Social Security Recipients with Fiduciaries Are Now Prohibited Persons
- Thread starter Bartholomew Roberts
- Start date
- Status
SSN Vet
Member
I'm in the same boat... but the fact of the matter is that you are dead wrong.
What you have described is NOT the way the SSN laws are structured. You are paying the benefits of those who are drawing today. The surplus goes into a trust fund, which was looted 30 years ago to pay the Federal Gub'ments bills.
If and when you ever collect SSI benefits, they will be paid by the current tax payers.
The problem with SSI is one of demographics, in that there are less than 3 people paying in for every person collecting benefits, and that ratio will go to less than 2 in the near future.
You may feel like it's "YOUR MONEY" but legally it is not.
On the other hand, George Bush tried to reform the system to establish accounts that your SSI taxes would go into, which would be managed by the individuals and be in their name, and the AARP crucified him for "privatizing social security".
Disagree, rant and rave, do whatever..... this is the legal reality of how the SSI system actually works. Your bennies and mine are based on a promise from Uncle Sam, and that's all.
SSN Vet
Member
A letter from your doc saying that you are a drug addict will also qualify you for SS benies. My BIL is a state police detective and every single drug dealer he has ever busted has been collecting disability benefits..... just in case you are wondering where the money went... it's the liberal taker agenda skewing already bad demographics.
I'll be 66 in Sept but don't plan to take SS since I am still working to support my firearms hobby. Retirement is a huge change and I'm rather apprehensive about it, money not withstanding. I just hope needed reforms are made in time to avoid cutting benefits for future retirees.
This is just another example of a out of control government. I really think it will be interesting as to WHO decides is a person should have their gun taken away. That is a serious abuse of power. I don't understand why those idiots in DC think they know so much better what is good for the rest of the population. I might be missing something but I don't recall too many senior citizens involved in drive-by shootings. I guess if you can't stop the gang bangers from killing each other then you go after the Senior citizens, a "softer target" than the gang members. Then you can tell the voters you are doing something a about those evil guns.... What the hel has happened to this country??
Snyper
Member
There IS a very simple way to define the "incompetent" group, since they qualify for extra benefits, which is how this entire issue got started years ago with the VA.
The very sentence you claim I overlooked states it plainly also
It's not just those with"a fudiciary"
It's those "declared incompetent" that matter
I read all your explanations.
They are based on the false premise of the article
It's nothing new at all
Ed Ames
Member
Snyper, you are wrong.
From the LA Times: "There is no simple way to identify that group, but a strategy [the SSA may use] is reporting anyone who has been declared incompetent to manage pension or disability payments and assigned a fiduciary."
That designation doesn't get you any extra Social Security benefits.
The SSA almost forced my dad to have a fiduciary. He was fully mentally competent but he had severe dysarthria due to nerve damage received during a surgery, so he used a computer to communicate. He moved states and needed to change his address to get medicare supplemental insurance that local hospitals would accept. However, when he called the SSA to change his address (using his speech synthesizer), the employees on the phone decided that since he couldn't speak for himself he needed a representative to handle his affairs. They sent my mother paperwork to fill out, and refused to acknowledge that there was any other way forward except for her to take charge of his affairs. Fortunately my parents decided the SSA people on the phone were wrong and drove to the local SSA office. Mom asked for the change of address form, dad filled it out and signed it, and the whole issue disappeared.
From the LA Times: "There is no simple way to identify that group, but a strategy [the SSA may use] is reporting anyone who has been declared incompetent to manage pension or disability payments and assigned a fiduciary."
That designation doesn't get you any extra Social Security benefits.
The SSA almost forced my dad to have a fiduciary. He was fully mentally competent but he had severe dysarthria due to nerve damage received during a surgery, so he used a computer to communicate. He moved states and needed to change his address to get medicare supplemental insurance that local hospitals would accept. However, when he called the SSA to change his address (using his speech synthesizer), the employees on the phone decided that since he couldn't speak for himself he needed a representative to handle his affairs. They sent my mother paperwork to fill out, and refused to acknowledge that there was any other way forward except for her to take charge of his affairs. Fortunately my parents decided the SSA people on the phone were wrong and drove to the local SSA office. Mom asked for the change of address form, dad filled it out and signed it, and the whole issue disappeared.
