SSDI cut in 2016

Date of Disability is part of multiple equations that makes determination on how much you would earn when you apply for SSDI, that is if I remember correctly.

CrazyPaul said:
As long as you have medical reports to show when your disability began BUT you are 100% right that when an application is done, the SSA starts to count the months.

For example, I work for 25 years, even though I am deaf, I can't work any longer due to chronic back pain that prevents me to work. The day I apply for SSDI, SSA starts to count it. It doesn't count my days/months/years of my deafness. I know because a lot of my deaf friends who are on SSDI told me. When I said disabled, I mean an inability to work.

To apply for SSI, the policy is not the same as the policy for SSDI.
Click to expand...
 
diehardbiker said:
Date of Disability is part of multiple equations that makes determination on how much you would earn when you apply for SSDI, that is if I remember correctly.
Click to expand...
I have edited my post before you replied. Yes, the amount of SSDI depends how long you have worked after you earned enough credits to be eligible. In other words, SSDI pays more than SSI. SSI is different from SSDI since SSI is available for no/low disabled people who have never worked or have stopped working before they could earn enough credits to be eligible for SSDI.

I have worked for USPS for 30 years. Many people asked me why I am not retiring. I told them that a SS retirement benefit starts at the age of 62 (I am 57). Nevertheless, some deaf co-workers pointed out that I can retire now and get USPS pension (for which USPS employees are eligible at the age of 56) and at the same time, apply for SSDI because I am deaf. :hmm:
 
Last edited:
CrazyPaul said:
I have edited my post before you replied. Yes, the amount of SSDI depends how long you have worked after you earned enough credits to be eligible. In other words, SSDI pays more than SSI. SSI is different from SSDI since SSI is available for no/low disabled people who have never worked or have stopped working before they could earn enough credits to be eligible for SSDI.

I have worked for USPS for 30 years. Many people asked me why I am not retiring. I told them that a SS retirement benefit starts at the age of 62 (I am 57). However, some deaf co-workers pointed out that I can retire now and get USPS pension and at the same time, apply for SSDI because I am deaf. :hmm:
Click to expand...
Right - your average earnings over ten years is the formula for SSDI. It's not dependent on anything else except your disability. I've been collecting pension from IBM since I turned 55 because the old equations are no longer valid. You want to collect as soon as you can to make more in the long run.

You may want to consider getting SSDI now except you'll need a valid reason for it - a hearing loss or being deaf/Deaf is one thing and SSDI will go beyond looking at that.
 
Foxrac said:
It is congressional rule, not bill to make a law.
Click to expand...

Law, rule, it's not going to happen. The only way it can happen is if they do it this year, and soon. The new Congress is just throwing their weight around and they have other things they want to do right now ie: rid the country of the ACA (not ADA). In 2016 all of the seats of the party in power will be up for grabs and in no way to they want to tell their constituents they had anything to do with "cutting Social Security" SDI or otherwise. Neither do any of the final 2 people running for president. Expect most Senators to steer clear of this bomb in 2016.

As previously noted SSD fraud is .04%, one of the lowest type of entitlement fraud anywhere.

Worse case -- it happens in 2015, maybe 5 to 6% cut. Most likely they'll kick the can down the road and this thread will be long forgotten.
 
ASLuser101 said:
Law, rule, it's not going to happen. The only way it can happen is if they do it this year, and soon. The new Congress is just throwing their weight around and they have other things they want to do right now ie: rid the country of the ACA (not ADA). In 2016 all of the seats of the party in power will be up for grabs and in no way to they want to tell their constituents they had anything to do with "cutting Social Security" SDI or otherwise. Neither do any of the final 2 people running for president. Expect most Senators to steer clear of this bomb in 2016.

As previously noted SSD fraud is .04%, one of the lowest type of entitlement fraud anywhere.

Worse case -- it happens in 2015, maybe 5 to 6% cut. Most likely they'll kick the can down the road and this thread will be long forgotten.
Click to expand...

I think you need to re-check my source.

Source from my first post
The Social Security Administration's actuaries have projected that the disability insurance program's trust fund will run out of money next year, resulting in a 20 percent benefit reduction for nearly 11 million Americans. Since last year, Social Security advocates have been calling on lawmakers to shift funds from the retirement program to make up the difference -- something Congress has done 11 times since the 1950s.
Click to expand...

