Elk County Forum

We have been receiving all kinds of Mail and EMail Titled "END OF SOCIAL SECURITY". I have asked some people that I Respect and feel like are or should be in the know. Some have said DO NOT WORRY about IT, IT IS AN URBAN LEGEND, others claim they have it from good sources that it is real. I am trying to contact someone in My US Senator and/or Congressmans  office. I am 75 years old and Myrna is close behind me. We both started working at a very early age, I am not sure when I started Paying in, but we both Paid in until we were 65. In my opinion, if they cut both of us off, that is TOTALLY WRONG. If it is TRUE, it has to be the work of OBUMA AND HIS LEFTWING, LIBERALS IN WASHINGTON. I would really like to see some responses from some of my friends and even,  some of you that I have had some negative discussions and/ or have made some  negative comments to.

Snopes says it's mostly false.

http://www.snopes.com/social-security-changes-may-2016/ (http://www.snopes.com/social-security-changes-may-2016/)

Thanks Mom, I have printed it to read and add it to all the other Information and Responses I have received from various sources, It is hard to know what to think or believe..

MOM, I have Emailed it to The Head of Raymond James Investments, in Bartlesville, I will let you know what she says.

Frank... From https://www.truthorfiction.com/action-needed-for-social-security-changes-on-may-1-2016/

Action Needed for Social Security Changes on May 1, 2016-Mostly Truth!

Summary of eRumor:
There are warnings that action might be needed to prevent Social Security benefit changes set to take effect on May 1, 2016 under the Bipartisan Budget Act of 2015.

The Truth:
Changes to Social Security's "file and suspend" rules are set to take effect on May 1, 2016, and some people do need to take action before that to "opt out" of new rules.

Changes to Social Security usually create a lot of panic among those who rely on it, so it's important to note upfront that no changes will be made to how "core benefits" are calculated. In other words, if you already receive Social Security payments, these changes won't impact your eligibility, or how much you receive.

Social Security changes set to take effect on May 1, 2016, pertain to its "file and suspend" rules. Congress approved the changes through the Bipartisan Budget Act of 2015 (HR 1314). Basically, the changes apply to spousal benefits and to switching from spousal benefits to worker benefits before the age of 70.

Under old rules, once a person reached the full retirement age (FRA) of 66, they could file for benefits and immediately suspend them until a later date. Then, a spouse age 62 or older could file for a spousal benefit and switch to a worker benefit until the age of 70. In the meantime, worker benefits for both spouses would continue to grow through delayed retirement credits.

The Bipartisan Budget Act makes to major changes to Social Security's file and suspend rule.

First, spouses will no longer be able to change from a spousal benefit to a worker benefit before the age of 70 — the beneficiary will immediately receive the larger of the two. Second, the act ends the ability of workers to file and suspend benefits to either trigger a spousal benefit, or to protect the right to retroactive benefits.

But there is a loophole that allows some Social Security beneficiaries who are approaching retirement age to be grandfathered into the old file and suspend rule before May 1, 2016, Forbes reports:

If you will be 66 years or older come May 1, 2016, and you have not started your Social Security benefits, you should consider "filing and suspending" your worker's benefits.  If you are married, the filing part triggers your spouse's right to begin spousal benefits. The "suspend" part signifies that you will not immediately receive your worker's benefit and the benefit will be deferred until you choose to claim it.  This will allow you to take advantage of the deferral credits, which increase your Social Security retirement benefits by 8 percent per year after full retirement age up until the age of 70.  Please note that this must be done before May 1, 2016 because after this date, a married worker will have to file and begin to receive benefits in order to trigger the spousal benefit.

Click here for information about how file and suspend Social Security benefits before May 1, 2016.
https://www.ssa.gov/planners/retire/suspend.html

At the same time, beware of scammers who could take advantage of this rule change to steal your identity or to access your bank accounts. Keep in mind that the Social Security Administration (SSA) will never send emails asking you for personal information.

Anytime your receive a suspicious phone call or email from someone claiming to represent the SSA, the agency advises that you immediately call your local Social Security office or call 1-800-772-1213 to see if it's a scam or not.

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

Government Could Withhold up to 30% from Social Security Checks in 2016-Truth! & Fiction!

Summary of eRumor:
Those who receive Social Security will see a 30% reduction in benefits in 2016.

The Truth:
Reports that a 30% cut could be coming to Social Security benefits checks are both true and false.
https://www.truthorfiction.com/government-could-withhold-up-to-30-from-social-security-checks-in-2016/

First, many people have confused the difference between Social Security retirement benefits and Social Security disability benefits.

