It wasn't only Forbes. There have been internet ads on this out the wazoo for years.
Posted on 10/29/2015 6:55:32 PM PDT by SkyPilot
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 involving File-and-Suspend and Restricted Applications for spousal benefits.
Those may be going away. Under this week’s two-year budget agreement between Congressional leaders and the White House, Congress will close these loopholes in the Social Security rules. While it remains to be seen whether the agreement will become law in its current form, the new rules mean that anyone receiving spousal benefits under file-and-suspend would have them terminated next spring
The agreement actually extends the rules for deemed application, making it no longer be possible to file a restricted application for just spousal benefits. In addition, by also extending the “suspension†rules that stipulate that suspending an individual’s benefitsalso suspends any benefits to other people based on the same earnings record, Congress will negate the various “File and Suspend†strategies that permit spousal and dependent benefits to be paid while the primary earner still receives delayed retirement credits.
Perhaps the most notable aspect of this new Social Security crackdown, though, is the effective date. While the new limits to Restricted Application will not apply to anyone who is already age 62 or older in 2015, the new crackdown may suspend current spousal or dependent benefits in 6 months for those who are only receiving those benefits thanks to File-and-Suspend! In other words, those who already engaged in the File-and-Suspend strategy may find it terminated mid-stream, and no benefits will be payable until the individual...
(Excerpt) Read more at nasdaq.com ...
They cannot do what they want to do, constitutionally.
Actually, they can. And they have done it before.
In the 50's, Congress eliminated Social Security benefits for a small class of people. One guy was already collecting, and was cut off. He sued.
It went all the way to the US Supreme Court. He lost. The Court said that Congress had reserved the power to change Social Security to themselves, without restriction.
You can look up the case: Flemming v. Nestor.
It's why I have been telling everyone: you have no contractual right to Social Security benefits. The only leverage you have is political -- if Congress makes changes to Social Security you don't like, the only recourse you have is to vote against them.
No, he didn't forget it. He's absolutely correct.
See my post 41 immediately above...
“The GOP cuts Social Security benefits while giving a blank check to crony capitalists AKA the resurrected Ex-Im Bank.”
And illegals
Forbes recommended people take advantage of this -they should’ve kept quite and the politicians wouldn’t have known it existed. but there’s plenty of money for illegals and ‘refugees’
You obviously do not understand my comments.
When Congress has encouraged an action to be taken, they cannot legislate a penalty for doing so at a later date.
As for the rest of your comments, they hinge on the folly of a completely unconstitutional rogue court. Contractual obligations are protected by the constitution, even though the court likes to pretend that they are not.
.
Like the Lautenberg Amendment?
They have been doing what they d@mn well please for a long time.
O.K....I looked up the Nestor case.
Seems he was a deported commie that tried to draw benefits from overseas. Back in the day when commies were deported and not running the government.
Sure, I saw the ruling of “no obligation”.
But I would be hard pressed to see that such a thing would happen to every day Americans.
It may not be obligatory...but there is a certain amount of obligation from the government for making a promise and a mandatory deduction from every paycheck...with the promise of a later return.
It’s not welfare. Apples and oranges.
Take a look at the decision. It was handed down back in 1960.
And regardless of whether you agree with them, it's settled law. It will require a contrary Court decision to vacate it, and historically that's very rare.
As I wrote earlier, the only obligation is political.
Almost every dollar that was collected from you was paid to your parents and grandparents. A small percentage went into the Trust Fund, but if you are still contributing -- even that's no longer happening. Social Security officially started spending more money than it takes in back in 2010, and last year they started withdrawing more from the Trust Fund than it earns in interest.
The only "promise of a later return" that you have is that a younger generation will be taxed to do the same for you.
Ever looked at your own Social Security statement? Have you ever noticed that they don't even tell you how much taxes have been paid on your behalf? All they tell you is how much wages were taxed. That should be a clue that there's no balance out there waiting for you.
But, here's the real problem. Go look at the Social Security Trustee's report for 2015. Starting at the bottom of page 5, they lay it out in stark black and white.
Unless the law is immediately changed to increase payroll taxes by 21%, reduce benefits for EVERYONE by 16%, or some combination thereof, Social Security will not have enough revenue to pay benefits through 2090.
If nothing is done, the shortfall will occur about 2034. And if that happens, benefits will be cut by about 23%. Social Security has no choice: they can't print money.
We are way past the point of be able to do anything small to "tweak" benefits or taxes. We lost that opportunity about 20 years ago. And now, it's going to be painful -- and gets worse every day.
No...the obligation is not political. It is a matter of honor. I’m sorry if I’m old school and tell you that I’m going to do something and then don’t follow thru it is wrong. This is the Federal Government...not some scam artist that I allow to take money from my check.
Do I think SS was Constitutional? No I don’t. Do I think there need to be reforms. Of course I do. I actually think the program needs to be gradually phased out.
If a private company raided pension funds...they would be sitting in prison. Would they not?
No actually I didn’t. SS is a welfare program. We don’t like to think of it as such, but it operates essentially the same as AFDC. Both pay monthly income for you to stay at home. The qualification requirements and age requirements are of course different, but its not a retirement program in the sense that a 401 k is. It’s merely a wealth transfer program that operates at the pleasure of the politicians. It could be cut or eliminated tomorrow.
Those social security taxes you pay are merely a tax and bear only a passing relationship to what you get out of the SS welfare program. You could work for 9 years, get run over by a truck, and your family would get essentially nothing. Conversely, you could work for 11 years and draw a series of welfare checks over a lifetime that dwarf the amount of taxes you paid.
We should stop adopting the myths and narrative of the left. SS isn’t a retirement plan, it’s welfare. SS “contributions” are not voluntary contributions to a retirement plan, they are taxes. Don’t pay them and sooner or later you’re going to find yourself in a cage.
Sure they can. They do it every year when they change the tax code that is twice the size of a phone book. They change other legislation all the time.
Agree.
It wasn't only Forbes. There have been internet ads on this out the wazoo for years.
Lol. AARP keeps sending me mail and offers. I throw them all away. Ever since they endorsed ObamaCare I have put them in the Obama pile.
2013.
Agree 100%.
That is true. And under Obama and our weak Congress, the gibsmedats have had their litany of gibs expanded and increased.
I must admit....I back as much stuff into the SASE and send it back to them.
I told them years ago, to take me off their mailing list. They didn’t...so I let them pay. ;(
RR “....It never ceases to amaze me how people on welfare are the truly untouchables, but our seniors or military members are fair game...”
A fact which should be brought up and hammered home by Trump and/or Cruz at every opportunity.
It is shameful what is being done to people who worked all their lives and now see that there’s little left of the money that was ostensibly put aside for them.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.