Should you get a new Social Security number? - Yahoo Finance

 

You can get a replacement Social Security number. But government officials and privacy experts caution against it, in large part because of the potential for post-replacement bureaucratic hassles. That might explain why in 2014 only 249 Americans requested and got their Social Security number changed because of someone else's misuse of it, according to the Social Security Administration.

Identity fraud related to stolen Social Security numbers is relatively uncommon, and our advice is, Take it seriously, but don't panic.

Here's how to decide whether obtaining a new Social Security number is right for your situation and our advice for getting one:

1. Assess your threat tolerance

There's cause for concern about the Anthem heist. The hackers took up to 80 million Social Security numbers, along with everything needed—name, address, date of birth, e-mail address, employment and income information—to open new credit accounts, obtain health benefits, earn taxable income, and even commit crimes in your name.

That means the thieves could take the money and leave you with the tax bills, collection letters, and bad credit reports, and also make you more vulnerable to spear-phishing attacks.

But Bob Geller, a privacy consultant, notes that each year, less than one percent of all consumers are victims of new-account and personal-information identity fraud compared with 6.2 percent for existing credit card and bank account ID fraud. On the other hand, 22.5 percent of breach notice recipients subsequently become victims of ID fraud, according to Javelin Strategy & Research, a California consulting firm.

Learn why you shouldn't give your doctor your Social Security number. Also, protect yourself with the advice in the paranoid's guide to digital security.

2. Gather evidence of recent misuse and hardship

To issue a new Social Security number, the SSA requires proof that your Social Security number is actually being misused and the problem is an ongoing hardship. Such evidence would include an identity thief filing a false tax return to steal your refund. Keep records of everything strange that might indicate trouble, such as an IRS letter questioning you about income not reported, records of your frustrating battle to correct credit reports, or a letter denying you a mortgage because of erroneous information.The SSA will also look to see whether you've tried to solve the problem with other tools at your disposal, such as a security freeze, which can help shut the door on the crook's access to your credit report.

3. Try easier remedies first

If you're a victim of tax-refund fraud, work with the IRS and respond immediately to notices. Case resolution takes about four months, and victims get an Identity Protection Personal Identification Number, or IP PIN, a unique six-digit number that has been issued to 1.5 million taxpayers to file with their returns and showing that they're the rightful filers. Used together at the IRS, the Social Security number and IP PIN effectively become a modified replacement Social Security number.
If these efforts work, you probably don't need a new Social Security number; if they don't, the hardship you endure and persistence of the problem strengthen your case for a replacement.

4. Make the case at your local Social Security office

You'll need to use the application for an original Social Security card (Form SS-5) and prove your citizenship and identity with an unexpired drivers license, U.S. passport, birth certificate, or other acceptable documents, and document the misuse and ongoing problem. The decision is made at the local office level on a case-by-case basis. "Once we have all the necessary information verified, you can generally receive a new number within 10 business days," says Nicole Tiggemann, a spokeswoman for the Social Security Administration. Your original Social Security number won't be deleted; it will stay assigned to you and linked to the new one.

5. Request a letter confirming the change

The SSA will send information about the replacement to the IRS and your employer, and the new number is what becomes available to many federal agencies that need to know your SSN. It's up to you to notify others of the change.

"Sometimes getting a new number can leave you worse off," says Steve Toporoff, an attorney in the Federal Trade Commission's Division of Privacy and Identity Protection, because you need to contact all the government agencies, financial institutions, credit bureaus, health insurers, and other places where the old Social Security number might be used."

To make that process smoother, get a letter from the SSA detailing the change, stating that you will no longer be using the old number and start to refer to the new number, advises the Identity Theft Resource Center.

Be aware that a new Social Security number will not guarantee a clean slate or fresh start everywhere. For instance, you could end up with a new Social Security number but no credit history, which you would then have to straighten out. Or a state or municipal agency or private company could continue to use your old Social Security number, resulting in confusion over who you are or why there are no records about you. That, again, would be something you would have to rectify.

