Proposed budget bill would have devastating effects on millions’ Social Security benefits

[Triana]

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

. . .

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.

. . .

Another major concern is female work incentives for married or divorced women (whose marriages lasted at least a decade) who earn much less than their husbands or ex-husbands. By waiting until 70 to collect their own retirement benefits, they had a chance that their retirement benefit would exceed their spousal benefit, which would mean that extra contributions to Social Security would lead to higher benefits. If they are now, due to cash constraints, forced to take their retirement benefit at full retirement age and if their spousal benefit exceeds their retirement benefit, they will end up getting absolutely nothing in return for each and every penny of taxes they paid to Social Security over their entire working lives.

​I’m also concerned about how this bill would affect income sharing and power plays in marriages. Take the case of a wife who earned very little, because she stayed home to raise children. Assume her husband is the same age. If her working husband refuses to take his retirement benefit before age 70 — because he doesn’t want to receive permanently lower benefits — the wife will have to wait until age 70 to collect her spousal benefit. That means she’ll receive no income in her own name from Social Security until she reaches age 70.​ Indeed, if this bill is passed, the people that are going to see their Social Security checks disappear in six months are primarily women.

THE REST:

http://www.pbs.org/newshour/making-sense/houses-proposed-budget-bill-will-devastating-effects-millions-social-security-benefits/#.VjEyCOwnQ7s.twitter

[99th_Monkey]

1. So why does AARP support it ? Is it the "lesser of evils" thing again?

Has AARP been co-opted by establishment donors, or what?

I know they are not perfect, but they still generally are advocates for seniors ..

[Triana]

2. AARP has been known to support some things that

don't make sense given their stated purpose. My Mom stopped being a member because of some of it a few years ago. Therefore, I don't completely trust them on Soc Security and what they do/do not support.

It appears to me that - if what the article says is true - the GOP War on Women has moved to Social Security.

I've heard women telling other women not to get married if they're single and worked very many years - because they'd get screwed out of their social security. Appears that would be even more true if this gets into the budget.

[Downwinder]

3. AARP supported the donut hole.

[Triana]

4. Now that you remind me I think that's the one my Mom left them over.

She has been hit really bad by that. Usually hits it by April each year.

[starroute]

5. Does the Senate version do any of that?

I know the two versions are different, and what I saw earlier about the Senate one didn't mention any of this. But the two have to be reconciled -- and that's where things could get nasty.

[Triana]

6. I don't know. I sure hope not! n/t

[Triana]

7. Different take from NCPSSM: "No, the Budget Deal Did NOT Cut Your Social Security Benefits"

From the Ntl Committee to Preserve Social Security and Medicare (@NCPSSM on twitter) - I posted concern about the article NCPSSM references on DU yesterday. However, NCPSSM (whom I have trusted for the past couple years on these issues) says the deal closes a 'double-dipping' loophole which mostly upper income beneficiaries use....

America’s seniors, people with disabilities and their families who depend on Social Security have legitimate reason to be scared whenever Congress starts cutting backdoor deals because they know from experience that Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid have been used as piggy banks or political hostages by GOP leaders always looking for ways to cut benefits.

The good news is, contrary to claims by largely financial writers, Social Security benefits were not cut in this week’s Congressional Budget deal.

We take on one of the seriously flawed stories in NCPSSM’s “Equal Time”:

. . .

The Economic Policy Institute also provides this description of the file and suspend change:

“Eliminating “aggressive Social Security-claiming strategies, which allow upper-income beneficiaries to manipulate the timing of collection of Social Security benefits in order to maximize delayed retirement credits” was something the president included in his fiscal-year 2015 budget, not something the administration reluctantly agreed to. And most advocates, including the Social Security Works coalition, to which EPI belongs, think it’s a loophole that needs to be closed, since the purpose of the delayed retirement credit is to equalize lifetime benefits, not to give savvier beneficiaries who can afford to delay take-up a little something extra. The dissidents counter that a benefit cut by any other name is still a benefit cut, and say it’s a strategy that can help divorced women, who can be particularly vulnerable in retirement.

The dissidents make a strong case with feminist appeal. But it’s still double dipping even if a few people who take advantage actually need a larger benefit. In the end, it all seems a distraction from the benefits of the agreement, which include averting large benefit cuts to disabled beneficiaries.”

THE REST:

http://www.ncpssm.org/EntitledtoKnow/entryid/2164/no-the-budget-deal-did-not-cut-your-social-security-benefits

[liberal_at_heart]

8. the minute you mean test SS is the minute Republicans call it welfare, demonize it, and

begin destroying it. Workers paid into the system. It is their money. Congress has no right to cut it at all. SS must be expanded, not cut.