U.S. Topic -- President Biden's Covid Stimulus Plan Includes Temporary $200 Monthly Raise in Social Security

[Jingthing]

This is at the policy proposal stage only. 

My understanding is that it will be retroactive to January 2021 if passed and the time span will be one year.

I wouldn't spend the extra money yet, but it's something to watch. 
Also there are other social security "raise" proposals which you can see in the link that if passed will help alot of people, including retired expats.

 

 

https://joebiden.com/the-biden-emergency-action-plan-to-save-the-economy/#

 

 

Increase monthly Social Security checks by $200/month, as proposed by Senator Wyden and colleagues. Seniors and people with disabilities are uniquely at risk right now.

[Pib]

Apparently this idea sprouted back in early 2020 with several senators.

 

https://www.warren.senate.gov/newsroom/press-releases/schumer-warren-and-wyden-unveil-plan-to-increase-benefits-by-200-per-month-for-all-social-security-beneficiaries

[Thomas J]

I am on social security.  My first question would be why?  Of anyone who has been relatively unaffected financially by the Covid pandemic it is retired people.  Retired people, me included have got their social security just like before.  Second, why $200 why not $1,000 or $100,000 if there are no consequences to just giving away money and having the treasury run up the federal debt even more.  These politicians are like drunken sailors.  The idea of borrowing money just to throw it at the economy is like someone running up credit card bills, buying a new home, new car, because they know they will be filing for bankruptcy soon.  

If the government wants "stimulus" at least put it into capital improvements like roads, bridges, the electric grid etc.  Those projects employ people but in the future they will pay a return.  Giving an extra $200 a month to retirees on social security so they can buy a nicer cut of meat at the Winn Dixie may help the grocery store.  However its benefit literally goes down the tank with the next bowel movement. 

[MeePeeMai]

Don't complain, take the free fiat and buy bitcoin with it. ✔️

[rabas]

27 minutes ago, Thomas J said:

I am on social security.  My first question would be why?  Of anyone who has been relatively unaffected financially by the Covid pandemic it is retired people.  Retired people, me included have got their social security just like before.  Second, why $200 why not $1,000 or $100,000 if there are no consequences to just giving away money and having the treasury run up the federal debt even more.  These politicians are like drunken sailors.  The idea of borrowing money just to throw it at the economy is like someone running up credit card bills, buying a new home, new car, because they know they will be filing for bankruptcy soon.  

If the government wants "stimulus" at least put it into capital improvements like roads, bridges, the electric grid etc.  Those projects employ people but in the future they will pay a return.  Giving an extra $200 a month to retirees on social security so they can buy a nicer cut of meat at the Winn Dixie may help the grocery store.  However its benefit literally goes down the tank with the next bowel movement. 

 

I doubt all SS recipients live a cushy life on their SS check. I lost significant supplemental income due to covid. 

 

I do agree about deficit spending and politicians.

[Jingthing]

This is NOT a political debate topic. It is NOT about whether the proposed temporary boost is good policy or not. Instead, it is only about the fact that this policy has been proposed and it's something that will be of interest to retired U.S. expats as it travels through the legislative process. I'm sure that everyone of whatever political opinions will be accepting this increase in payments if it is passed but of course people are always free to send donations back to the government. 

 

 

It might happen, it might not, or it might be different than the initial proposal (different amounts and time span).

 

Also of interest to retired expats (if passed) is whether this will just be added to monthly checks or be in the form of a one time payment that so many of us have had issues with actually receiving. For example in my case I haven't even received the initial 1200 dollar stimulus. I would assume this would be in the form of an automatic monthly increase, but that's a detail that can't be known at this point. 

 

Of course it's also possible that this increase (if passed) won't be for everyone on social security. For example there might be total income cutoff, a current social security level cutoff, or even excluding those living abroad. 

 

So, again, just something to watch for now.

[Why Me]

1 hour ago, Thomas J said:

I am on social security.  My first question would be why?

Never look a gift check in mouth. But seriously from a stimulus point of view it's more a question of giving it to people who are more likely to go out and spend it. That would be retiree/seniors more than the employed with an income stream.

[Thomas J]

14 hours ago, Why Me said:

Never look a gift check in mouth. But seriously from a stimulus point of view it's more a question of giving it to people who are more likely to go out and spend it. That would be retiree/seniors more than the employed with an income stream.

