Thread: Social Security

I've been googling for an update but no dice:

https://www.congress.gov/bill/114th-...bill/6489/text

Here are some general proposed cuts:

Social Security Reform Act of 2016: H.R. 6489

By Karen Hedwig Backman
Thursday Dec 22, 2016 · 2:10 AM SEAST

HR6489

On the 8th day of December, 2016, Rep. Sam Johnson, Third Congressional District of Texas, Plano, Texas, introduced H.R. 6489 to essentially cut 27% from the benefits already paid for in the Social Security Trust Fund, which could possibly be worth as much as $5 trillion:

Johnson’s bill includes an assortment of benefit cuts including raising the retirement age to 69 (equivalent to a 13.5 percent across-the-board cut), changing the benefit formula (9 percent average cut), and slashing the cost-of-living adjustment (13 percent average cut). Some long-lived beneficiaries could see cuts of up to 74 percent. . . .

The Johnson bill disproportionally hurts women and low-income workers who had employment gaps due to caregiving and unemployment. And it hurts those who had uneven earnings during their wage-earning years. Johnson disingenuously claims his plan is motivated by an interest in extending Social Security’s trust fund. But he then turns around and eliminates the taxation of benefits on high earners—the very people who can afford to pay a little more.
Economic Policy Institute | Research and Ideas for Shared Prosperity

As a woman of a certain age who never made more than $20K a year, and only for one year under Clinton, this is particularly hurtful, particularly as my paycheck has always been pisspoor and I also took time off for child raising, unpaid, I would urge all other women of a certain age who are similarly situated with pisspoor Social Security benefits to give Rep. Sam Johnson a friendly call reminding him of how many women of a certain age in America are watching him:

Sam Johnson, Chair of the House Committee on Social Security:

1102 Longworth HOB
Washington D.C. 20515
P: (202) 225-3625
Mr. Johnson’s DC number is: (202) 225 — 4201.

His Plano TX office phone number is (469) 304 — 0382.

I’m sure that Mr. Johnson would appreciate a call from you all.

And, if you happen to be in the area of Plano, Texas, his Plano office is at:

1255 W. 15th Street Suite 170
Plano, Texas 75075 Phone: 469-304-0382

Social Security Reform Act of 2016: H.R. 6489

http://finance.yahoo.com/news/much-s...wer&soc_trk=fb

"Q: I’m drawing my full Social Security benefit, which I qualified for at age 66. My wife is 54, so I will most likely pass away before she does. My monthly benefit is approximately $2,380, much more than her expected benefit. If she claims mine, will she get 100% of my benefits?

A: It depends. As a widow, your wife would be able to get 100% of your Social Security benefits as long as she waited until she reached her full retirement age to claim them. Full retirement age is determined by year of birth. Since your wife was born after 1959, her full retirement age is 67.

There’s a cost to taking survivor benefits earlier. As a widow, your wife would be able to file for that income stream as soon as she turns 60. If she does, however, those benefits will be reduced by 28.5%. That means for every $1,000 in benefits that you received, she would receive only $715. The longer she waits to claim your benefits, the smaller the reduction, until it disappears entirely on her 67th birthday.

If your wife is working, there may be an additional reduction for claiming benefits early. In 2017, Social Security recipients below full retirement age start losing benefits once they earn more than $16,920 a year, a limit pegged to the national average wage index.

“Social Security starts to withhold $1 in benefits for every $2 over that limit,” explains Kurt Czarnowski, a retirement planning consultant and former regional communications director for the Social Security Administration in New England.

At the beginning of the year that a person reaches full retirement age, the reduction drops to $1 for every $3 above the earnings limit, which itself increases.

The reduction disappears entirely at full retirement age. At that point, Social Security will increase your benefit to account for the number of months you lost some or all of those payments.
Note that there is no advantage in waiting past full retirement to file for survivor benefits. The amount won’t get any higher once that milestone is reached.

The Social Security math is different for every survivor. One variable is when and whether the deceased claimed Social Security. If that person had already claimed Social Security, the survivor benefits would be based on the amount that the deceased was actually receiving. The survivor of a spouse who hadn’t yet claimed Social Security, however, is entitled to the benefit that would have been paid at full retirement age.