—Jeff Blyskal (@JeffBlyskal on Twitter)

Should you get a new Social Security number? - Yahoo Finance

Funding shortfall for Social Security disability program: Is it real? - Yahoo News

 

• The programs. The Social Security system has two trust funds, one for Old-Age and Survivors Insurance (essentially retirees) and one for Disability Insurance. The two funds (OASDI) have their own official balances and allocation of revenues from Social Security payroll taxes – and hence they have differing levels of solvency.

• The problem. The old-age trust fund is on track to be able to keep paying promised benefits in full through 2034, but the DI program can only do this through 2016, according to estimates from Social Security’s trustees.

• Going 'broke'? The 2016 date is where Senator Enzi and others draw references to DI “bankruptcy” or going “broke” by next year. It’s also what prompts the Obama administration to call for a fix. But the DI program would still have enough tax revenue that could keep funding about 81 percent of promised benefits. That’s not good for beneficiaries, but it’s not the same as going broke.

• Obama's proposal. Obama’s proposed fix is designed to balance things out so the two trust funds last for the same amount of time before running dry. It would put a higher share of payroll taxes toward the DI program, and a smaller share toward the old-age program. By Social Security’s estimates, that would mean neither trust fund would be depleted until 2033.

• Looking ahead. That 2033 date is the one many Democrats emphasize when they call the other side alarmists. Yet at best, that merely postpones one day of reckoning (the 2016 DI deadline) while bringing another one (for the old-age program) a year closer. And when you’re talking about all US retirees facing the prospect of getting only 75 percent of promised benefits, 2033 isn’t so far away.

These facts suggest that Republican Sen. Orrin Hatch of Utah had a valid point when he argued this week on the Senate floor that “having a joint trust fund exhaustion as a target doesn’t solve any fundamental financial problem facing ... Social Security.”

At the same time, Democrats have a point when they note that rebalancing the tax revenues between the two trust funds has been done by Congress many times in the past.

The nonpartisan Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget notes that Congress has reallocated tax receipts between these two funds in the past, but generally accompanied by reforms to Social Security.

House Republicans are seeking to block any such reallocation, unless it’s accompanied by reforms to shore up Social Security so promised benefits can be paid beyond 2033.

The Social Security trustees said in their 2014 annual report that although Congress may consider another rebalancing, such a move "might serve to delay DI reforms and much needed financial corrections for OASDI as a whole."

Regardless of whether the tax flows are rebalanced, the two programs may call for differing reforms to bolster their solvency.

In the old-age program, possible fixes include asking high-earning Americans to shoulder bigger tax burdens, modestly raising the retirement age, and adjusting the inflation index used for benefits (so that annual cost-of-living increases aren’t so big).

On the disability side, changes might include expanding incentives for people to work rather than rely on DI benefits. “Increasing employment among individuals with disabilities could improve their economic well-being and increase their autonomy while also reducing the fiscal strains on Social Security,” Stanford University economist Mark Duggan argued at a Senate hearing this week.

The disability program has grown markedly in recent years. By 2012 it was accounting for 18 percent of all Social Security benefits, up from 10 percent in 1970, according to the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office.

Much of the expansion stemmed from demographics, as an aging population included more people developing disabilities in their later work years, a 2013 CBO analysis concluded. But it also found the growth in the program to be related to 1984 legislation that loosened the definition of conditions qualifying as disabilities, and in fluctuations in the economy – such as the long jobs drought following the 2008 financial crisis.

“The DI rolls have barely grown for the last two years,” notes Kathy Ruffing of the liberal Center on Budget and Policy Priorities.

That slowdown coincides with an easing of demographic pressures on the program, as the baby boomers retire, as well as the improving economy.

Click on the following to read all of the story:  Funding shortfall for Social Security disability program: Is it real? - Yahoo News

New GOP Congress Fires Shot At Social Security On Day One

 

ByDylan Scott

PublishedJanuary 6, 2015, 5:34 PM EST 111777 views

With a little-noticed proposal, Republicans took aim at Social Security on the very first day of the 114th Congress.

The incoming GOP majority approved late Tuesday a new rule that experts say could provoke an unprecedented crisis that conservatives could use as leverage in upcoming debates over entitlement reform.