The point is that those impacted by Covid have lost their income stream.  Those on social security have not.  Additionally, giving it to seniors does not guarantee it will get spent.  Some will just tuck it away in their savings worrying about the future.  Irrespective, somehow the idea of borrowing money giving it away actually works to stimulate the economy is foolish.  If it worked there would never be a recession since government would have to only borrow and distribute more money and the recession would end.  If the money was used to "invest" in capital improvements.  Roads, bridges, electric grid upgrades, statewide electric car charging stations, grants for new business construction etc, those will pay dividends and the economy will reap rewards for decades to come.  Giving some money to a senior so they can buy a better cut of beef dissipates after the meal is eaten and the "stimulus" is flushed down the toilet. 

 

[Thomas J]

15 hours ago, rabas said:

I doubt all SS recipients live a cushy life on their SS check. I lost significant supplemental income due to covid. 

I did not say SS recipients live a cushy life.  I am on Social Security and that plus my savings is what I live on.  However of the people impacted the barber, beautician, clothing store, waitress, bartender, taxi driver etc. have been far more impacted by Covid than seniors.  The truth is that my social security and there's has been totally unaffected by Covid.  So giving it in the name of Covid is just disingenuous.  Again, if deficit spending has no detrimental impact, why not give everyone $10,000 or $100,000.  The government borrowing from the future is no different than the person who runs up their credit card bill.  The live good for the moment but eventually the bill needs to be paid.  Somehow the public believes that the government is just a goose that lays golden eggs and it can indefinitely provide all citizens with a comfortable lifestyle just by borrowing.  A wise person and country "invests" in things that pay dividends and a return on investment.  A foolish one just throws money away spending it frivolously.  The infrastructure in the USA is badly in need of modernization.  Money borrowed and then then spent in the economy on disposable consumer goods will quickly dissipate and once spent that money is no longer available for those critical infrastructure projects. 

[taxout]

I suggest we all wait and see what's in the coming tax bill.

[mtls2005]

President-elect Biden is presenting his COVID relief proposal now, live.

 

He did mention this SocSec benefit, which is but a small part of the entire $1.9T package.

 

 

 

 

[Mai mee]

Just because you don't need it, it doesn't make you virtuous.

 

My social security benefit is minuscule because I have been self employed the majority of my adult life. My primary source of income is oil and gas revenues from production on some land I own the mineral rights to in Texas. After Covid hit, oil prices actually went into NEGATIVE numbers for a while as production FAR exceeded demand and there was no capacity left to store it. My monthly checks went from averaging over $2500 a month to ZERO, and even now have only risen to an average of about $600... Retired yes, but Covid like to killed my a55! and yes, I have savings.

 

I have paid a LOT in taxes during my working life (one year I paid over $250,000 in "Alternative minimum tax",an extra tax penalty for having an unusually good year) and there's no way I'll recoup even a small percentage of that on the government "benefits" I'll receive in my retirement years. The country is toast already, it's done, so I'll take yer measly $200 bucks a month, you BET! You'd just blow it on Biafran alternative gender studies anyway, so bring it on big-boy!

[Jingthing]

8 hours ago, taxout said:

I suggest we all wait and see what's in the coming tax bill.

Yes, of course.

I only presented this as a current proposal, which it is.

I never suggested that it was passed law yet.

So we'll watch it and see.

On the other hand it seems to me that the idea would be widely popular so I would rate its chances as at least pretty good.

[Jingthing]

As long as we're on the topic of potential President Biden led changes to social security policy, I'd like to mention his other ideas that are more long term and not related to shorter term pandemic relief.

 

Namely, increase the social security checks only for those with very low checks.

 

Also, increasing the checks at age 82. I find that one especially interesting. Based on my research a significant majority of people start their social security claim early age 62 and the most common reason is that they need the money. However, if such people live longer than about age 77 then the decision will come to bite them because of the reduced claim for starting early. Making this adjustment at 82 doesn't entirely remedy that bite, after all it's at 82 not 77, and it doesn't fully replace the money a person would have gotten if they had waited. But considering the reason most people do claim at 62 (need the money) it sounds to me a reasonable compromise to help out some people that ended up living longer than they might have expected. 

[mtls2005]

So both temporary, and with a means-test?

 

Sounds vaguely sane, and rational. What a pleasant change.

