3 ms·

As discussed elsewhere in the comments here, and as discussed in the article, there is indeed a phaseout for income. Every $1 you make above $85 reduces your be

by paulmd 4y ago

As discussed elsewhere in the comments here, and as discussed in the article, there is indeed a phaseout for income. Every $1 you make above $85 reduces your benefits by $0.50, so they are doing exactly what you suggest. The $2000 number is a cap for wealth, not income. The problem isn’t having a phaseout or not anyway - we could set a wealth cliff of $50k and that would be perfectly fine. It’s the numbers that matter, where the phaseout or cliff is placed and how steep a phaseout. $85 a month is a redonkulous place to put the phaseout even if phaseouts are “better” - that is a worse policy than a 50k a month cliff! And you’re right, the reasons the number hasn’t been adjusted since 1935 (in 1989 the number was inherited from a prior program, it wasn’t adjusted at that time) is because of political will. Social spending on anyone other than the elderly is extremely unpopular in the US.

jnovek 4y ago
Not for SSDI. There’s a strict cutoff that’s adjusted every year. This year it’s $1350 — if you make more than $1350 any given month, you do not receive benefits for that month.
guerrilla 4y ago
I don't know why you'd have any wealth cutoff. This is a replacement for their income because they can't make any income due to disability. What business does anyone have dictating anything else about their life. None. That's very authoritarian.
lostcolony 4y ago
From my post - 'And something similar with assets (though admittedly the details would be trickier to avoid it being gamed).' I honestly don't care if $85k is the cutoff. I don't care if there is a cutoff at all (but I recognize some people don't like the idea that if a millionaire becomes disabled he'd be eligible for some amount of money from the government). If someone becomes disabled or whatever, and they have money saved from working, why would they not get benefits? Why do they have to deplete their savings first to get shitty benefits? Social security doesn't have an income or asset cutoff; why does disability? I actually personally agree with the sister post of just...paying people based on their disability, without caring about how much other income they're able to generate, or assets they collect. But I recognize how politically untenable that is.

by paulmd 4y ago

jnovek 4y ago

Not for SSDI. There’s a strict cutoff that’s adjusted every year. This year it’s $1350 — if you make more than $1350 any given month, you do not receive benefits for that month.

guerrilla 4y ago

I don't know why you'd have any wealth cutoff. This is a replacement for their income because they can't make any income due to disability. What business does anyone have dictating anything else about their life. None. That's very authoritarian.

lostcolony 4y ago

From my post - 'And something similar with assets (though admittedly the details would be trickier to avoid it being gamed).' I honestly don't care if $85k is the cutoff. I don't care if there is a cutoff at all (but I recognize some people don't like the idea that if a millionaire becomes disabled he'd be eligible for some amount of money from the government). If someone becomes disabled or whatever, and they have money saved from working, why would they not get benefits? Why do they have to deplete their savings first to get shitty benefits? Social security doesn't have an income or asset cutoff; why does disability? I actually personally agree with the sister post of just...paying people based on their disability, without caring about how much other income they're able to generate, or assets they collect. But I recognize how politically untenable that is.