]

Maybe. Here's what I found: Of the people receiving SS, 47,666,000 are retired workers. Spouses of retired workers is 2,113,000. So 4.4%. That would save a bit of money if spousal was eliminated. Obviously the problem would require many other tweeks. I would also eliminate children of retired (694,000)(1.5%). Not children of deceased.

But the savings from getting rid of spousal benefits would be less than 4.4% for a couple reasons.

First, even if all spouses were at 50% of their spouses benefit then the cost would be 2.2% of the total at most. Second, many of those 2,113,000 spouses of retired workers have earned benefits based on their own work record so if we got rid of the spousal benefit then there would still be some payments for those people. DW's PIA based on her own work record would be ~60% of the total that she will get as a spouse. IF she is typical, then that would cut the savings from 2.2% to less than 1%.

As I say, I agree in principal and would have no objections to that change but it is a proverbial nit towards solving the funding gap.

 

[NW-Bound]

Maybe. Here's what I found: Of the people receiving SS, 47,666,000 are retired workers. Spouses of retired workers is 2,113,000. So 4.4%. That would save a bit of money if spousal was eliminated. Obviously the problem would require many other tweeks. I would also eliminate children of retired (694,000)(1.5%). Not children of deceased.

The 4.4% is a lot lower than I would guess.

Could it be because more women work in recent years, and their own SS is higher than 50% of their spouses?

Or could it be because a lot of people get divorced, and although the divorcees still collect the 50% benefit, it is in a different category and not counted in the 4.4% above?

 

[NanoSour]

What about the peace dividend? I'm told there is some slop in the defense budget that could be used to support our elderly.

 

[TheWizard]

What about the peace dividend? I'm told there is some slop in the defense budget that could be used to support our elderly.

Not a good idea to get political about the topic...

 

[athena53]

A buddy of mine is 72 with three kids under 10. (I know: shoot me!)
It sounds like he gets extra $$ for those kids??

I can't believe there are too many similar cases.

 

[Running_Man]

Yet, ACA provides assistance to this person who makes a living as a capitalist and not as a worker.

When I transitioned from ACA to Medicare, I learned that ACA could be continued if I did not qualify for Medicare. Or at least, that was what I understood the form was telling me.

If the above is true, then the above person should be able to continue the coverage with ACA.

Eligible for Medicare if they do not have enough money. ACA likewise has income restrictions you are not "covered" you can merely get in the plan and pay the rates, ACA needs people to lower insurance and income from assets most assuredly count.

 

[Chuckanut]

I can't believe there are too many similar cases.

Age 72 with three kids under 10? Whatever SS money he gets, it can't possibly be enough.

 

[youbet]

Not in this case, the person only received the assets to earn the very low income a couple years ago and didn't go through life as a capitalist earning income from assets. Prior to these last couple years, no SS taxes had been paid for decades while the person worked at home taking care of the home and family.

Sounds very hypocritical GenXguy. You want this person, that you say stayed at home taking care of family and choosing not to work to get SS credits, to receive SS regardless. And at the same time you say a married SAHM who did the same thing, should not receive any SS.

 

[GenXguy]

Sounds very hypocritical GenXguy. You want this person, that you say stayed at home taking care of family and choosing not to work to get SS credits, to receive SS regardless. And at the same time you say a married SAHM who did the same thing, should not receive any SS.

Yes, that's my view, but it's not hypocritical, because the SAHM's spouse would be getting a full SS check regardless, and they would be able to file jointly and pay even lower taxes, plus both will get FREE Medicare Part A. There's no real "need" for the SAHM to get a check that was never earned. On the other hand, the person I'm talking about is definitely more in need, not living with anyone that's going to be bringing in a SS check and not eligible for free Medicare Part A. So I believe the need of one is far greater than the need of the other.

The other thing I could support is that the spouse who earned SS could have their check split in two, and half of it would go to the SAHM. That would not be an option for the other person I talked about.

 

[youbet]

I'd prefer for it start for folks that are 60 and below if phased in slowly. There is nothing special about them vs someone 54 or 50 or even 30 for that matter. The end result is folks will have to have delayed benefits to keep the program solvent. Might as well rip the band aid off. That said, I'm aware of the reality that using 55 is less politically risking than 60.