 

 

[John Drake]

On 1/13/2021 at 8:44 PM, Thomas J said:

I am on social security.  My first question would be why?  Of anyone who has been relatively unaffected financially by the Covid pandemic it is retired people.  Retired people, me included have got their social security just like before.  Second, why $200 why not $1,000 or $100,000 if there are no consequences to just giving away money and having the treasury run up the federal debt even more.  These politicians are like drunken sailors.  The idea of borrowing money just to throw it at the economy is like someone running up credit card bills, buying a new home, new car, because they know they will be filing for bankruptcy soon.  

If the government wants "stimulus" at least put it into capital improvements like roads, bridges, the electric grid etc.  Those projects employ people but in the future they will pay a return.  Giving an extra $200 a month to retirees on social security so they can buy a nicer cut of meat at the Winn Dixie may help the grocery store.  However its benefit literally goes down the tank with the next bowel movement. 

 

If you don't want yours, send it back. There is a special government account for doing so.

[John Drake]

On 1/14/2021 at 12:36 PM, Thomas J said:

The point is that those impacted by Covid have lost their income stream.  Those on social security have not.  Additionally, giving it to seniors does not guarantee it will get spent.  Some will just tuck it away in their savings worrying about the future.  Irrespective, somehow the idea of borrowing money giving it away actually works to stimulate the economy is foolish.  If it worked there would never be a recession since government would have to only borrow and distribute more money and the recession would end.  If the money was used to "invest" in capital improvements.  Roads, bridges, electric grid upgrades, statewide electric car charging stations, grants for new business construction etc, those will pay dividends and the economy will reap rewards for decades to come.  Giving some money to a senior so they can buy a better cut of beef dissipates after the meal is eaten and the "stimulus" is flushed down the toilet. 

 

 

I believe the latest SS Cola increase was 1.5 percent. The military  got a 3 percent pay raise in the just passed defense bill. Hmm. Since the 1980s, the Bureau of Labor has manipulated inflation figures on purpose to keep them low. There is, for example, hedonic adjustments, which the government uses to explain how your paying $1500 for a new television this year was actually less than the $250 you paid for one, say, 15 years ago. Then, there is substitution. COLA, for example, doesn't figure the cost of beef. It figures the cost of protein. So, they then can say no inflation, because people are still getting protein if they buy chicken, instead of beef. On that score, watch out. Because insects are also high in protein. Chicken too expensive? People can just eat crickets and grasshoppers, with the added benefit that the price of protein actually declined. Yea, I want the extra $200 and it should be permanent. And it should be more than $200.

[pmarlin]

On 1/13/2021 at 8:55 PM, MeePeeMai said:

Don't complain, take the free fiat and buy bitcoin with it. ✔️

Problem is it's not free.

[frantick]

On 1/15/2021 at 8:12 AM, Mai mee said:

Just because you don't need it, it doesn't make you virtuous.

 

My social security benefit is minuscule because I have been self employed the majority of my adult life. My primary source of income is oil and gas revenues from production on some land I own the mineral rights to in Texas. After Covid hit, oil prices actually went into NEGATIVE numbers for a while as production FAR exceeded demand and there was no capacity left to store it. My monthly checks went from averaging over $2500 a month to ZERO, and even now have only risen to an average of about $600... Retired yes, but Covid like to killed my a55! and yes, I have savings.

 

I have paid a LOT in taxes during my working life (one year I paid over $250,000 in "Alternative minimum tax",an extra tax penalty for having an unusually good year) and there's no way I'll recoup even a small percentage of that on the government "benefits" I'll receive in my retirement years. The country is toast already, it's done, so I'll take yer measly $200 bucks a month, you BET! You'd just blow it on Biafran alternative gender studies anyway, so bring it on big-boy!

So you made enough money to pay $250,000 in just taxes for 1 year and now you're pining for $200? A fool and his money...

[Mai mee]

2 hours ago, frantick said:

So you made enough money to pay $250,000 in just taxes for 1 year and now you're pining for $200? A fool and his money...

Not pining at all, but I'll certainly never get even with Uncle Sam... A fool would be the one who doesn't want his own money back. 

[frantick]

10 hours ago, Mai mee said:

Not pining at all, but I'll certainly never get even with Uncle Sam... A fool would be the one who doesn't want his own money back. 

