Why you should shop Social Security offices for the best deal. Social Security rules are complicated and change often. For the most recent “Ask Larry” columns, check out maximizemysocialsecurity.
Boston University economist Larry Kotlikoff has spent every week, for over two years, answering questions about what is likely your largest financial asset — your Social Security benefits. His Social Security original 3.
Social Security “mistakes” and his Social Security gotchas have prompted so many of you to write in that we feature “Ask Larry” every Monday. Find a complete list of his columns here. And keep sending us your Social Security questions. Kotlikoff’s state- of- the- art retirement software is available here, for free, in its “basic” version. His new book, “Get What’s Yours — the Secrets to Maxing Out Your Social Security Benefits,” (co- authored with Paul Solman and Making Sen$e Medicare columnist Phil Moeller) was published in February by Simon & Schuster.
Watch Larry explain how Paul and his wife could collect an extra $5. Social Security benefits: Many years ago, my close friend Michael Boskin, a Stanford economist, told me his dad had gone to several Social Security offices and received different benefit estimates. He went with the office that provided the highest payment. You mean people can shop Social Security for the best deal?” I asked, incredulous. Truth be told, I didn’t believe him. Yes, Michael was the senior public finance economist at Stanford and knew a ton about Social Security. Yes, he served as chairman of the Council of Economic Advisors.
Yes, he’s as honest and knowledgeable as it gets. But come on. How could different Social Security offices be dishing out different benefits?
The rules were the rules. There was no room for discretion. Alas, the rules are the rules, but different Social Security offices, or at least staff within the offices, have different interpretations of the rules, only one of which is right. In recent weeks, I’ve had four different people tell me or colleagues at my software company that Social Security offices were denying them the right, at or after reaching full retirement age and before age 7. Here is an email exchange between Michael O’Connor, the chief software engineer for our software, and Jerry Lutz, who checks over my answers provided in this weekly column. Jerry is a retired Technical Expert who worked with the Social Security Administration for 3.
Jerry,We have a client that is being told by their SS office that they can’t voluntarily suspend their RIB at their FRA since they have already been receiving benefits from age 6. The SS office is quoting the last sentence of GN0. Program Operating Manual System as the basis for their determination. This is in total disregard of GN 0. A. 1. How should we advise them to convince their SS office that they can voluntarily suspend?
Thanks,Mike. Here, by the way, is what GN 0. A says: Any primary retirement insurance benefit (RIB) applicant or beneficiary, whether reduced or unreduced, who has reached full retirement age (FRA) may voluntarily ask that we suspend his or her benefits to earn voluntary delayed retirement credits (VOLDRC). This request may be either written or oral, and we do not need a signature. This could not be any clearer. Furthermore, Jerry, when he worked for Social Security, helped people suspend their benefits after 2. Other Social Security staff around the country who actually understand the regs are routinely getting this right. Here’s Jerry’s reply to Mike: Mike,Example 1 in GN0.
Бытовые счетчики учета расхода холодной и горячей воды. Газовые котлы и колонки различных. MRC is a diversified global media company with operations in filmed entertainment, television programming and original digital content. The company is the industry. Ashford University offers online undergraduate programs which are administered by the academic colleges and the Forbes School of Business at Ashford University.
We already know that Michael Pachter expects Sony to launch the PS5 in 2019, and that he expects it to be backward compatible with PS4 Pro. In and of itself, this.
B. 1 is virtually impossible to misconstrue. I guess I would try pointing that out to them first.
If that doesn’t resolve the problem, she should submit a written request for voluntary suspension, specifying which month she wants the suspension to begin. Form SSA- 7. 95 would be the preferred SSA form for that purpose. A written request isn’t normally required, but that way she’d have a paper trail. Watch Star Trek: First Contact Streaming more.
Additionally, she can ask to speak to a technical expert or supervisor, and if that doesn’t work, she can contact the office of her congressional representative or U. S. senators. Jerry. Here is the example 1 in GN0. B. 1 with its preamble: Example 1 – Beneficiary is currently receiving benefits and he or she is FRA or over: A RIB beneficiary began receiving benefits at attainment of FRA in 1. On April 5, 2. 01.
She states that she will pay back all benefits. This beneficiary cannot suspend benefits retroactively since she already received benefits. Watch Song One Online.
The earliest we can place her in voluntary suspension is 0. June 2. 01. 1. Now, let’s focus on the last sentence in GN0. Mike: Voluntary suspension of current or retroactively due benefits is still possible only for a new RIB applicant who elects voluntary suspension before we make a determination that he or she is entitled to benefits and before payment is made. If you read this sentence in the context of the other sections referencing voluntary suspensions, it’s absolutely obvious that it references how Social Security should treat someone who is filing for a retirement benefit and simultaneously trying to suspend his/her retirement benefit. The proper wording of this clause should be: A new RIB applicant who is six months or more past full retirement age can elect up to six months of retroactive entitlement. If their benefits have not yet been determined to be payable (for example due to a delay in processing or due to the need for more documentation) and, therefore, have yet not been paid, they may elect to voluntarily suspend benefits retroactively to their initial month of entitlement.
An example here is someone who is now 6. She can suspend her benefits retroactively to age 6. The advantage of having the suspend apply retroactively is that suspended benefits can, upon request, be paid back in a single lump- sum check if the retiree needs cash for an emergency. Of course, in undoing the suspension, the worker loses her Delayed Retirement Credits going forward.
GOT SOCIAL SECURITY QUESTIONS? The bottom line: Michael Boskin was right.
You can and should shop different Social Security offices and staff manning the phones for the best deal. The best deal is the one that lets you maximize your lifetime benefits based on the system’s actual rules, not based on the rules that untrained and often overwhelmed Social Security staff invent. Anonymous – Okmulgee, Okla.: I just turned 6. I called the Social Security office to set up my survivors benefits.
