IWETHEY v. 0.3.0 | TODO
1,095 registered users | 0 active users | 0 LpH | Statistics
Login | Create New User
IWETHEY Banner

Welcome to IWETHEY!

New Maybe this will help.
Section 831 of the House’s new budget bill would make radical changes to the way Social Security provides spousal and retirement benefits.​

​Let me list all the benefit cuts and other problems arising from this truly draconian bill.

In six months, benefits now being received by spouses, divorced spouses or children on the work record of a spouse, ex-spouse or parent who has suspended his or her benefits will be eliminated until the worker restarts his/her retirement benefit. I’ve never heard of a change in Social Security law that eliminates benefits for people already collecting, but this is what’s in this bill. This will cost millions of households tens of thousands of dollars. Worse, it will induce those who have suspended their benefits in order to collect higher benefits at 70 to restart their benefits at permanently lower levels in order to maintain their family’s immediate living standards. ...

Some view this as a loophole, but Social Security is so complex that it’s hard to say what is a loophole and what’s not. We’ve been paying 12.4 percent of our income to Social Security since our first job in exchange for a variety of benefits, including spousal and divorce(e) spousal benefits, in retirement age. Now, with a couple of sentences, our government is reneging on what for many households can amount up to $50,000 in lifetime benefits.

But the loss in lifetime benefits can be far greater.

http://www.pbs.org/newshour/making-sense/houses-proposed-budget-bill-will-devastating-effects-millions-social-security-benefits/

Let me guess. Yes, Obama did this, but REPUBLICANS! would have been much worse, right?
Collapse Edited by mmoffitt Oct. 30, 2015, 09:08:26 AM EDT
Maybe this will help.
Section 831 of the House’s new budget bill would make radical changes to the way Social Security provides spousal and retirement benefits.​

​Let me list all the benefit cuts and other problems arising from this truly draconian bill.

In six months, benefits now being received by spouses, divorced spouses or children on the work record of a spouse, ex-spouse or parent who has suspended his or her benefits will be eliminated until the worker restarts his/her retirement benefit. I’ve never heard of a change in Social Security law that eliminates benefits for people already collecting, but this is what’s in this bill. This will cost millions of households tens of thousands of dollars. Worse, it will induce those who have suspended their benefits in order to collect higher benefits at 70 to restart their benefits at permanently lower levels in order to maintain their family’s immediate living standards. ...

Some view this as a loophole, but Social Security is so complex that it’s hard to say what is a loophole and what’s not. We’ve been paying 12.4 percent of our income to Social Security since our first job in exchange for a variety of benefits, including spousal and divorce(e) spousal benefits, in retirement age. Now, with a couple of sentences, our government is reneging on what for many households can amount up to $50,000 in lifetime benefits.

But the loss in lifetime benefits can be far greater.

http://www.pbs.org/newshour/making-sense/houses-proposed-budget-bill-will-devastating-effects-millions-social-security-benefits/
New It seems to be scare-mongering to me.
Here's Section 831:

Sorry about the formatting:

SEC. 831. CLOSURE OF UNINTENDED LOOPHOLES. 22

(a) P RESUMED F ILING OF A PPLICATION BY I NDIVID - 23
UALS E LIGIBLE FOR O LD - AGE I NSURANCE B ENEFITS AND 24
FOR W IFE ’ S OR H USBAND ’ S I NSURANCE B ENEFITS .—
(1) I N GENERAL .—Section 202(r) of the Social 1
Security Act (42 U.S.C. 402(r)) is amended by 2
striking paragraphs (1) and (2) and inserting the 3
following: 4
‘‘(1) If an individual is eligible for a wife’s or 5
husband’s insurance benefit (except in the case of 6
eligibility pursuant to clause (ii) of subsection 7
(b)(1)(B) or subsection (c)(1)(B), as appropriate), in 8
any month for which the individual is entitled to an 9
old-age insurance benefit, such individual shall be 10
deemed to have filed an application for wife’s or hus- 11
band’s insurance benefits for such month. 12
‘‘(2) If an individual is eligible (but for section 13
202(k)(4)) for an old-age insurance benefit in any 14
month for which the individual is entitled to a wife’s 15
or husband’s insurance benefit (except in the case of 16
entitlement pursuant to clause (ii) of subsection 17
(b)(1)(B) or subsection (c)(1)(B), as appropriate), 18
such individual shall be deemed to have filed an ap- 19
plication for old-age insurance benefits— 20
‘‘(A) for such month, or 21
‘‘(B) if such individual is also entitled to a 22
disability insurance benefit for such month, in 23
the first subsequent month for which such indi-
vidual is not entitled to a disability insurance 1
benefit.’’. 2
(2) C ONFORMING AMENDMENT .—Section 202 3
of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 402) is amend- 4
ed— 5
(A) in subsection (b)(1), by striking sub- 6
paragraph (B) and inserting the following: 7
‘‘(B)(i) has attained age 62, or 8
‘‘(ii) in the case of a wife, has in her care (indi- 9
vidually or jointly with such individual) at the time 10
of filing such application a child entitled to a child’s 11
insurance benefit on the basis of the wages and self- 12
employment income of such individual,’’; and 13
(B) in subsection (c)(1), by striking sub- 14
paragraph (B) and inserting the following: 15
‘‘(B)(i) has attained age 62, or 16
‘‘(ii) in the case of a husband, has in his care 17
(individually or jointly with such individual) at the 18
time of filing such application a child entitled to a 19
child’s insurance benefit on the basis of the wages 20
and self-employment income of such individual,’’. 21
(3) E FFECTIVE DATE .—The amendments made 22
by this subsection shall apply with respect to individ- 23
uals who attain age 62 in any calendar year after 24
2015.

(b) V OLUNTARY S USPENSION OF B ENEFITS .— 1
(1) I N GENERAL .—Section 202 of the Social 2
Security Act (42 U.S.C. 402) is amended by adding 3
at the end the following: 4
‘‘(z) V OLUNTARY S USPENSION .—(1)(A) Except as 5
otherwise provided in this subsection, any individual who 6
has attained retirement age (as defined in section 216(l)) 7
and is entitled to old-age insurance benefits may request 8
that payment of such benefits be suspended— 9
‘‘(i) beginning with the month following 10
the month in which such request is received by 11
the Commissioner, and 12
‘‘(ii) ending with the earlier of the month 13
following the month in which a request by the 14
individual for a resumption of such benefits is 15
so received or the month following the month in 16
which the individual attains the age of 70. 17
‘‘(2) An individual may not suspend such benefits 18
under this subsection, and any suspension of such benefits 19
under this subsection shall end, effective with respect to 20
any month in which the individual becomes subject to— 21
‘‘(A) mandatory suspension of such benefits 22
under section 202(x); 23
‘‘(B) termination of such benefits under section 24
202(n);
‘‘(C) a penalty under section 1129A imposing 1
nonpayment of such benefits; or 2
‘‘(D) any other withholding, in whole or in part, 3
of such benefits under any other provision of law 4
that authorizes recovery of a debt by withholding 5
such benefits. 6
‘‘(3) In the case of an individual who requests that 7
such benefits be suspended under this subsection, for any 8
month during the period in which the suspension is in ef- 9
fect— 10
‘‘(A) no retroactive benefits (as defined in sub- 11
section (j)(4)(B)(iii)) shall be payable to such indi- 12
vidual; 13
‘‘(B) no monthly benefit shall be payable to any 14
other individual on the basis of such individual’s 15
wages and self-employment income; and 16
‘‘(C) no monthly benefit shall be payable to 17
such individual on the basis of another individual’s 18
wages and self-employment income.’’. 19
(2) C ONFORMING AMENDMENT .—Section 20
202(w)(2)(B)(ii) of the Social Security Act (42 21
U.S.C. 402(w)(2)(B)(ii)) is amended by inserting 22
‘‘under section 202(z)’’ after ‘‘request’’. 23
(3) E FFECTIVE DATE .—The amendments made 24
by this subsection shall apply with respect to bene-
fits payable for months beginning at least 180 days 1
after the date of the enactment of this Act.