If the first-to-die spouse was past full retirement age and had not yet filed, survivor benefits would be based on the amount he or she was entitled to receive at the time of death. That would include delayed-retirement credits that boost Social Security income by up to 8% a year for each year beyond full retirement age, up to age 70".

The retirement age for Social Security needs to rise to 70 - MarketWatch

Of all the changes needed to make Social Security financially stable for current and future recipients, the one change that should be a given is raising the retirement age to 70.

This will no doubt be a blow to many for whom 67 already seems painfully far away. But the harsh reality is that Social Security wasn’t designed to finance 20 to 30 years of retirement. Today, a 65-year-old man on average will live to 84, and a 65-year-old woman to 87. And people can begin claiming benefits, albeit at a reduced benefit level, at 62.

After years of ducking the problems facing Social Security, the next president must propose ways to modernize the program, remove the disincentives to working later in life and ensure that those most vulnerable have a dignified and financially secure retirement.

The Social Security trustees have sent a clear warning that the Social Security crisis is real, is of a staggering magnitude — and is already upon us. If nothing is done, the assets in the combined Social Security trust funds will be depleted in 2034, and benefits would at that point need to be immediately cut by approximately 21% unless there is a huge payroll tax increase or a taxpayer bailout through a general revenue transfer. Enacting changes now — including a gradual increase in the retirement age and then indexing further increases to longevity — will let changes be phased in, allowing people time to plan and reducing any adverse effects.

As set forth in legislative changes made in 1983, the age at which a worker is eligible for unreduced Social Security retirement benefits has been gradually increasing from age 65 for those born in 1937 or earlier, to age 67 for those born in 1960 and later. And I do mean gradually: The full increase in the retirement age to 67 won’t occur until workers start claiming benefits in the year 2027.

Raising the retirement age could again be done gradually, similar to the 1983 reforms, increasing by two months each year starting for those born in 1960 (the threshold for the current age 67 retirement age). If we started next year, everyone 57 and older wouldn't be affected. The rest of us would have time to gradually adjust to the new retirement age. Again, the retirement age would increase by just two months for each year starting with those born in 1960.

Benefits could still begin at age 62, but at an even more reduced rate. And we might want to consider modifying the delayed retirement credits to encourage those that can continue working past age 70 an incentive to do so. For those unable to work past 62, the current minimum benefit should be adopted to ensure that no senior lives in poverty.

But just raising the retirement age alone won’t bring Social Security back to fiscal solvency.

A trust fund insolvency date almost 20 years away has lulled some into a false sense that the program’s finances are now stable. Please don’t be fooled. Social Security faces severe, urgent financial challenges that policy makers must address immediately if we are to ensure the program remains viable for future generations.

The trustees estimate that the 75-year financial shortfall for the combined trust funds is $11.4 trillion in present-value terms. If we indefinitely extend past the 75-year period, the so-called “infinite horizon,” the shortfall is a whopping $32.1 trillion. For comparison, our nation’s gross domestic product is slightly over $18 trillion — and our gross national debt (not including unfunded liabilities) is already almost $20 trillion.

The trustees now estimate that to close the 75-year financial shortfall for the combined trust funds would require an immediate 2.58 percentage point increase in the Social Security payroll tax, from the current 12.4% to 14.98% of covered earnings. That’s a 21% nominal increase in the payroll tax. Alternatively, solvency could be achieved with an immediate reduction in benefits of about 16% for everyone, or near 20% if applied only to new beneficiaries after 2016. Obviously, such dramatic and immediate changes to either taxes or benefits should be avoided. These numbers only become more ominous the longer we delay.

We can’t afford to wait; doing so will only ensure that the changes necessary to shore up Social Security’s retirement and disability programs will be far larger and more difficult. Enacting changes now does not mean that the changes to benefits or revenues have to start right away or in full force. In fact, the advantage of acting now is that this will give us plenty of lead time to phase in any changes more slowly and give everyone much more advance notice of any changes.

Time is running short. The next president and Congress must act to make necessary improvements to our nation’s vital Social Security programs, and one of those changes should be to gradually increase the retirement age.

Jason Fichtner is a senior research fellow at the Mercatus Center at George Mason University. He previously held several positions in the Social Security Administration, including deputy commissioner of Social Security (acting). Follow him on Twitter @JJFichtner

Question:

* Let's say I started drawing my social security at age 62. Can my wife start drawing a spousal benefit on my earnings record when she reaches the age of 62 and I'm still alive?