If the congress doesn't fix SSDI so our SSDI will be cut by 20% and if you collect $1,000 per month in SSDI but you will get $800 instead.

The House on Tuesday passed legislation laying out parliamentary rules for the year. The bill included a little-noticed provision blocking Congress from shifting funds to prevent a 2016 shortfall in Social Security's disability insurance program.
Click to expand...

The congress passed the rule so it means change to SSDI isn't going happen until next year or more worse, Jan 2017.
 
If anyone actually read the first two articles posted - both articles basically said its a "scare tactic" terrorist way of doing this by hold SSA policies as hostage by threatening to change it to make it worse without regards of the people ALREADY on SSDI.
This is not about how to apply or why or what the rules are for Americans to apply for SSDI benefits. Its about congress/gop wanting to make changes and they are coming up with a long term lever strategy as the talks goes on. However if it goes south, we the SSA receivers will pay for their war(s) dearly and the future disabled folks whom the society failed to hire because of their disability and unwilling to make accommodations and make unproven false reasons for not hiring.

Trust me, many of us is unable to work due to people not willing to hire us and be fair with our disabilities. Its too hard to prove their thinking as HR do not want to get fired or sued. They are looking out for the owners of businesses more then they are looking out for the Americans society being able to work. From MY pint of view - when the twin towers fell, pentagon hit - things changed in the workforce for the worse. We lost the true american spirit to keep jobs here. we fell into the recession. Granted - something is at work right now to bring america back on top with us finally out of recession, economy is improving, gas prices mysteriously dropped big time (dont get me started on this one with oil prices).
 
well there is no affirmative action requirement in the ADA. That is why "whether are you disabled?" on most application and admission forms are not there anymore.

As with Gallaudet, well, "are you deaf" is required but "illegally". I point this out to a deaf administrator who go red faced at The Market food place. hehehehe

in some European countries, they have a similar rule. Companies have to hire PWDs or pay a fine. The fine goes to their SSDI-style program.
 
About Gally, they ask Deafness question because it is funded by Federal, and the Federal law specifically that grants has to be toward to Deaf not hearing. I know it sounds discrimination but really it is not. That is because there are only 2 schools that get the bulk of federal funds designed to help Deaf with their education, while on other hand Hearing got thousands of choices, and still can get grants, scholarship, etc. So, that question asking whether applicant is Deaf or not is really valid and is not part of discrimination.

Same with Social Security Administrator, they always ask if one's disabled or not... Is it illegal? You can answer that question.

mikemike said:
well there is no affirmative action requirement in the ADA. That is why "whether are you disabled?" on most application and admission forms are not there anymore.

As with Gallaudet, well, "are you deaf" is required but "illegally". I point this out to a deaf administrator who go red faced at The Market food place. hehehehe

in some European countries, they have a similar rule. Companies have to hire PWDs or pay a fine. The fine goes to their SSDI-style program.
Click to expand...
 
Well, I'm not on the disability side of SS so I guess I don't have to worry about that, right?
 
PowerON said:
Because we felt there are too many deaf abuse their system by use it all the time. Yet, it would put threat to other disability than just deaf but deaf-blind, CP, etc.
Click to expand...

The deaf have an actual disability and actual problems finding and retaining employment.

The problem is the 20 year old single mom who she managed to trick the system and get her and her five kids all with different fathers on SSI.

People with actual disabilities need help but people who go from cradle to grave and their only disability is they gamed the system are the problem. Deaf people and many other people with severe disabilities to where they cannot function because a vital organ is broke are not the problem.

Though I do agree the baby boomers who believed in free love and drinking and partying all doing whatever they want to rebel who claim to be the best representation of rebeling right are also the problem being that they have destroyed their bodies to where dialysis clinics have replaced large shopping stores so a bunch of them can get their blood cleaned so they can survive. Without the dialysis machines the baby boomers as a generation are dead within weeks.

I actually had a dialysis patient tell me they love it when it rains because chances are higher a young person will crash and die so he can get a new kidney
 
Back
Top