The largely overlooked change puts a new restriction on the routine transfer of tax revenues between the traditional Social Security retirement trust fund and the Social Security disability program. The transfers, known as reallocation, had historically been routine; the liberal Center for Budget and Policy Priorities said Tuesday that they had been made 11 times. The CBPP added that the disability insurance program "isn't broken," but the program has been strained by demographic trends that the reallocations are intended to address.

The House GOP's rule change would still allow for a reallocation from the retirement fund to shore up the disability fund -- but only if an accompanying proposal "improves the overall financial health of the combined Social Security Trust Funds," per the rule, expected to be passed on Tuesday. While that language is vague, experts say it would likely mean any reallocation would have to be balanced by new revenues or benefit cuts.

House Democrats are sounding the alarm. In a memo circulated to their allies Tuesday, Democratic staffers said that that would mean "either new revenues or benefit cuts for current or future beneficiaries." New revenues are highly unlikely to be approved by the deeply tax-averse Republican-led Congress, leaving benefit cuts as the obvious alternative.

The Social Security and Medicare Boards of Trustees estimated last year that the disability insurance program would run short of money to pay all benefits some time in late 2016. Without a new reallocation, disability insurance beneficiaries could face up to 20 percent cuts in their Social Security payments in late 2016 -- a chit that would be of use to Republicans pushing for conservative entitlement reforms.

"The rule change would prohibit a simple reallocation! It will require more significant and complex changes to Social Security," Social Security Works, an advocacy group, said in a statement Tuesday. "In other words, the Republican rule will allow Social Security to be held hostage."

Policy wonks who follow Social Security saw the GOP rule change as a play for leverage.

"Everybody's been talking about entitlement reform. Mr. Boehner and President Obama were pretty close to coming up with some kind of grand bargain, which ultimately fell apart," Tom Hungerford, senior economist at the liberal Economic Policy Institute, told TPM. "Maybe this could be used as a hostage to try to get back to something like that."

For their part, congressional Republicans were fairly transparent about their thinking. Rep. Tom Reed (R-NY), who has been outspoken on the disability program, co-sponsored the rule amendment. The disability program has been a favored target for the GOP; members were warning last month that the program could be vulnerable to fraud.

"My intention by doing this is to force us to look for a long term solution for SSDI rather than raiding Social Security to bail out a failing federal program," Reed said in a statement. "Retired taxpayers who have paid into the system for years deserve no less.”

Liberal analysts counter, however, that the retirement fund, which pays out $672.1 billion in benefits per year versus $140.1 billion for the disability fund, is more than healthy enough to allow for a reallocation, as has historically been done. CBPP's Kathy Ruffing wrote that, if a transfer was made before the 2016 deadline, both funds would be solvent until 2033.

The Republican angle in preventing that move then seems obvious.

"By barring the House from approving a 'clean' reallocation in 2016, the rule will strengthen the hand of lawmakers who seek to attach harsh conditions (such as sharp cuts in eligibility or benefit amounts) to such a measure," Ruffing wrote.

Above is from:  New GOP Congress Fires Shot At Social Security On Day One

Immigration Reform Could Cost Social Security Billions | Daily Ticker - Yahoo! Finance

By Nicole Goodkind

 

Stephen Goss, chief actuary of the Social Security Administration estimates that 3.1 million illegal workers pay into Social Security each year. In 2010, undocumented workers and their employers paid $15 billion to Social Security with no intention of ever collecting benefits -- that year illegal workers only received $1 billion back.

How do working illegal immigrants pay in to and collect Social Security? Some are issued Social Security numbers with their temporary or student visas, others forge documents and were issued numbers by Social Security before they tightened their screening process in 2001, some steal numbers, and others simply make them up.

When workers pay Social Security under numbers that don’t match their names the administration sorts these into their “suspense” file. No one gets credit towards benefits for this money but the money does still go to the Social Security trust fund.

Related: Immigration Is an Economic Issue: Actress and Obama Campaign Co-Chair Eva Longoria

Over the course of many years, Goss estimates that a total of $150 billion in undocumented workers' money has flowed into the Social Security trust fund. That’s about 8% of the total

Click on the following to read all of the story:  Immigration Reform Could Cost Social Security Billions | Daily Ticker - Yahoo! Finance