[Topspinmo]

Originally Posted by Pugchief

False. You have to contribute for 40 quarters in order to collect SS.

Correct I was confused with SSI.

[Topspinmo]

Originally Posted by Topspinmo

When you turn 65 you get SS whether you paid into it or not. Some spouses never had opportunities to work or have successful career. Beside SS was meant for poor or lower middle class.

I was corrected it’s SSI can get without working a day at 65.

[jpvillager]

Easy SS fix. Pay back all the money the federal government borrowed/took from SS.

[Topspinmo]

Originally Posted by jpvillager

Easy SS fix. Pay back all the money the federal government borrowed/took from SS.

Why? they get more by collecting it.

[retiredguy123]

Update: The Social Security Fairness Act has now been signed into law.

[REDCART]

Originally Posted by jpvillager

Easy SS fix. Pay back all the money the federal government borrowed/took from SS.

As I understand the issue. The US Gvt borrowed and repaid the funds it borrowed from the SS Trust funds. The scandal, for lack of a better name, was that the US Gvt borrowed these funds at less than the prevailing rate of interest. You think there was a slight conflict of interest? Would the difference in the interest rate have made a serious difference?

[ElDiabloJoe]

Originally Posted by REDCART

As I understand the issue. The US Gvt borrowed and repaid the funds it borrowed from the SS Trust funds. The scandal, for lack of a better name, was that the US Gvt borrowed these funds at less than the prevailing rate of interest. You think there was a slight conflict of interest? Would the difference in the interest rate have made a serious difference?

Yes, the difference would make a difference. That loss of interest (let's say they paid $3 back in interest instead of the market rate of $5) would compound for years and years and years and would become very significant. Remember, SS is a long-term game, not an overnight loan.

[retiredguy123]

I applied for benefits under this new law, and it was approved within 10 days. Apparently, I will be immediately receiving 6 months of back pay from the application date and a regular monthly check starting in February. But, the SS representative said that the current law only allows the payments to be retroactive for 6 months back, even though the new law requires retroactive payments for 12 months back to December, 2023. I never submitted an application for spouse benefits because I knew that the GPO (Government Pension Offset) would totally wipe out any benefits. So, it sounds like they are applying the new law, but not the retroactivity that was included in it. Hopefully, the Government will correct this discrepancy between the current law and the new law. I would appreciate any additional information that anyone has about this issue.

[Topspinmo]

Originally Posted by REDCART

As I understand the issue. The US Gvt borrowed and repaid the funds it borrowed from the SS Trust funds. The scandal, for lack of a better name, was that the US Gvt borrowed these funds at less than the prevailing rate of interest. You think there was a slight conflict of interest? Would the difference in the interest rate have made a serious difference?

Federal government won’t pay interest on federal money nor are there any penalties. On the other hand the tax payers one that suffer.

[dhsmith]

Due we have to apply to SS Administration under this new law or will SS Administration automatically update our records and start paying what we’re due?

[retiredguy123]

Originally Posted by dhsmith

Due we have to apply to SS Administration under this new law or will SS Administration automatically update our records and start paying what we’re due?

I think that, If you are already receiving benefits, your benefits will automatically increase. But, if you have never applied for benefits, you must apply.

[Normal]

Originally Posted by REDCART

As I understand the issue. The US Gvt borrowed and repaid the funds it borrowed from the SS Trust funds. The scandal, for lack of a better name, was that the US Gvt borrowed these funds at less than the prevailing rate of interest. You think there was a slight conflict of interest? Would the difference in the interest rate have made a serious difference?

The money was borrowed, but never actually returned. It started in 1965 to help pay for the Vietnamese war. It’s kind of like your kids borrowing money, in most cases don’t expect it back. Currently the US government owes almost 3 trillion to the fund.

[biker1]

You are essentially correct. Treasury has issued special T-Bills to the SSA because FICA tax revenue exceeded benefits paid until recently. This is often referred to as the Trust Fund and currently has a value of about $2.8T. SSA began cashing in those T-Bills around 2021, when benefits paid exceeded FICA tax revenue. The Trust Fund will be exhausted around 2033 and benefits will decrease by about 23% as that is the level that can be supported by only incoming FICA taxes. Any suggestion that Treasury isn't going to pay back the Trust Fund is incorrect. Another way to look at the situation is that Treasury has permission to go out on the global markets and borrow $2.8T to provide funds to the SSA as they draw down the Trust Fund. This is obviously a less than ideal situation.

Originally Posted by Normal

The money was borrowed, but never actually returned. It started in 1965 to help pay for the Vietnamese war. It’s kind of like your kids borrowing money, in most cases don’t expect it back. Currently the US government owes almost 3 trillion to the fund.

[Nell57]

Originally Posted by retiredguy123

I applied for benefits under this new law, and it was approved within 10 days. Apparently, I will be immediately receiving 6 months of back pay from the application date and a regular monthly check starting in February. But, the SS representative said that the current law only allows the payments to be retroactive for 6 months back, even though the new law requires retroactive payments for 12 months back to December, 2023. I never submitted an application for spouse benefits because I knew that the GPO (Government Pension Offset) would totally wipe out any benefits. So, it sounds like they are applying the new law, but not the retroactivity that was included in it. Hopefully, the Government will correct this discrepancy between the current law and the new law. I would appreciate any additional information that anyone has about this issue.

How did you apply? I was rejected in the past….i guess I need to re-apply now that GPO was repealed.

[retiredguy123]

Originally Posted by Nell57

How did you apply? I was rejected in the past….i guess I need to re-apply now that GPO was repealed.

I completed the application online at SSA.gov.