Section (a) is about filing for benefit and applies starting 2016. It's not for people who aren't collecting benefits yet.

Section (b) is about voluntary suspension of benefits. What tiny fraction of people does that apply to?

It's mind-boggling to this reader.

Now maybe he's right that the language changes the calculations that people have to make about when they and their spouse retire and that's effectively a huge cut for some of that (seemingly tiny) fraction. Maybe. I'm not buying his scare-mongering on that yet, based on his (what seems to me) misinterpretation of a voluntary suspension as being equivalent as a mandatory suspension.

More on the "deeming" stuff is here:

When Congress passed the Senior Citizens Freedom to Work Act in 2000, it introduced a new concept called “voluntary suspension” of benefits, allowing those who had already started Social Security benefits to stop their payments and earn delayed retirement credits. In the process, however, the new voluntary suspension rules unleashed several additional Social Security claiming strategies, including various “claim now, claim more later” tactics involved File-and-Suspend and Restricted Applications for spousal benefits.

And under this week’s budget legislation, Congress has decided to close these perceived “loopholes” in the Social Security rules. By extending the rules for deemed application, it will no longer be possible to file a restricted application for just spousal benefits. And with an extension of the “suspension” rules that stipulate suspending an individual’s benefits will also suspend any benefits to other people based on the same earnings record, Congress has killed off the various “File and Suspend” strategies to allow spousal and dependent benefits to be paid while still earning delayed retirement credits.


Loophole? Dunno. Important? Dunno. Obama and the Democrats savaging Social Security with draconian cuts? I don't think so. It sounds like it's an adjustment for something that was only introduced in 2000.

We'll see.

Thanks.

Cheers,
Scott.
New The fact that these "adjustments" are on the table at all demonstrates Right-Shift in the DP.
     Why Scott and Rand support Democrats no matter what. - (mmoffitt) - (20)
         And what is irrational about that? -NT - (a6l6e6x) - (14)
             It's a dangerous false dichotomy. - (mmoffitt) - (13)
                 Voting for Hillary doesn't mean you have to vote for Charlotte - (Another Scott) - (10)
                     Re: Voting for Hillary - (boxley) - (2)
                         She's done a few other things in the last 20+ years. - (Another Scott) - (1)
                             is this the same person who when being advized they were going to mumble NY for a meet n greet - (boxley)
                     OTOH - (scoenye) - (1)
                         True. But it's in place now, and it can (and will if we vote) be improved over time. -NT - (Another Scott)
                     Re: Compare what Pelosi was able to do in 4 years ... - (mmoffitt) - (4)
                         Public-Option argument #12341 - (Another Scott) - (3)
                             Maybe this will help. - (mmoffitt) - (2)
                                 It seems to be scare-mongering to me. - (Another Scott) - (1)
                                     The fact that these "adjustments" are on the table at all demonstrates Right-Shift in the DP. -NT - (mmoffitt)
                 It's simple game theory. - (a6l6e6x) - (1)
                     That's never been the case for me with political decisions. - (mmoffitt)
         Re: Why Scott and Rand support Democrats no matter what. - (rcareaga) - (4)
             The Democratic Party has done plenty to make me fear it. - (mmoffitt) - (2)
                 In defense of Obama - (gcareaga) - (1)
                     Agree in SPADES with Jerry. - (mmoffitt)
             One thing is very clear. - (Andrew Grygus)

It's like there's nothing you can do about that joke. It's coming and you just have to stand there.
115 ms