Social Security will soon end paper checks
A small group of recipients remains eligible for checks, and a consumer group is urging the Treasury to allow more waivers.
This post comes from Philip Moeller at partner site U.S. News & World Report.
The movement to direct deposit of Social Security benefits is nearly complete. More than 52 million beneficiaries receive their payments electronically, and about 3.3 million -- only 6% -- are still paid with paper checks. Disability recipients of Supplemental Security Income payments are less likely to have made the switch. Nearly 1.5 million SSI recipients, or more than 17%, are still getting paper checks as of this month.
By next March, U.S. Treasury Department rules will require most people to have switched to electronic payments. Under its Go Direct program, people can have federal benefit payments deposited directly into their bank or credit union account or put into a Direct Express Debit MasterCard card account. Paper checks will continue for a limited number of hardship cases and people in their 90s, but the number of allowable waivers will dwindle over time.
Direct deposit is a good deal for nearly everyone. Gone are the fears of stolen checks, the demands of taking the check somewhere to be cashed or deposited, and just the general uncertainty of wondering if something has happened or will happen to your check.
It's also a good deal for the government, which saves hundreds of millions of dollars in expenses with electronic deposits. (Post continues below.)
If you're a recipient or a family member, make sure you understand the rules for the use and fees surrounding direct deposit accounts for your Social Security benefits. And if you ever think something is wrong with how your benefit payments are being handled, call the agency's national number -- (800) 772-1213) -- or visit your local Social Security office.
The spectrum of reasons for third-party control of a recipient's Social Security payments includes many practical needs. A nursing home, for example, may be caring for someone with dementia and that person's payments are used to fund their residency and care. Or a disabled recipient may authorize a financial institution or perhaps a family member to manage their Social Security payments. The agency deals with many such requests. Treasury rules on direct deposits include special recognition of nursing homes and religious orders.
However, the fair treatment of recipients can get much murkier. Many financial institutions provide fee-based services to seniors that are linked to their Social Security deposits. For example, providing Social Security funds for use via a bank debit card can be a convenience to consumers and a revenue source to financial companies. But not all debit cards are created equal. There are regular horror stories of seniors being exploited by companies, having their identities stolen and other abuses. High usage fees and ATM charges may be levied. Seniors who overdraw their cards may be socked with big fees.
The National Consumer Law Center has long been critical of the new Treasury rules, fearing they will harm many older beneficiaries who don't use computers or have Internet access. The group is also worried that the new direct deposit rules don't provide enough consumer safeguards.
The new rules transfer the cost and burden of receiving benefits from the government to the individual, says NCLC attorney Margot Saunders. Among other proposals, the group wants the Treasury to permit more waivers so that people can continue to receive paper checks.
Also, while the Treasury's Direct Express card gets high marks, the NCLC thinks its consumer support services could be overwhelmed when millions of people now getting paper checks realize they are being forced to accept electronic deposits of their benefits. It also wants stepped-up federal oversight of other fee-based cards and of third-party dunning practices and payday lenders.
Social Security rules have long prohibited payments from being garnisheed to satisfy other obligations. But as black-and-white as this rule may appear, the real world is much grayer. Social Security has long permitted recipients to set up "master-sub account" arrangements with banks and other financial institutions. Recipients' Social Security payments go directly into these accounts, and the financial institutions may have the right to use some of the funds to meet beneficiaries' obligations to the institutions.
Rules have been strengthened to exclude check-cashing and payday lenders as sub-account recipients. In nearly all cases, government rules specify that federal payments can only be deposited in an account titled in the name of the recipient.
More on U.S. News & World Report and MSN Money:
- How to increase your Social Security checks
- 10 things you didn't know about Social Security
- 10 places where retiree income has declined the most
- The Social Security Catch-22
- Are you saving enough for retirement?
- What you'll get in Social Security
To (Obama & Biden) & (Romney & Ryan)
Subject - Medicare & social security
I'm 74 years old on social security and Medicare. I have sufficient resources that I should make it 120. I have very good health insurance. If it was needed I probably could get by without social security and Medicare.
However, before you political bastards ever even think about cutting or talking about social security & Medicare. I want to see you bastards cut business welfare, banking, energy, communications, etc... The banking industry has received 100's of billions from congress and the fed. Energy receives billions. Many businesses receive special programs that reduce competition. I have been in agriculture all my life and there is absolutely no justification for price supports, subsides, government loan programs, federal crop insurance, house and senate agricultural committees or a department of agriculture. These programs should have been gutted in 1945 and yet we can't get rid of them.
Also, government is very wasteful with numerous duplicated government programs. The efficiency and productive of our tax dollars need to increase by at least 400%.
Until you bastards have handled the above you have no right to even talk about social security & Medicare.
Once again, a bad deal for the individual...
The article and the SSA fail to mention that the individual will be charged a fee for every transaction. People on Social Security can ill afford to be charged to access their money...
The Government gets the to stick it to the recipients again.
By the way... are they laying off any Government workers since they don't have to process paper checks anymore...?
Didn't think so....
This is really old news for most.
My question is WHY CANT MSN REMOVE ALL THE SPAM GARBAGE POSTS AND BLOCK THE LOWLIFE FROM POSTING THEIR DATING SITE INFO???? Gets to be more of those than actual responses to the articles!
Yeah.....Like that will ever happen.
Harry Reid said very recently that Social Security is several decades from CRISIS, so we won't worry about it now. I've got news for everyone. Harry Reid won't ever worry about Social Security. Neither will anyone else unless the entire Country forces them too.
FixSSNow.org.........It's well worth reading.
Copyright © 2014 Microsoft. All rights reserved.
ABOUT SMART SPENDING
LATEST BLOG POSTS
VIDEO ON MSN MONEY
BLOGS WE LIKE
MUST-SEE ON MSN
A charcuterie master shares his process for cold-smoking meat at home.
- Jetpacks about to go mainstream
- Weird things covered by home insurance
- Bing: 70 percent of adults report 'digital eye strain'