For the purposes of this question assume my spouse has jumped through the applicable wickets meaning ... married for 10 years and either a US citizen or lived in the states for 5 years.

Originally Posted by Storekeeper

Let's say I started drawing my social security at age 62. Can my wife start drawing a spousal benefit on my earnings record when she reaches the age of 62 and I'm still alive?

Short answer. Yes.
The fine print.

https://www.thebalance.com/how-the-t...-works-2388924

Originally Posted by Norton

Originally Posted by Storekeeper

Let's say I started drawing my social security at age 62. Can my wife start drawing a spousal benefit on my earnings record when she reaches the age of 62 and I'm still alive?

Short answer. Yes.
The fine print.

https://www.thebalance.com/how-the-t...-works-2388924

Thanks. That's the way I understood it but was looking for concurrence.

Ain't that something though? Just learned about it in the last couple of days.

Gonna be a nice chunk of change the last 10-15 years of my life I hadn't figured into the budget.

But, IMHO ... what a crock of shite! Can't believe it's legal.

Originally Posted by Storekeeper

But, IMHO ... what a crock of shite! Can't believe it's legal.

The way things are going may not be legal in the last 10 or 15 years of your life. Don't bank on it.

Originally Posted by Norton

Originally Posted by Storekeeper

But, IMHO ... what a crock of shite! Can't believe it's legal.

The way things are going may not be legal in the last 10 or 15 years of your life. Don't bank on it.

Agreed.

The govt could have fixed it, but never has.

They will cut - including me - who paid in.

The fact being most working people die with a fair wack in the bank so working till ya 65 or 70 is wank unless ya wanna be the guy buried 6 foot under who is flush with cash.

Retire early and fucking enjoy ya self.

This does not apply if one has been a shit kicker all his life or a professional dole bludger.

They mostly have fuk all except cancer from chain smoking and a fuked liver from excess alcohol all paid for buy the Tax payer of course.

https://www.ssa.gov/OP_Home/handbook...book-0125.html

125. Entitlement To Retirement, Survivors, And Disability Insurance Benefits

125.1 What are Social Security benefits?

Social Security benefits are payments made under a social insurance program administered by the Social Security Administration. They are paid monthly by check or direct deposit to the beneficiary or to a representative payee if the beneficiary is incapable of managing his or her own funds (see Chapter 16).

125.2 How can you receive retirement, survivors, and disability insurance benefits?

Retirement, survivors, and disability insurance benefits are Social Security benefits. In order to receive these benefits, you must file an application with us. You must also meet certain eligibility requirements.

125.3 Are your Social Security benefits subject to taxes?

If you have substantial income in addition to your Social Security benefits, up to 85 percent of your annual benefits may be subject to Federal income tax.
The amount of benefits subject to Federal income tax is the smaller of:

1. One-half of your benefits; or
2. One-half of the amount by which your adjusted gross income, plus tax-exempt interest, plus one-half of your Social Security benefits exceeds:
   1. $25,000 if you are single;
   2. $25,000 if you are married and not filing a joint return and you did not live with your spouse at any time during the year;
   3. $32,000 if you are married and filing a joint return; or
   4. $0 if you are married and not filing a joint return and you did live with your spouse at any time during the year.

In January, we send you a Form 1099 (Social Security Benefit Statement), showing the amount of benefits you received in the prior calendar year. A worksheet (IRS Notice 703) is included for determining whether any portion of your Social Security benefits received is subject to income tax.

125.4 What is your tax rate if you are a non-U.S. citizen?

If you are not a U.S. citizen or resident, Federal income taxes are withheld from your benefits. The tax is 30 percent of 85 percent of your benefit (an effective tax rate of 25.5 percent).
This tax rate is withheld from the benefits of all nonresident aliens, unless you live in a country with which the United States has a tax treaty. Tax treaties do not permit taxing of U.S. Social Security benefits (or provide for a lower tax rate).

125.5 With what countries does the U.S. have tax treaties?

The United States has tax treaties with Canada, Egypt, Germany, Ireland, Israel, Italy, Japan, Romania, Switzerland, and the United Kingdom (defined as England, Scotland, Wales, and Northern Ireland). In addition, if you live in and are a citizen of India, your Social Security benefits are exempt from Federal taxes to the extent that your benefits are based on Federal, State or local government employment. (This list can change from time to time.)