AIG bonus payments controversy - Wikipedia. The AIG bonus payments controversy began in March 2. American International Group (AIG) insurance corporation was going to pay approximately $2. AIG is notable for having received taxpayer bailouts and in the fourth quarter of 2. Beyond the $1. 65 million in bonus payments that were announced, total bonuses for the financial unit could reach $4. Responses from politicians[edit]President Barack Obama said, "[I]t’s hard to understand how derivative traders at AIG warranted any bonuses, much less $1.
How do they justify this outrage to the taxpayers who are keeping the company afloat?" and "In the last six months, AIG has received substantial sums from the U. S. Treasury. I’ve asked Secretary Geithner to use that leverage and pursue every legal avenue to block these bonuses and make the American taxpayers whole."[3][4]Politicians on both sides of Congress reacted with outrage to the planned bonus payments. Senator. Chuck Grassley (Republican, Iowa) said "I would suggest the first thing that would make me feel a little bit better toward them if they'd follow the Japanese example and come before the American people and take that deep bow and say, I'm sorry, and then either do one of two things: resign or go commit suicide."[5] Senator Chuck Schumer (Democrat, New York) accused AIG of "Alice in Wonderland business practices" and said "It boggles the mind." He has threatened to tax the bonuses at up to 1.
Senator Richard Shelby (Republican, Alabama) said "These people brought this on themselves. Now you're rewarding failure. A lot of these people should be fired, not awarded bonuses. This is horrible. It's outrageous."[1] Senator Mitch Mc. Connell (Republican, Kentucky) echoed his comments, saying "This is an outrage."[7] Senator Jon Tester (Democrat, Montana) said "This is ridiculous." and AIG executives "need to understand that the only reason they even have a job is because of the taxpayers."[8] Senator Dick Durbin (Democrat, Illinois) said "I've had it." and "The fact that they continue to do it while we pour in billions of dollars is undefensible."[9] Representative Paul Hodes (Democrat, New Hampshire) said "I think AIG now stands for arrogance, incompetence and greed."[1.
Representative. Barney Frank (Democrat, Massachusetts), Chairman of the House Financial Services Committee, said paying these bonuses would be "rewarding incompetence"[8] and "These people may have a right to their bonuses. They don't have a right to their jobs forever."[1] Representative Mark Kirk (Republican, Illinois) said "AIG should not be on welfare from Uncle Sam, and yet paying bonuses and transferring a considerable amount of taxpayer funds to entities overseas."[1.
Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke said "It makes me angry. I slammed the phone more than a few times on discussing AIG."[1]Lawrence Summers, Director of the National Economic Council, said "The easy thing would be to just say, you know, ‘Off with their heads,’ and violate the contracts."[7]Austan Goolsbee, of the Council of Economic Advisers said "I don't know why they would follow a policy that's really not sensible, is obviously going to ignite the ire of millions of people." and "You worry about that backlash."[1. Representative Barney Frank said "I do want to stress, this initial intervention into AIG was not part of the congressional rescue plan.", "Before we were even asked by the Bush administration to do the rescue plan, President Bush‘s two top economic appointees Mr. Bernanke and Mr. Paulson came to us and said- -Mr. Bernanke, as head of the Federal Reserve is going to lend $8. AIG under a statute that dates back to 1.
They didn‘t ask us. They didn‘t solicit our opinion.
They simply informed us.", and "Since then, when we have voted, we have put tough conditions on. And, in fact, this won‘t be happening again. The conditions are so tough that there have been articles recently in the Washington Post and the New York Times from banks complaining that we‘ve made the conditions so tough they are going to give us our money back."[1.
Representative Thaddeus Mc. Cotter (R- Michigan) said in a speech to Congress, "Every single Democrat in this House that voted for that bill voted to approve and protect those AIG bonuses." [1. Senator Jim Inhofe (R- Oklahoma) said that much of the blame for the bonuses should be directed at the 7. Senators who voted for the bailout, ".. President Obama, who voted in favor of handing over an unprecedented amount of money and power to an unelected bureaucrat last August."[1. Tax on bonuses[edit]On March 1. House of Representatives approved, by a vote of 3.
Treasury aid from the Troubled Asset Relief Program (TARP).[1. The House bill affects individuals who make $2. December 3. 1, 2. The Senate version of the bill is similar to the House bill except it will levy a 7. Treasury aid from the Troubled Asset Relief Program (TARP). The 7. 0% tax will be paid through a 3.
Some commentators suggested that such a tax would run into constitutional problems, because Article 1, Section 9 of the U. S. Constitution prohibits Congress from enacting bill of attainder and ex post facto laws. However, Laurence Tribe, quoted in the blog of the Wall Street Journal, said that there were no insoluble constitutional difficulties.[1. The New York Times quoted experts on constitutional and tax law having said it was likely the House bill could pass muster. Numerous court rulings have upheld retroactive tax provisions, particularly over short periods (The House bill applies back only to January 1, 2. The measure is also strengthened by the fact that it does not apply to just one company or group of individuals, and does not take aim only at past bonuses paid in 2. In a March 2. 2, 2.
Wall St. Journal editorial, Jonathan Clements, a Citi employee, wrote, ".. October, I will hit $2.
At that point, I plan to ask Citi for an unpaid sabbatical." He also notes that some individuals have already received and spent most of their bonuses and will not be able to afford the tax.[1. A March 2. 4, 2. 00. CNN article said that private companies wouldn't feel comfortable doing business with the U. S. government if they thought the government would change the rules after the contracts have already been signed.[2. Also on March 2. 4, 2.
The Hill reported that Michael Feroli, a senior economist at JP Morgan, claimed that the tax would destroy one million U. S. jobs because it would put U.