+1

Ask mentioned in my earlier (pre-meditation period) posts, I think the need for long advanced waiting periods before changes are implemented is highly overstated. Usually it's the folks who will benefit from the change not applying to them who are doing the wailing and screaming.

Two years notice and then gradual phase-ins should be fine. I can't think of examples where someone who is told on their 60th b'day that they won't reach FRA for a month beyond what they're currently expecting won't be able to deal with it.

None of the proposed changes are going to be completely painless.

 

[corn18]

OK, don't take this the wrong way, but I tried to understand that earlier and reread now, but I'm still confused on what exactly you meant, although I have an idea in parts. I broke that down trying to understand what you meant to say:

1) "Eligible for Medicare if they do not have enough money."

2) "ACA likewise has income restrictions you are not "covered" you can merely get in the plan and pay the rates"

3) "ACA needs people to lower insurance and income from assets most assuredly count."

As far as the #1, it's not a full statement, but eligibility for Medicare isn't based on how much money you have or whether you ever paid into it. "Free" Part A requires 40 credits (quarters of work) paid in. But even if you have no credits, you can still be eligible, just like the American citizen I was referring to several posts back.

#2, something is missing in your statement to get what you meant to fully say, but don't I think you can sign up for the ACA if you're 65+ and eligible for Medicare, as the person I was talking about. And if you could, that also wouldn't preclude you from paying penalties for later getting Medicare. And the person I was referring to doesn't make enough income for ACA.

#3, I'm not sure what you mean by "ACA needs people to lower insurance". I know it needs more healthy people to register to keep premiums lower, but that part about income from assets doesn't make sense in that context. A change in someone's MAGI will affect how much of a subsidy they can get, if they are otherwise eligible to get an ACA plan. But the person I was talking about is eligible for Medicare, so they probably can't get an ACA plan, even at full cost, and if they don't sign up for Medicare quickly enough, they will be penalized.

And I think it is a distinction without a difference.

 

[youbet]

Yes, that's my view, but it's not hypocritical,

Well, I'll disagree and we can leave it at that. I think it is very hypocritical.

Demanding that a person who stays home to care for family and commits to that by being married should not be treated differently than a person who stays home to care for family and does not commit through marriage.

There's no need for your friend to get a SS check that was never earned. As you say, she was supported by family for decades. And she had many opportunities to earn the 40 quarters that would have qualified her for SS/Medicare benefits.

I'm all for her qualifying for appropriate welfare benefits so she has medical care, food and housing. If she needs to spend down her assets before welfare kicks in, well, that's how welfare works.

 

[pb4uski]

....the person I'm talking about is definitely needy, not living with anyone that's going to be bringing in a SS check and not eligible for free Medicare Part A. ...

And as far as the poor person I was talking about, it wouldn't really need to be a SS benefit to address the worst of the situation. Simply being able to continue on Medicaid (expansion under ACA) would have been good enough.

The solution for your friend who never contributed enough to have enough credits is welfare, not social security.

And it sounds like with respect to health insurance that their situation is unusual enough (adult American without 40 credits) that it slips through a crack, which is indeed unfortunate.

Have they considered getting part-time employment sufficient for them to get the credits that they need?

 

[pb4uski]

Well, I'll disagree and we can leave it at that. I think it is very hypocritical.

Demanding that a person who stays home to care for family and commits to that by being married should not be treated differently than a person who stays home to care for family and does not commit through marriage.

There's no need for your friend to get a SS check that was never earned. As you say, she was supported by family for decades. And she had many opportunities to earn the 40 quarters that would have qualified her for SS/Medicare benefits.

I'm all for her qualifying for appropriate welfare benefits so she has medical care, food and housing. If she needs to spend down her assets before welfare kicks in, well, that's how welfare works.

+1

 

[pb4uski]

Why wouldn't this apply?

I am turning 65 years old next month, but I am not entitled to Medicare without having to pay a premium for Part A because I have not worked long enough to qualify. Can I sign up for a Marketplace plan?

Yes, in general, people age 65 or older who are not entitled to premium-free Medicare can purchase health insurance coverage in the Marketplace (except undocumented immigrants). If you sign up for a Marketplace plan, you will be eligible for premium tax credits to make the coverage in the Marketplace more affordable if your income is at least 100% of the federal poverty level ($12,880 for an individual in 2022).