125.6 How do you know the amount of taxes withheld from your benefits?

At the end of each year, we send a Form 1042S (Social Security Benefit Statement) to each beneficiary. This statement shows the amount of taxes withheld from your Social Security benefits.

Note for US social security recipients:

"The Social Security Administration periodically sends Form SSA-7162 to a beneficiary living outside the United States to determine if the beneficiary is still eligible to receive benefits. When you receive this form, you should answer the questionnaire and return it to the office that sent it as soon as possible. The form will include instructions and provide the address where you need to return the form. Generally, a self-addressed envelope is enclosed, too. All you need to do is affix postage and mail it. If you do not return this form in a timely manner, your payments will stop.

* In addition to responding to the questionnaire, you should notify Social Security promptly about changes that could affect your payments. If you fail to report something or deliberately make a false statement, you could be penalized by a fine or imprisonment. You also may lose some of your payments if you do not report changes promptly. It’s important that you report any change of address to the Social Security Administration to ensure you get this questionnaire and other important notices from SSA. FBU can help you report a change of address to SSA. If your benefits are suspended because SSA did not receive your completed Form SSA-7162, FBU can help you restore your benefits".

(Copied from RAO JUSMAG office)

^Yeah, I got mine yesterday. The first year after I started getting benefits I neglected to report my change of address so I never received the form. My benefit was cut off and I had to go through a lot of rigermarole to get it re-established.

Originally Posted by Humbert

^Yeah, I got mine yesterday. The first year after I started getting benefits I neglected to report my change of address so I never received the form. My benefit was cut off and I had to go through a lot of rigermarole to get it re-established.

Sent to your Thai address? How do you send it back?

^Mine gets sent to my Philippines address from the US, and must be returned to the US address.....despite all of my dealings having been with the office in the Embassy here. I return to them via international mail, same way they sent it.

I'll lose $162 per month soon, as the twins turn 18 in August. Wife has a lot of years to go before she can claim part of my benefits.

Without action, Social Security trust fund will be tapped out in 17 years - Jul. 13, 2017

If Congress doesn't act soon, tens of millions of Americans will only receive about three-quarters of their Social Security benefits when they retire in the future.

"In an annual report released Thursday, trustees of the government's two largest entitlement programs -- Social Security and Medicare -- urged lawmakers to act quickly to assure Americansthey'll be able to get their full retirement benefits.

The trustees projected that the Social Security trust fund will be tapped out by 2034. While that projection is unchanged fromlast year's annual report card, the trustees warned of persistent long-term challenges ahead if fixes aren't made to pay for the program.

"The trajectory is still alarming," said Tom Price, secretary of the Health and Human Services Department in a joint press conference at the Treasury Department. "The bottom line is it must be addressed."

The latest projection doesn't mean retirees will get nothingstarting in 2034.It only means that at that pointthe program will only have enough revenue coming in to pay77% of promised benefits.

So if you were expecting to get $2,000 a month, your payout would shrink to $1,540.

Still, the looming date is a concern to budget watchdogs.

"Social Security insolvency is no longer a problem only for future generations — without action, current workers and even current retirees will face a 23% across the board cut in just 17 years," said Maya MacGuineas, the president of the Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget. "That is when today's 50-year-olds reach the normal retirement age and today's youngest retirees turn 79."

Other groups also responded, warning lawmakers to act fast in order to avoid disruptive consequences for beneficiaries and taxpayers.

"By the time these programs' trust funds are depleted, it will be too late to shield vulnerable program participants from substantial harm," Charles Blahous of the Mercatus Center at George Mason University said.

Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin tried to assure Americans the government's programs are "secure and will remain secure."

"Tens of millions of Americans rely on these programs and it is important that we ensure their long-term stability," said Mnuchin.

The administration believes hitting its target of 3% economic growth through tax reform, loosening regulation and trade will help to pour in trillions of dollars into the economy and bring in additional revenue to meet the nation's entitlement obligations.
Related: Trump's first budget includes trillions in cuts

Social Security is funded by two trust funds -- one for retiree benefits and one for disability benefits.

The 2034 date is the exhaustion date for both funds combined. When considered separately, the old-age fund will be depletedby 2035 -- the same projection as last year -- after which it would be able to pay just75% of benefits.The disability fund is now projected to be tapped out by 2028, five years later than previously projected. After which, the payout would be93%of promised benefits.