Valkman
Member
No they don't get anything extra except the money sent to someone else. I know I don't.
JRH6856
Member
Their "logic" is that if senior citizens can't manage their affairs, then anyone helping them for any reason has access to their residence and possessions, including firearms. Obviously (to them) access to firearms by unknown persons is a bad thing (especially access to guns by anyone is a bad thing.) Bottom line is that to them, access to guns is bad and anything that reduces access is good.
Snyper
Member
Repeating the article serves no purpose other than reaffirming what has been said already
Being declared incompetent can get you extra VA and SSI payments, depending on your age
http://www.ssa.gov/disability/
http://www.military.com/benefits/veteran-benefits/veteran-disability-compensation.html
This same rumor started with the VA at least a year ago:
http://mrconservative.com/2014/02/3...ompetent-so-that-he-can-take-away-their-guns/
http://www.socialsecurity.gov/OP_Home/handbook/handbook.16/handbook-1601.html
Ed Ames
Member
You seem to have missed what it said.
Irrelevant. We are discussing something that applies to social security retirement recipient. Disability is only a subset and VA is a total red herring.
And this is sourced from the LA times, not a rumor mongering conservative partisan mouthpiece.
And yet all it took in real life was someone from the SSA being confronted with something unfamiliar, a retiree whose "voice" was computer generated, to start that ball rolling on a competent person. I saw it happen.
onegunred
Member
I have been on SS for several years now and was awarded disability due to reduced mobility in my shoulder. Should this put me on the list, I hope not. Look at the EPA, VA, IRS, do they play by the rules ? Are they honest in their dealings ?
I think a lot depends on just how this is administered. Like the VA mess, there is good reason for people who really are not mentally (or maybe physically) competent to have their firearm rights revoked.
Personally, I would hope that whoever is taking care of these people recognizes their diminished capacity and arranges for their firearms to be removed well before any government action is needed, just as responsible care givers take away the car keys when a person can no longer safely drive, well before the state just refuses to renew a driver's license.
Personally, I would hope that whoever is taking care of these people recognizes their diminished capacity and arranges for their firearms to be removed well before any government action is needed, just as responsible care givers take away the car keys when a person can no longer safely drive, well before the state just refuses to renew a driver's license.
Ed Ames
Member
What does physical competence mean in this context?
Before someone is declared incompetent, taking away firearms or car keys sounds like theft to me. Even after a person is declared incompetent the property can't simply be taken away. You can't take car keys simply because a person no longer has a driver's license. If you deprive a person of their property you have an obligation to compensate them fairly.
Old Shooter
Member
My guns today, your guns tomorrow.
Remember...If you like your insurance you can keep your insurance.
I believe they are looking at 2A sort of like "How do you eat an elephant?
Answer....One bite at a time.
Remember...If you like your insurance you can keep your insurance.
I believe they are looking at 2A sort of like "How do you eat an elephant?
Answer....One bite at a time.
Bartholomew Roberts
Member
Snyper said:
If you even ask for a Representative Payee (SSA term), the first question you have to answer is "Explain why the recipient is unable to manage their benefits.". You are automatically assumed to be incompetent to manage your finances if you ask for and receive a Representative Payee.
So the issue is that not everyone who SSA finds incompetent to manage their benefits is "mentally incompetent" in the sense of "adjudicated mentally defective." Neither SSA nor VA can sort out those people and so VA has been adding everyone to NICS, and now SSA is prposing adding 4.2 million more.
