"Nude" Skater Hits Rockefeller Ice
Protest To Keep 9/11 Trials Out Of NYC
Lacrosse Sex Scandal — Sexual Assault or Prank?
Disabled Vietnam Vet Hot Dog Vendor Arrested Outside Met
Tenants' Rights Flash Cards!
While many people are wondering when they are getting their stimulus check, some are finding out they have accidentally received other people's checks! Newsday reports checks being sent to taxpayers who paid via electronic payment have been direct deposited to the wrong accounts.
One person who found "an unexpected deposit of $1,800" learned it was a "deposit from the IRS bearing another taxpayer's Social Security number." The IRS admitted to Newsday, "We do know of instances of problems; we've heard of situations where stimulus checks have gone to the wrong people's bank accounts."
If you're wondering where your stimulus check is, they are being sent out in different waves, depending on your Social Security number and whether you filed electronically or by paper. Here are the details.
add to stumble upon
add to reddit
tweet this
post to facebook
And some of you want these same people in charge of health care.
I got my stimulous money last week... And no, I don't want the IRS in charge of healthcare.
"While many people are wondering when they are getting their stimulus check, some are finding out they have accidentally receive other people's checks!"
I want them in charge of my healthcare.
I have medicare. Don't touch my Medicare.
I will expect similar service from the government when (or should I say if) they begin to pay me back on my Social Security benefits.
That's what you get when you only hire people who went to Bob Jones.
Yeah this makes me so happy I didn't qualify for one.
Who willingly gives the government direct access to their bank accounts? Morons!
I have to wonder if the IRS outsourced this one to FEMA.
Oh, wait, they didn't need to: they're big enough fuck-ups as it is. Heckuva job, Bushies!
And drewo, I think it's safe to say that if you're under 40 years old, you can pretty much forget about seeing anything meaningful regarding social security. What a misnomer, already...
Good luck, all of you.
You really don't willingly give bank account access to anyone.. the electronic banking system is basically on the honor system. Your bank assumes that whoever initiates a transfer has your authorization. Also, there's no way for someone like Verizon or Paypal to verify that the routing/account numbers actually belong to you (aside from the 0.02 cent deposit game that some entities use). Of course frauds are subject to severe penalties, but that doesn't stop criminals.
"I think it's safe to say that if you're under 40 years old, you can pretty much forget about seeing anything meaningful regarding social security."
I made a comment like that to someone currently on SS and he said to me something along the lines of "Yeah, I said the same thing when I was your age." A lot can change in 20-30 years.
Any good CPA will tell you not to give your bank account info to the IRS. Why make it easier for them to access YOUR money.
anytime that someone says "safe to say" "clearly" "certainly" - it's means they have no idea what they are talking about and are too lazy to actually find out if it is true.
At it's worst, SS will pay 75% of the promised benefits. Extend the retirement age, raise taxes, or reduce benefits and the program will pay full "promised" benefits.
or, cool, i think it's safe to say that someone who doesn't understand how to properly use "it's" and "its" is a fucking tool.
and yes, douchebag, i have a degree in economics from one of the best departments in the world, and have done research and worked on this topic.
what i find curious is how your last two sentences agree with my conclusion, yet you chose to attack how i worded something. get a fucking life.
i think the guy who said the same thing years ago was right, given the average payout is about $1200 monthly, or approximately 36 percent of the national wage index of $39,540, amounting in payment which is not even 50 percent above the poverty level. try living on that. given the cost of living increase that they've given at 2.3 percent, and given the higher rate of inflation, benefits are not keeping up. and this says nothing about the liquidity issues they'll face. yes, there will be (there must be) changes, and yes, a lot can change in 20-30 years, but now is the time to start thinking about reasonable and meaningful reform and it seems no one is paying much attention (again, i wonder if FEMA is in charge).
i fear that republicans are intent on crushing the program and turning their backs on the old, just as they've turned their backs on soldiers (god forbid you take care of them properly and also offer a new GI bill). with the path we're on as a country that does not save a portion of its income, but rather goes into debt, it's pretty damn clear that there will be a lot of people who are unprepared for the realities of old age.
cool, one request: i'd absolutely love to see the data that you got your "75% of the promised benefits" from. that's such a vague statement that it's tough to even imagine how meaningless it is.
The Miniplenty has gone fubar.
To get to the 75%, I took the expected cost rate, multiplied it by 75% and that results in no single year where costs exceed expected income through until 2085.
http://www.socialsecurity.gov/OACT/TR/TR08/lr4b1.html
You don't seem to be a data guy, so take a look at the faq:
http://www.socialsecurity.gov/qa.htm
As to whether the benefits are fair, benefits are a function of what one contributes to the program, with some progressivity factored in. This was done to make the program politically viable from the start. I agree with you that Republicans are trying to kill the "social insurance" mandate of the program, unfortunately. However, I disagree with you that the program is supposed to be the primary source of retirement savings. As such, the expectation that the program should provide a "living wage" is unreasonable.
BTW, expected benefits are projected to increase faster than inflation as this table suggests:
http://www.socialsecurity.gov/OACT/TR/TR08/lr6f10.html
The most fundamental flaw of the program was that it started paying benefits before receiving one single contribution, and that haunts us today. The ideal system, I think, would be to contribute $20,000 to every person on their birth date (not every year, just year 0). Through the power of compounding, you would have a reasonable retirement savings for everyone. The challenge is instituting the program so that it is fair to everyone. The current system is unfair to women and blacks, but I'll leave that to another discussion.