The trustees said the revised projection for disability benefits was due to the fewer-than-expected applications.

In terms of Medicare, the trustees project that the trust fund for Part A, which covers hospital costs for seniors, will run dry by 2029. That's one year earlier than they projected last year, due to lower-than-expected payroll taxes and a slower-than-estimated rate of reduction in inpatient use of hospital services.

But the exhaustion date is still 11 years later than had been projected before Congress passed the Affordable Care Act,known as Obamacare,in 2010.

By 2029, Medicare Part A would only be able to pay out 88% of expected benefits -- a figure that would fall to 81% by 2041 before gradually increasing to 88% by 2091.

Meanwhile, Medicare Part B, which helps seniors pay for doctor's bills and outpatient expenses, is funded by a combination of premium payments and money from general federal revenue. The same is true of Part D, which offers prescription drug coverage. Both will be financed in full indefinitely, but only because the law requires automatic financing of them.

But their costs are growing quickly. The trustees estimate that the costs will grow to 3.4% of GDP by 2037".

^ Thanks for this SK.

As pathetic as it is, I'm not surprised. I don't expect the govt to do the right things. SS is fixable but I'm sure they'll reduce payments to cover their mismanagement.

I suppose that SS bill in Way and Means will die - the one where the Repubs want to make eligibility 2 years later / older.

I suppose this bill will die as most bills due and the mid-terms are not far away.

^ I think about it all the time but nothing has changed for me so far and I fully intend to start drawing my share of the pie when I turn 62. And that ain't too far off.

Originally Posted by Storekeeper

^ I think about it all the time but nothing has changed for me so far and I fully intend to start drawing my share of the pie when I turn 62. And that ain't too far off.

You're fine, SK.

As for me, I'm over 45 and under 50.

There will be changes.

Originally Posted by Cold Pizza

As for me, I'm over 45 and under 50.

Have a retired Navy shipmate working in the shipyard who is drawing CW03 over 24 retired pay and 100% disability. My guess is that equates to north of $5,500 a month gross. And by the time he's 62 he'll also have a several hundred dollar FERS pension to go with it so I asked him if he'll take SS when eligible and he said, "Not unless I have to" ... so I guess he intends to work till he dies but I know his wife is going to take the bounty and head back to Thailand as soon as he croaks.

More reality on Social Security. It's like a bad movie with no ending in sight.


Social Security Will Be Paying Out More Than It Receives In Just Five Years

Tyler Durden's picture
by Tyler Durden
Jul 19, 2017

When social security was first implemented in the 1930’s, America was a very different country. Especially in regards to demographics. The average life expectancy was roughly 18 years younger than it is now, and birth rates were a bit higher than they are now. By the 1950’s, the fertility rate was twice as high as it is in the 21st century.

In other words, for the first few decades, social security seemed very sustainable. Most people would only live long enough to benefit from it for a few years, and there was an abundance of young workers who could pay into the system.



Those days are long gone. As birth rates plummet and people live longer, (which otherwise should be considered a positive development) social security’s future is looking more and more bleak.



No matter how you slice it, it doesn’t seem possible to keep social security funded. In fact, social security is going to start paying out more money than it receives in just a few short years. It may even be insolvent before the baby boomer generation dies off.

According to the Social Security Board of Trustees, the Old-Age and Survivors Insurance, and Disability Insurance (OASDI) Trust Funds will be depleted in 2034.

When this happens, only 77 percent of benefits will be payable. That estimate is no change from last year’s estimate.

In addition, the Disability Insurance trust fund will be depleted in 2028, which is an improvement from last year’s estimate of 2023. Once that fund is depleted, 93 percent of benefits will be paid.

Right now, Social Security continues to take in through revenue more than it pays it through benefits, which is expected to continue until 2022. Once Social Security begins to pay out more than it takes in, it will be forced to liquidate the assets held by the trust funds.

In 2016, Social Security generated $957 billion in income. It only paid out $922 billion including $911 billion in benefits to 61 million beneficiaries.
But the solutions that have been proposed for this problem don’t hold much promise. For instance, we know that simply raising taxes won’t work.