This is a real issue - an ongoing one with VA that Congress attempted to address in S.480 by Senator Graham in Spring 2013. Subsequent attempts to adress this were sponsored by Sen. Burr and Rep. Stockman. The NRA has been working on this for years. It isn't hyperbole or imagined - these are real issues that have not gotten a lot of attention because they affect very few people under the VA; but they are going to affect a lot more people if SSA adopts the same policy.
JohnBT
Member
"on just how this is administered"
It won't be pretty or efficient from all I've seen over the years.
I had a SSA employee insist on knowing the contents of my mother's will. She's in a nursing home with Alzheimer's - since 2007 - and I'm her POA and
ssa personal representative. He didn't like the fact that the retirement money they deposit in her checking account sits there and the $100k/year nursing home bill is paid from other sources. The SSA regs say I must use her money on her and I say it's more convenient to use $700/year from checking to pay for meds and pay the home with other money.
During one of his 3 calls, before I called and complained, he said, "Trust, trust, trust, all you ever say is trust." Hell, he wanted to know the terms of the trust. Nope. I was being nice up to that point. Screw him.
I dared him to sue me. I'm retired and need another hobby.
I also worked with individuals with disabilities for over 37 years and know you can buck the system when they screw up. The contents of my mother's will indeed.
John
It won't be pretty or efficient from all I've seen over the years.
I had a SSA employee insist on knowing the contents of my mother's will. She's in a nursing home with Alzheimer's - since 2007 - and I'm her POA and
ssa personal representative. He didn't like the fact that the retirement money they deposit in her checking account sits there and the $100k/year nursing home bill is paid from other sources. The SSA regs say I must use her money on her and I say it's more convenient to use $700/year from checking to pay for meds and pay the home with other money.
During one of his 3 calls, before I called and complained, he said, "Trust, trust, trust, all you ever say is trust." Hell, he wanted to know the terms of the trust. Nope. I was being nice up to that point. Screw him.
I dared him to sue me. I'm retired and need another hobby.
I also worked with individuals with disabilities for over 37 years and know you can buck the system when they screw up. The contents of my mother's will indeed.
John
TimSr
Member
Have we had a growing rash of senior citizens shooting people that I haven't heard about? I think I'd much more trust the family to remove grandpa's guns when the time is right, than to trust it to Washington.
ApacheCoTodd
member
I am by NO MEANS defending the ultimate decision however,...
to a degree, I understand the sentiment potentially behind it.
I know of only three "full-boat" SS recipients with appointed fiduciaries.
Not ONE of them should be able to own or purchase a firearm... Or car fro that matter!
It would displease me if this decision were not really in the interest of sincere concern but rather another deliberate, incremental erosion of the "allowed" population which is currently tolerated.
It would further displease me if one were not allowed to successfully challenge a "denied" status should they have fiduciaries assigned in a situation which does not encompass a diminished mental state.
Still though, as noted above, the folks I'm aware of shouldn't be participating in the gun owning community and I see the decision as an extension of noting the denials to individuals not voluntarily committed to a care facility for mental health reasons.
Todd.
to a degree, I understand the sentiment potentially behind it.
I know of only three "full-boat" SS recipients with appointed fiduciaries.
Not ONE of them should be able to own or purchase a firearm... Or car fro that matter!
It would displease me if this decision were not really in the interest of sincere concern but rather another deliberate, incremental erosion of the "allowed" population which is currently tolerated.
It would further displease me if one were not allowed to successfully challenge a "denied" status should they have fiduciaries assigned in a situation which does not encompass a diminished mental state.
Still though, as noted above, the folks I'm aware of shouldn't be participating in the gun owning community and I see the decision as an extension of noting the denials to individuals not voluntarily committed to a care facility for mental health reasons.
Todd.
I'm afraid that I don't have time to fully weigh in on this. I wish I did. With that said, three quick comments:
1) Without having thoroughly researched the issue, I'm going to wager that there's a pretty big gulf between "incompetent to manage one's financial affairs" and "adjudicated mentally defective." That seems to be one are that this discussion is stalling. Sometimes a person may be "incompetent to manage financial affairs" or even "incompetent to form a contract," but those two are wholly different, legally speaking, than "adjudicated mentally defective," IMHO.
