4 ms·

Does an asset limit of 2,000 set in 1980 without any inflation adjustments and a hard cliff benefit removal sound sensible?

• therobots927 2y ago
  It makes sense if you don’t think about it too much.
• iteria 2y ago
  Is that where that came from? I used an inflation calculator and honestly, it would be extremely reasonable to say someone can't have more than 8K in savings and get this benefit. I hate that the US government never sets anything to inflation so we always have to play these games for everything with benefits.
  • WWLink 2y ago
    > tly, it would be extremely reasonable to say someone can't have more than 8K in savings Even 8k is really not "middle class" at all. Middle class is "I have 6 months to a year of income saved up in case of emergencies" and that isn't your 401k.
    • hollerith 2y ago
      Socioeconomic class is not defined by assets, but rather by income or if you want to get a little more sophisticated (to cover the case of the young person about to graduate from medical school) potential to earn income. Of course, if you have enough assets, you can derive reliable investment income from those assets, but $8K of assets will not reliably generate enough income to matter when considering what class the person is. In other words, if you have $8K in assets, but zero potential to earn income from your labor, you definitely do not meet the bar for being middle class.
      • hiatus 2y ago
        > Socioeconomic class is not defined by assets, but rather by income or if you want to get a little more sophisticated (to cover the case of the young person about to graduate from medical school) potential to earn income This doesn't make much sense to me. So a retired wealthy person who can draw income from investments is not upper class, even if they draw an income that would be considered middle class or lower?
        • hollerith 2y ago
          The point is that although income is not a perfect proxy for the nuanced thing that we mean by "socioeconomic class", it is a better proxy than net worth is.
          • hiatus 2y ago
            Why is it better if it can't account for things like inherited wealth? Are the descendants of billionaires not upper class at birth, with no income?
            • hollerith 2y ago
              It does account for the person who inherited $10 million or more because $10 million throws off at least $300,000 a year in reliable investment income, making that person upper class according to the income proxy.
        • WWLink 2y ago
          My standard for lower income class / middle income class / upper income class (not social, just income) is something along the lines of: Lower class: Has little or no savings, probably works a "gig" job that pays on 1099s. Maybe has several part time jobs. Middle class: Has 3-6+ months savings, the vast majority of their income is reported on a single W2 or 1099. Or they own a sole proprietorship kind of business. Either way, the majority of their income is coming from work or services. Net worth: Probably under $5M. Upper class: The vast majority of their income is reported as capital gains. Owns multiple real estate properties. Net worth: 5-$500M. Elite Upper class: I don't even know what to describe this as
  • NikkiA 2y ago
    As long as all wheelchairs and prosthetics are absolutely below $8k, since this is disabled people we're talking about.
  • harimau777 2y ago
    8k would mean that it would be very difficult for them to ever have a significant vacation (e.g. seeing another country). Depending on what counts as an asset, I could see most serious hobbyists having more than $8K in various tools and equipment. Basically, it seems to me that an $8K limit on assets could effectively mean that people on disability are not allowed to have a life.
  • mplewis 2y ago
    How much does a car cost?
    • hollerith 2y ago
      Your car does not count towards the asset limit as long as you own only one.
• rayiner 2y ago
  It sounds like typical government implementation shortcomings in a program that doesn’t get that much attention because most people never need or use it. That hardly warrants OP’s sweeping indictment, or baseless assertion that “the cruelty to otherwise normal people is the whole point.”