Social Security retirement benefits, which are paid to retired adults who paid into the Social Security system for long enough to qualify, are not in danger of being cut by 30% in 2016. The government collects a 6.2% payroll tax from employees and employers, and 5.3% of that tax goes into the Old-Age and Survivors Insurance (OASI) trust fund to pay Social Security retirement benefits.
   
The possible 30% cut in 2016 applies only to Social Security disability insurance (DI), which pays benefits to about 11 million Americans who are severely disabled. The DI trust fund receives about 0.9% of the payroll tax collected by the government, and the Social Security disability insurance trust fund is in danger of being depleted by the end of 2016, according to the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities:

When lawmakers last redirected some payroll tax revenue from OASI to DI in 1994, they expected that step to keep DI solvent until 2016 given anticipated economic and demographic trends. Despite fluctuations in the meantime, current projections still anticipate depletion of the trust fund in 2016 as forecast.

DI's anticipated trust fund depletion does not indicate that the program is out of control or that it is "bankrupt;" if the trust fund were depleted and policymakers took no action, the program could still pay about 80 percent of benefits. But cutting benefits by one-fifth for an extremely vulnerable group of severely disabled Americans is unacceptable.

DI's finances should ideally be addressed in the context of legislation to restore overall Social Security solvency. But even if policymakers make progress toward a well-rounded solvency package before late 2016, which seems unlikely, any changes in DI benefits or eligibility would surely phase in gradually and hence do little to fully replenish the DI fund by 2016. Consequently, policymakers would still need to reallocate payroll tax revenues between the two programs. There is nothing novel or controversial in such a step, and failing to take it would be irresponsible.

While some have predicted that Social Security disability benefit payments could be cut by as much as 30% if Congress doesn't replenish the DI trust fund by the end of 2016, a report released in July 2016 found that the cuts would amount to about 19% in the fourth quarter of 2016, the New York Times reports:

The trustees of Social Security, including three cabinet secretaries, said the disability trust fund would be depleted in the last quarter of 2016. After that, they said, benefits would automatically be cut by 19 percent because revenues, largely from payroll taxes, would be sufficient to cover only 81 percent of scheduled benefit payments.

The report sets up a fight between President Obama and Republicans in Congress. Mr. Obama wants to replenish the disability trust fund by shifting some payroll tax revenues from Social Security's retirement trust fund.

Republicans, however, want more significant changes to improve the program's finances. These changes could include reductions in disability benefits, restrictions on eligibility, new measures to combat fraud or new strategies to help people return to work. In January, Republicans adopted a new rule in the House that could block a direct reallocation of money at the expense of the trust fund that provides benefits for retirees.

So, some of the claims about possible 30% cuts to Social Security disability insurance are true, and some are false. The exact amount of the cuts, which have been projected to be anywhere from 19-30%, is unknown. It's also not known whether Congress will solve the problem before the Social Security disability insurance trust fund runs dry in 2016, which would trigger those cuts.

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

Also, Frank... Checkout this from the Denver Post:
http://www.denverpost.com/editorials/ci_26257981/social-security-crisis-lingers

....and these:
http://www.cbpp.org/research/policy-basics-where-do-our-federal-tax-dollars-go?fa=view&id=1258

http://www.cbpp.org/research/federal-tax/policy-basics-federal-payroll-taxes?fa=view&id=3853

GOOD ONE, WARPH, THERE MAYBE MORE TRUTH THAN JOKE IN THAT, OBUMA AND HIS HENCHMEN AND HENCH WOMEN, COULD CARELESS ABOUT OLD CONSERVATIVE, RIGHTWING PEOPLE LIKE US. I HAVE A CALL IN TO MY US SENATOR AND CONGRESSMENS OFFICES. HOPEFULLY SOMEONE WILL CALL ME BACK. MYRNA AND I HAVE WORKED HARD ALL OF OUR LIFE, WE PAID ALOT INTO SOCIAL SECURITY AND WE ARE ENTITLED TO IT. SOME WHERE I HAVE HOW MUCH WE HAVE PAID IN AND IT IS A LOT OF MONEY. WARPH, YOU KEEP ON POSTING YOUR REALLY GOOD WIT, HUMOR AND WISDOM ON THE FORUM, IT AND WE NEED IT. UNFORTUNATELY HARDLY NOONE POSTS ANYTHING ANYMORE. SAD,SAD,SAD

The price of socialism cost a lot. 

The Founders never intended such to steal American's liberty. 

Why are you so worried that Obama is going to steal your social security?  This country will go broke before Obama and the Republicans ever defend American liberty.  Tyrants!


 

I do not often read you Posts, but since this one was/IS a Topic I started, I read it. Unfortunately I agree with you, WHICH IS A RARITY IN ITSELF.