2) Before someone can be "adjudicated mentally defective," an adversarial proceeding is required. I sincerely doubt that the SSA has such a proceeding for deeming someone mentally incompetent to manage one's financial affairs, as a general rule.
3) Finally, there was some discussion about an appeals process. Ordinarily, when we're talking about stripping someone of rights, the burden is on the one seeking to take rights to prove that such rights should be taken. In this case, that appears to have been turned on its head: The one seeking to retain rights has them taken and must then demonstrate that they should be given back.
1) Without having thoroughly researched the issue, I'm going to wager that there's a pretty big gulf between "incompetent to manage one's financial affairs" and "adjudicated mentally defective." That seems to be one are that this discussion is stalling. Sometimes a person may be "incompetent to manage financial affairs" or even "incompetent to form a contract," but those two are wholly different, legally speaking, than "adjudicated mentally defective," IMHO.
2) Before someone can be "adjudicated mentally defective," an adversarial proceeding is required. I sincerely doubt that the SSA has such a proceeding for deeming someone mentally incompetent to manage one's financial affairs, as a general rule.
3) Finally, there was some discussion about an appeals process. Ordinarily, when we're talking about stripping someone of rights, the burden is on the one seeking to take rights to prove that such rights should be taken. In this case, that appears to have been turned on its head: The one seeking to retain rights has them taken and must then demonstrate that they should be given back.
Ed Ames
Member
Also remember that the impact of this will vary by state. In Arizona it means no longer being able to buy from dealers. In Texas it will mean no more concealed or open carry license and of course not being able to buy from dealers. In California it will mean police showing up to take whatever guns the state is aware of, plus no CCW, no purchases of modern firearms. Other states might extend that to black powder guns.
Even beyond that, I can conceive of reasons why someone who is unquestionably fully competent to manage his affairs might want his social security checks paid to a trustee.Spats McGee said:
JohnBT
Member
Who exactly will SSA be reporting? They appear to have 2 kinds of beneficiaries who could be reported - incapable and incompetent.
www.ssa.gov/payee/NewGuide/toc.htm#Needs_payee
A: "Incapable – a determination we make that a beneficiary is unable to manage or direct the management of funds. We pay benefits due a beneficiary determined incapable through a representative payee. We base a determination of incapability on various kinds of evidence.
Our determination of incapability is not the same as a State court’s finding of “legal incompetence” and the two findings are not necessarily equivalent.
B: Incompetent (or legally incompetent) – a decision made by a State court that an individual is unable to manage his or her affairs. We presume that any beneficiary a State court finds legally incompetent needs a payee for SSA benefits. On the other hand, a beneficiary we determine incapable might not also be legally incompetent.
Before we select a payee based on a State court’s finding of legal incompetence, we must receive a copy of the court ruling as part of the documentation to support our decision."
John
www.ssa.gov/payee/NewGuide/toc.htm#Needs_payee
A: "Incapable – a determination we make that a beneficiary is unable to manage or direct the management of funds. We pay benefits due a beneficiary determined incapable through a representative payee. We base a determination of incapability on various kinds of evidence.
Our determination of incapability is not the same as a State court’s finding of “legal incompetence” and the two findings are not necessarily equivalent.
B: Incompetent (or legally incompetent) – a decision made by a State court that an individual is unable to manage his or her affairs. We presume that any beneficiary a State court finds legally incompetent needs a payee for SSA benefits. On the other hand, a beneficiary we determine incapable might not also be legally incompetent.
Before we select a payee based on a State court’s finding of legal incompetence, we must receive a copy of the court ruling as part of the documentation to support our decision."
John
JRH6856
Member
Both will have a Representative Payee/Fiduciary Representative, and according to all reporting I have seen, what SSA is reporting the use of a Representative without reference to the reason for such use.
- Status