Keep in mind that if you are able to continue working, you may be able to earn enough work history to qualify for premium-free Medicare in the future. So another option for you to consider would be to sign up for Part A and Part B coverage when you turn 65 (you will have to pay a premium for both Part A and for Part B), and when you become eligible for premium-free Part A through your work history, you will then only have to pay a premium for Part B. ...

https://www.kff.org/faqs/faqs-healt...-qualify-can-i-sign-up-for-a-marketplace-pla/

Also, similar but different https://www.healthinsurance.org/faq...icare-can-they-buy-insurance-in-the-exchange/

And:

... However, you can purchase a plan in the exchange in lieu of Medicare if you would otherwise be required to pay premiums for Medicare Part A due to a work history that’s insufficient to qualify for premium-free Part A benefits. And if you’re already enrolled in a plan through the exchange and would have to pay a premium for Medicare Part A, you can opt instead to continue to receive a premium subsidy in the exchange, assuming you continue to meet the subsidy eligibility requirements. ...

https://www.medicareresources.org/m...enrollment/moving-from-obamacare-to-medicare/

Sounds like your friend needs to meet with an expert ACA navigator.

 

[youbet]

not sure why you think the SAHM should be getting an extra check mailed to the family when she never earned it.

For the same reason you think your unmarried friend should receive a check when she never earned it.

 

[youbet]

If you read back, you will see why assets can't be spent down. The assets are what earns them an income (low one).

But the assets can be spent down. Lots and lots of folks want to collect some sort of welfare while hanging onto assets. There are folks who want Medicaid to pay for LTC while they hide or give away assets. And folks who work for cash while they collect SNAP and rent subsidies. There's the sometimes controversial ACA subsidies for zillionaires with carefully managed MAGI's. And on and on. And all the situations vary.

You haven't mentioned anything, even in general, about your friend's assets. If they are financial assets, then they need to be spent for her support until they are gone. Then she partakes of the various welfare programs.

I'm always sorry to hear of folks whose life decisions have led them into touchy situations at retirement time. What would your friend's circumstances be if she hadn't received the "assets" a couple of years ago? Is she capable of working part time to accumulate some credits? Has she consulted with an elder-attorney and welfare agencies?

Good luck to her.

 

[youbet]

That's not possible. I explained the person I spoke of was much more in need of it.

Not so. The family with the stay at home parent I'm thinking of is much, much more in need of it than your person. Whoever that is and whatever the circumstances are.

It just sounds a bit sketchy that this person has assets that provide a low income and you're looking for some kind of non-welfare supplement to that.

Your friend's situation likely deserves a thread and discussion on its own. Co-mingling it with a discussion of ideas on how to save future SS from taking a haircut doesn't serve either subject very well.

 

[pb4uski]

Why don't they get a job to earn enough to qualify for ACA? Sort of kills two birds with one stone... health insurance plus some additional income.

 

[youbet]

Why don't they get a job to earn enough to qualify for ACA? Sort of kills two birds with one stone... health insurance plus some additional income.

+ SS credits.

 

[GenXguy]

Your friend's situation likely deserves a thread and discussion on its own. Co-mingling it with a discussion of ideas on how to save future SS from taking a haircut doesn't serve either subject very well.

Yes, my intent wasn't to continue a discussion on it, but it came to my mind when talking about spouses who are getting a benefit despite not meeting the 40 quarters of credit, that there are others who actually paid into SS some who are more needy and won't get anything. But we can end that discussion now.

I deleted some of my recent posts on the matter that don't really pertain to the thread subject.

 

[Irishgirlyc58]

Call it what you want, welfare or not. The income is just not nearly enough income to pay $1000+/mo on Medicare (parts + supplemental), out of pocket costs, plus all of life's other expenses.

Yes, my intent wasn't to continue a discussion on it, but it came to my mind when talking about spouses who are getting a benefit despite not meeting the 40 quarters of credit, that there are others who actually paid into SS some who are more needy and won't get anything. But we can end that discussion now.

GenXGuy- not sure what state your friend lives in but California is raising the asset test to $130,00 for traditional Medi-Cal ( Medicaid).
Traditional Medicaid typically has the $2,000 asset test.
Other states may be doing something similar. It couldn’t hurt to check for the state your friend lives in.