4 ms·

My key takeaways: * SSI is run by the Social Security Administration (SSA), and it is a basic income of sorts given to some people who have little or no other

My key takeaways: * SSI is run by the Social Security Administration (SSA), and it is a basic income of sorts given to some people who have little or no other income * While SSI and its asset cap are obviously not taxes —the government is paying out money, not taking it in —there’s a similar property to many tax systems: as you make more money and become more self-sufficient, you lose some of those gains to government policy * You really do have to play “hot potato” with your money, never saving more than three months of income (assuming you get the usual benefit) at a time, unless you can divert your money into a category that’s excluded from the SSA’s definition of resources * So to manage life as a disabled SSI recipient, you might need to carefully separate out your different types of spending between your ABLE account and your ordinary checking account —which still can’t get above $2,000 * “It's making all disabled people into accountants, because you have to be one to follow these rules." * That $2,000 limit is not indexed for inflation and has not been updated since 1989

dragonwriter 4y ago
> it is a basic income of sorts given to some people who have little or no other income Can people please stop calling means tested benefit programs “basic income“ to try to capitalize on the mindshare of an idea explicitly defined in reaction against means-tested benefit programs?
Reichhardt 4y ago
Its highly inefficient for millions of individuals welfare recipients to being independently purchasing accommodation, entertainment, utilities, food. A superior solution would be for Governments to setup large establishments where all of these services could be provided centrally and directly. Individuals could contribute their labor to maintain the establishment.
- ad404b8a372f2b9 4y ago
  That's called institutionalization and nobody wants that for themselves or the people they care about.
  - turtledove 4y ago
    Or it's called social housing, food assistance, and single payer healthcare?
    - ad404b8a372f2b9 4y ago
      Those already exists so presumably that's not what the comment I responded to is referring to, in addition it was put in opposition to welfare recipients having the ability to choose how they spend what they receive so there is no equivalency.
      - turtledove 4y ago
        Do they? I mean, maybe, but definitely not in the States.
floxy 4y ago
My key takeaways: * There is a bi-partisan bill that has been introduced into the Senate to fix this. * The new savings limits would be $10,000 per person / $20,000 per couple, and would be indexed to inflation. * This is senate bill S.4102 (https://www.congress.gov/bill/117th-congress/senate-bill/4102/text?r=5&s=1 https://www.congress.gov/bill/117th-congress/senate-bill/410...) * So I suppose we should call or write our senators to help push this along.
- paulmd 4y ago
  Dead on arrival. If it’s bipartisan, who are the republican co-sponsors? Doubt there are any. And a significant number of democrats will block it. Manchin and Sinema aren’t going to “expand welfare”.
  - floxy 4y ago
    >If it’s bipartisan, who are the republican co-sponsors? Rob Portman: https://www.portman.senate.gov/newsroom/press-releases/portman-brown-introduce-bipartisan-legislation-reform-supplemental-security https://www.portman.senate.gov/newsroom/press-releases/portm...
    - paulmd 4y ago
      Ok, one Republican co-sponsor, and it’ll need at least 11 to pass the senate (Manchin will never vote for it). If you think it’ll pass it’s probably easy money on predictit, right? It won’t, dead on arrival.
- dclowd9901 4y ago
  Why have any limit at all. What the hell does a limit even accomplish?
  - Sohcahtoa82 4y ago
    To prevent a multimillionaire who becomes disabled from collecting disability because they don't need it. They're punishing hundreds of thousands of people in order to prevent the abuse of a few dozen.
unethical_ban 4y ago
>as you make more money and become more self-sufficient, you lose some of those gains to government policy Not quite. With a progressive income bracket and a simple tax scenario (1040EZ kind of thing), there is never a time where an increase in salary implies a net decrease in take-home pay. Going "into the next bracket" means your marginal dollars (the new ones you are making) get taxed at a higher rate, not your entire income. This SSI situation does punish people, however, and it is clearly not the only assistance system with an all-or-nothing cutoff. The solution should either be to have a more intelligent system for measuring income, allowing people to put "excess" income into a focused-use bank account, or to scrap asset restrictions altogether. This sounds like the kind of requirement put in by politicians who have to pander to people who don't want to give money to "freeloaders".

dragonwriter 4y ago

> it is a basic income of sorts given to some people who have little or no other income Can people please stop calling means tested benefit programs “basic income“ to try to capitalize on the mindshare of an idea explicitly defined in reaction against means-tested benefit programs?

Reichhardt 4y ago

Its highly inefficient for millions of individuals welfare recipients to being independently purchasing accommodation, entertainment, utilities, food. A superior solution would be for Governments to setup large establishments where all of these services could be provided centrally and directly. Individuals could contribute their labor to maintain the establishment.

ad404b8a372f2b9 4y ago
That's called institutionalization and nobody wants that for themselves or the people they care about.
- turtledove 4y ago
  Or it's called social housing, food assistance, and single payer healthcare?
  - ad404b8a372f2b9 4y ago
    Those already exists so presumably that's not what the comment I responded to is referring to, in addition it was put in opposition to welfare recipients having the ability to choose how they spend what they receive so there is no equivalency.
    - turtledove 4y ago
      Do they? I mean, maybe, but definitely not in the States.

floxy 4y ago

My key takeaways: * There is a bi-partisan bill that has been introduced into the Senate to fix this. * The new savings limits would be $10,000 per person / $20,000 per couple, and would be indexed to inflation. * This is senate bill S.4102 (https://www.congress.gov/bill/117th-congress/senate-bill/4102/text?r=5&s=1 https://www.congress.gov/bill/117th-congress/senate-bill/410...) * So I suppose we should call or write our senators to help push this along.

paulmd 4y ago
Dead on arrival. If it’s bipartisan, who are the republican co-sponsors? Doubt there are any. And a significant number of democrats will block it. Manchin and Sinema aren’t going to “expand welfare”.
- floxy 4y ago
  >If it’s bipartisan, who are the republican co-sponsors? Rob Portman: https://www.portman.senate.gov/newsroom/press-releases/portman-brown-introduce-bipartisan-legislation-reform-supplemental-security https://www.portman.senate.gov/newsroom/press-releases/portm...
  - paulmd 4y ago
    Ok, one Republican co-sponsor, and it’ll need at least 11 to pass the senate (Manchin will never vote for it). If you think it’ll pass it’s probably easy money on predictit, right? It won’t, dead on arrival.
dclowd9901 4y ago
Why have any limit at all. What the hell does a limit even accomplish?
- Sohcahtoa82 4y ago
  To prevent a multimillionaire who becomes disabled from collecting disability because they don't need it. They're punishing hundreds of thousands of people in order to prevent the abuse of a few dozen.

unethical_ban 4y ago

>as you make more money and become more self-sufficient, you lose some of those gains to government policy Not quite. With a progressive income bracket and a simple tax scenario (1040EZ kind of thing), there is never a time where an increase in salary implies a net decrease in take-home pay. Going "into the next bracket" means your marginal dollars (the new ones you are making) get taxed at a higher rate, not your entire income. This SSI situation does punish people, however, and it is clearly not the only assistance system with an all-or-nothing cutoff. The solution should either be to have a more intelligent system for measuring income, allowing people to put "excess" income into a focused-use bank account, or to scrap asset restrictions altogether. This sounds like the kind of requirement put in by politicians who have to pander to people who don't want to give money to "freeloaders".