Good deal.  You really do have some American conservative values.

Enjoy your SS as long as you can.

HAS ANYONE ELSE ON THE FORUM, RECEIVED AND/OR READ THE SAME THING WE HAVE. IF SO, PLEASE RESPOND ON THE FORUM. IF YOU DO NOT WANT TO BE SEEN ANSWERING ON THE FORUM, THEN PM ME. IF YOU PM ME I WILL EMAIL YOU SO WE CAN CORRESPOND THAT WAY.  IF THIS IS TRUE, OR EVEN HALF TRUE, IT WILL AFFECT ALOT OF PEOPLE. WALDO, I CAN HEAR YOUR GRANDPARENTS ON BOTH SIDES, IT WOULD NOT BE PRETTY.

Frank, just what are you afraid of?  I have read what Warph posted.  I had read it some where before and I do not find anything in it that is threatening us with the loss of Soc. Sec. payments or even a reduction in the amount of the payments.  Of course, mine is set and isn't affected in any way by this.  If you see something different, please explain it to me.  I  might not be seeing it right.  It seems to affect disabililty recipients more than anything else and they are not being cut off.

Not long ago I got a letter from SS confirming what my monthly check will be for 2016 and when it would be  deposited. It was about what I was expecting .No surprises  and no bad news. Didn't you all get one too?

Wilma, like I said in my Post, I have received emails and other correspondence that are saying it is both ways, And I am not sure who to believe. Iam going to check more,because We think OBUMA and company are capable of doing anything to take from us and give to all of the Illegas he is allowing to Pour in to the country.

There is no plan to end Social Security.

There is no plan or proposal in Congress to end Social Security. There are folks outside of Congress who would like to end it or drastically change it or curtail it, but that does not include anyone in Congress.

The changes taking effect on May 1 will not end the Social Security program.

The administration has, for some time, wanted to change the method of computing the COLA, Cost of Living Allowance, for Social Security. The government wants a method of computation that would be cheaper than the way it is computed now. For instance, it the COLA is computed at 2%, the government wants a way of computing and limiting it at, say, 1%. 

Any attempted effort to curtail COLAs would not end Social Security payments but would cut down on the annual COLA cost to the government and lessen the amount of the COLA to each individual each year. So far Congress has resisted.

The fact there was no COLA for Social Security this year was not an attempt to end the Social Security program. This has been only the third year since the law authorizing Social Security COLAs came into affect in 1975. The other two zero years were 2010 and 2011. The highest COLA ever granted was 14.3% in 1980. The president in office has no bearing on the COLA. The method of COLA computing is set by law.

Here is what I posted on Jan 20:


FILE AND SUSPEND
Currently, a married person — typically the higher wage earner in a couple — who's at least full retirement age could file for his or her own Social Security benefits and then immediately suspend those benefits while the spouse could file for spousal benefits. By doing this, the higher wage earner's benefits would grow 8% per year. In the meantime, the couple still get a Social Security check, and down the road the surviving spouse could get a higher benefit.
That option is ending for new filers starting May 1, 2016, so if you're interested, now's the time to apply. People already using this strategy will be grandfathered in until age 70.

RESTRICTED APPLICATION
This is also being phased out. Currently, individuals eligible for both a spousal benefit based their spouse's work record and a retirement benefit based on his or her own work record could choose to elect only a spousal benefit at full retirement age, according to Social Security Timing. That would let them collect a higher benefit later on.

Under the new law, however, only those born Jan. 1, 1954, or earlier can use this option. Anyone younger will just automatically get the larger of the two benefits, according to Social Security Timing.

SOCIAL SECURITY DISABILITY
The Social Security Disability trust was on pace to run out money next year and, as a result, millions of Americans were going to receive an automatic 19% reduction in their disability benefits in the fourth quarter of 2016. The new law fixes that by shifting payroll tax revenue from one Social Security trust fund — the Old-Age and Survivors Insurance Trust fund — to another, the Disability Insurance Trust Fund

MEDICARE PART B [I think a good many people on the forum are in the 70% that will continue to pay 104.70]
Some 30% of Medicare beneficiaries were expecting a 52% increase in their Medicare Part B medical insurance premiums and deductible in 2016. Under the new law, those beneficiaries — an estimated 17 million Americans — will pay about $119 per month, instead of $159.30, for Part B. (Some 70% of Medicare beneficiaries will continue to pay the same premium in 2016 as they did in 2015, $104.90.)

Beneficiaries, however, will also have to pay an extra $3 per month to help pay down a loan the government gave to Medicare to offset lost revenue. Plus, all Part B beneficiaries will see their annual deductible increase by 15% to about $166 in 2016.