Touche'

[impulse]

On 1/16/2021 at 3:42 AM, John Drake said:

 

I believe the latest SS Cola increase was 1.5 percent. The military  got a 3 percent pay raise in the just passed defense bill. Hmm. Since the 1980s, the Bureau of Labor has manipulated inflation figures on purpose to keep them low. There is, for example, hedonic adjustments, which the government uses to explain how your paying $1500 for a new television this year was actually less than the $250 you paid for one, say, 15 years ago. Then, there is substitution. COLA, for example, doesn't figure the cost of beef. It figures the cost of protein. So, they then can say no inflation, because people are still getting protein if they buy chicken, instead of beef. On that score, watch out. Because insects are also high in protein. Chicken too expensive? People can just eat crickets and grasshoppers, with the added benefit that the price of protein actually declined. Yea, I want the extra $200 and it should be permanent. And it should be more than $200.

 

I don't disagree with increasing SS to improve the quality of recipients' lives.  But the title says "temporary" and it seems to be tied to Covid.  Which really hasn't affected SS recipients in the pocketbook. 

 

The problem with all of that is, given a temporary (but recurring) $200 monthly boost, how many seniors are going to take on additional monthly payments that will cause them grief when (if?) they sound the all clear on Covid and stop the program.  Sure, some will have the discipline to look at it as a one-time windfall.  But it's going to bite a lot of people in the end.  That's just human nature.

 

If it's genuine Covid relief, give it to people whose finances have been affected by Covid.  There's plenty of need there.   If some of that relief is going to SS recipients anyway, make it a one time payment so it doesn't addict anyone to a bigger monthly check.  If it's a giveaway to win the senior votes, make it permanent.

 

Edit:  He wasn't the first guy to say it (by a couple of thousand years), but here's a quote from Ben Franklin:

 

“When the people find that they can vote themselves money that will herald the end of the republic.”

 

[jeffandgop]

I haven’t come across any information that Biden has proposed any SS increase as part of his COVID stimulus plan once he takes office.

[frantick]

35 minutes ago, jeffandgop said:

I haven’t come across any information that Biden has proposed any SS increase as part of his COVID stimulus plan once he takes office.

Google is your friend. I don't post links because today's approved websites will be tomorrow's unapproved sites. (One can only dream)

[jeffandgop]

Google or any other search engine doesn’t provide any results about a SS temp increase either. So what is the source of your factual info?

[Pedrogaz]

I hope it comes through.....presumably this is in addition to the recent increase for cost of living. Joe Biden he's the man....but pity our grandchildren who will have to pay Trump's lavish spending and now Biden's. Of course spending $200 on me isn't lavish

[John Drake]

15 hours ago, impulse said:

If it's a giveaway to win the senior votes, make it permanent.

 

It should be permanent. In fact, there needs to be a mandated increase to at least $1200 or #1300 per month for every SS recipient. Some are existing on $600/month. And for those in the US on Medicare, the yearly increase in the Medicare premium sometimes is more than the yearly COLA increase. I believe the Biden plan also calls for a $1300 per month minimum

[John Drake]

2 hours ago, jeffandgop said:

Google or any other search engine doesn’t provide any results about a SS temp increase either. So what is the source of your factual info?

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2021/01/14/biden-economic-agenda/?arc404=true

[jeffandgop]

John Drake- I had not found any reference to a temporary increase to SS from a multitude of articles when I searched on Friday. Your WP is the first I’ve seen. Thanks

[newnative]

On 1/13/2021 at 8:44 PM, Thomas J said:

I am on social security.  My first question would be why?  Of anyone who has been relatively unaffected financially by the Covid pandemic it is retired people.  Retired people, me included have got their social security just like before.  Second, why $200 why not $1,000 or $100,000 if there are no consequences to just giving away money and having the treasury run up the federal debt even more.  These politicians are like drunken sailors.  The idea of borrowing money just to throw it at the economy is like someone running up credit card bills, buying a new home, new car, because they know they will be filing for bankruptcy soon.  

If the government wants "stimulus" at least put it into capital improvements like roads, bridges, the electric grid etc.  Those projects employ people but in the future they will pay a return.  Giving an extra $200 a month to retirees on social security so they can buy a nicer cut of meat at the Winn Dixie may help the grocery store.  However its benefit literally goes down the tank with the next bowel movement. 

     I think the answer to your 'why' is that a lot of seniors--about 40% in a new report--rely solely on social security to live on.  I am lucky in that I also have a state pension but if I was relying solely on SS my monthly income would be about $1400 a month.   Not really much to live on--either here or in the US.  An extra $200 a month would certainly help out a lot of seniors--especially those with no other income.  Even before covid there were proposals to change the COLA formula for SS so it better reflects the cost of living for seniors.