Social Security

Are too many people on disability?

April 23, 2013 By Liz Weston

The number of people getting disability checks from the government has skyrocketed in the past three decades. The federal government spends more on cash payments to disabled workers than on food stamps and welfare combined.

This trend has drawn some media scrutiny lately. You may not have time to read everything that’s been written, so here’s an overview:

As jobs for people without college degrees have disappeared, many people who lose their jobs wind up on disability. Planet Money reporter Chana Joffe-Walt says in the NPR piece “Unfit for Work” that “disability has also become a de facto welfare program for people without a lot of education or job skills.” Qualifying for Social Security disability means you get about $13,000 a year, plus you qualify for Medicare, the government health insurance program for the elderly. For many who qualify, that may beat a minimum wage job with no benefits. “Going on disability means, assuming you rely only on those disability payments, you will be poor for the rest of your life. That’s the deal. And it’s a deal 14 million Americans have signed up for.”

The rise in people on disability, however, isn’t unexpected or solely the result of the lousy economy, according to a response to the NPR report by a group of former commissioners of the Social Security Administration, which oversees the disability programs. “The growth that we’ve seen was predicted by actuaries as early as 1994 and is mostly the result of two factors: baby boomers entering their high- disability years, and women entering the workforce in large numbers in the 1970s and 1980s so that more are now ‘insured’ for DI based on their own prior contributions,” the commissioners wrote. The commissioners point out that it’s not easy to get government disability and that most people who apply are denied. “The statutory standard for approval is very strict, and was made even more so in 1996,” the commissioners wrote.

Few people on government disability ever go back to work. Private disability insurers do a better job than the government programs of returning people to the workforce, according to this story in the Wall Street Journal. That shouldn’t be surprising, since qualifying for government disability is typically a lot tougher than the standards you have to meet to trigger private disability insurance payments. That means the folks getting government disability checks are often a lot sicker (in fact, one in five men and one in seven women die within 5 years of being approved for government disability). Private insurers are also, shall we say, eager to get people back to work (or at least off their benefits). Yet the discrepancy seems to offend the Journal, which also decided to blame people on government disability for at least some of our current economic malaise in “Workers stuck on disability stunt economy.”

As a taxpayer, I don’t want to foot the bill for someone who could work but doesn’t. But I’m also leary of attempts to paint government disability programs as a refuge for loafers.

Clearly, this is a complicated–and emotional–issue. You’ll be hearing more about it as Congress struggles with the budget and social safety net programs, so it would be worth spending a little time researching the facts.

“File and suspend” can boost Social Security benefits

October 15, 2012 By Liz Weston

Dear Liz: I am 63 and not nearly ready to collect Social Security. In fact I probably won’t be ready for quite a few years. My husband, who is 64, wants to collect on my Social Security as it is higher than his. Is there a way for him to do this that would not hurt me? I have called the Social Security office five times and have received five different answers. My husband went into the local office and they told him to have me apply for benefits and then after a short time send them a letter rescinding my application. That would allow him to collect on my work record and wouldn’t hurt my eventual benefit. I am not comfortable doing this. What do you suggest?

Answer: At your current age, you must start your own benefits for your husband to get a check based on your work record. The so-called spousal benefit is basically half your retirement benefit, and it will be somewhat reduced because your husband hasn’t achieved “full retirement age” (which is 66 for both of you). When he applies for spousal benefits, the Social Security Administration will compare that benefit with the one based on his own record and give him the larger of the two.

Starting benefits now, however, would lock you into a lower payment for the rest of your life. Your checks could be further reduced based on your earnings, if you continue to work.

If you can wait three years, you have another option called “file and suspend” that would allow your husband to collect a spousal benefit without reducing your eventual checks. Once you reach your full retirement age of 66, you can go to your local office to file for your benefit and then immediately suspend your application. That would allow your husband to collect a spousal benefit while your own uncollected benefit could continue to grow.

Another advantage for your hubby if you wait: He will have achieved his full retirement age when he starts receiving spousal benefits, so he would be allowed to switch to his own benefit later, if it’s larger. If he starts receiving spousal benefits before his full retirement age, he loses the option to switch.

You can learn more about the file-and-suspend strategy on the Social Security site at www.ssa.gov/retire2/yourspouse.htm. You may want to bring a printout of that page with you to the Social Security office. File and suspend is not an obscure strategy, but it doesn’t appear that your local office is quite aware of all the details.

Will your pension hurt your Social Security benefit?

September 4, 2012 By Liz Weston

Dear Liz: Could you please address the issue of Social Security for those with pensions? I understand that if you have a pension, you won’t get 100% of the standard monthly Social Security benefit. I believe that this happens even if you only have a defined contribution account. But I’ve never seen this discussed in news reports. Many people are surprised when I tell them this.

Answer: Perhaps they’re surprised because what you’re saying isn’t true.

Defined contribution plans, such as 401(k)s, don’t affect your Social Security benefit at all. Neither do most pensions. The time that a pension might affect your benefit is if you didn’t pay into Social Security while you were earning the pension.

Here’s how the Social Security website puts it: “A pension based on work that is not covered by Social Security (for example, federal civil service and some state or local government agencies, such as police officers and some teachers) may cause the amount of your Social Security benefit to be reduced.”

The reduction can come under one of two provisions. The first, called government pension offset, applies if you get a government pension not covered by Social Security and are eligible for Social Security benefits as a spouse or survivor. The spousal or survivor benefit may be reduced in that case. You can learn more at http://www.socialsecurity.gov/retire2/gpo.htm.

The second provision is the windfall elimination provision, which may reduce your Social Security or retirement benefit if you receive a pension from a job not covered by Social Security. You can learn more at http://www.socialsecurity.gov/retire2/wep.htm.

These provisions were put into place because some people with a pension from a job that didn’t pay into Social Security were getting more Social Security benefits than the system intended. If they worked mainly in the job with the pension, but also had jobs that paid Social Security taxes, their Social Security benefits were often calculated as if they were long-term, low-wage workers. Since Social Security is designed to replace a larger percentage of earnings for low-paid workers — and a smaller percentage for higher-paid workers — these folks wound up with a bigger benefit than their earnings actually justified.