But increasing the payroll tax is not a good long-term solution to fixing Social Security. For example a higher payroll tax would have negative economic effects. In addition, it’s not even clear that raising the payroll tax would even generate enough revenue.

“Some claim that the solution to preserving Social Security is to raise more taxes, but history shows that doesn’t work,” said David Barnes who is the director of policy engagement for Generation Opportunity in a statement to the Washington Free Beacon. “In fact, since Social Security was created, payroll taxes have been raised more than 20 times. Twenty times! Yet, the program is still headed towards insolvency.”

This is one reason why so many Western countries, almost all of which are suffering from declining birth rates, have been so eager to open their borders to more immigrants. They’re trying to bring in as many young workers as they can.

But that’s not going to work either. Forget about the high crime rates, terrorist attacks, and social disintegration that Europe is facing now after bringing in millions of immigrants. Even if those problems didn’t exist, immigration isn’t the solution. The West has had wide open borders for decades, and it hasn’t made a dent in the liabilities faced by social security programs (perhaps these immigrants aren’t paying as many taxes as these governments had hoped).

We could let younger generations opt out of social security to stave off future obligations, but that wouldn’t help fund the current generation of retirees. Social security is already on the path to being underfunded for them, and letting young people opt out would obviously make things worst for current retirees.

There isn’t really any viable solution for paying off the future liabilities of social security, aside from cutting the benefits or increasing the retirement age. Otherwise it’s going to run out of money eventually, which is the same story with private and public pensions. We are all paying for our retirements in one form or another, but few of us living right now are going to fully benefit from it.

Social Security Will Be Paying Out More Than It Receives In Just Five Years | Zero Hedge

^ Saw a BBC article yesterday the U.K. just raised their pension age to 68. Not sure if that's a no earlier than date or if they can draw earlier at a reduced rate like we can.

https://federalnewsradio.com/mike-ca...t-1-6-percent/

"Federal, military and Social Security retirees are looking at a potential 1.6 percent cost-of-living adjustment (COLA) in January 2018. The exact figure won’t be official until the Consumer Price Index for the month of September is made available on Oct. 13. This time last month, the COLA appeared to be 1.51 percent. But an increase of 0.09 percent in the CPI-W (Consumer Price Index-Workers) in June pushed that amount up.

Inflation adjustments, of any amount, are very important to many retirees. There was no COLA in 2010, 2011 and 2016, and most increases were modest (with the exception of a 3.6 percent hike in 2012). The retirees received 1.7 percent in 2013; 1.5 percent in 2014 and 1.7 percent in 2015. Following the zero-COLA of 2016, retirees this year got a 0.3 percent increase in January of this year.

During the time period when COLAs were either flat, or almost microscopic, health insurance premiums jumped dramatically each year. Long-term care insurance premiums also jumped big time last year, forcing many retirees to downsize their benefits to minimize the premium hike, or drop the all-important LTC insurance in some cases".

Open link to read the entire article.

^ good. F*ck them.

Same assholes who've told me since the 1980s, "don't worry Gen X, it'll be fine" (while we get ours and you get f*cked).

Originally Posted by Storekeeper

Originally Posted by Cold Pizza

As for me, I'm over 45 and under 50.

Have a retired Navy shipmate working in the shipyard who is drawing CW03 over 24 retired pay and 100% disability. My guess is that equates to north of $5,500 a month gross. And by the time he's 62 he'll also have a several hundred dollar FERS pension to go with it so I asked him if he'll take SS when eligible and he said, "Not unless I have to" ... so I guess he intends to work till he dies but I know his wife is going to take the bounty and head back to Thailand as soon as he croaks.

How can he be working and drawing 100% disability?

Originally Posted by RPETER65

Originally Posted by Storekeeper

Originally Posted by Cold Pizza

As for me, I'm over 45 and under 50.

Have a retired Navy shipmate working in the shipyard who is drawing CW03 over 24 retired pay and 100% disability. My guess is that equates to north of $5,500 a month gross. And by the time he's 62 he'll also have a several hundred dollar FERS pension to go with it so I asked him if he'll take SS when eligible and he said, "Not unless I have to" ... so I guess he intends to work till he dies but I know his wife is going to take the bounty and head back to Thailand as soon as he croaks.

How can he be working and drawing 100% disability?

Sorry ... I should have noted it's VA disability vice social security disability.

VA 100 percent disability ratings can be confusing