- "A provision in the 2008 Farm Bill lifted the ten-year statute of limitations on the government's ability to withhold Social Security benefits in collecting debts other than student loans—for which the statute of limitations was lifted in 1997—and income taxes, where the limit remains 10 years.
This means that a person who defaulted on a small-business loan in 1995, for example, and who is receiving Social Security could be notified that his benefits may be reduced each month until the debt, with interest, fees, and penalties, is paid. The Treasury can withhold 15% of the benefit, though it can't be reduced to below $750. Tax debts have no floor.
The change will add more than $6 billion to the $75 billion in delinquent debt individuals owe the government, according to the Financial Management Service, the Treasury's debt collection unit. Defaulted Loans May Haunt Seniors - WSJ.com
Also, lookout if you are defaulting on a government backed loan right now. Especially, if retirement is coming up. If they can take your social security to pay it off, they can take your government pension too.
Posts
6 comments:
Like you, I couldn't find anything specific on the provision mentioned in the WSJ article. So I have no idea what effect the 2008 Farm Bill may have on people's Social Security checks.
But it's going a bit off the deep end to lay all this at the feet of the Democrats. "Congress (that would be Democrats, btw, who won Congress in 2006 in case you've forgotten) tacked on a nasty little thing to the 2008 Farm Bill"
Here's the facts Ma"am, nothing but the facts.
After President Bush vetoed H.R 2419, the Dem and Rep joined together to override the veto.
The House vote to override was 316 Yes, 108 No and 11 Representatives not voting.
In the House 283 votes were required to override the Veto.
216 Dem and 100 Rep voted to override. So the Dem's couldn't have overridden Bush's veto without some of those 100 Republican votes.
The Senate vote to override was 82 Yes, 13 No with 5 Senators not voting.
In the Senate 64 votes were required to override the Veto.
45 Dem, 35 Rep and 2 Ind. voted to override. So the Dem's couldn't have overridden Bush's veto without some of those 35 Republican votes.
Make up of 110th Congress.
Senate: 49 Democrats, 49 Republicans and 2 Independents
House: 233 Democrats and 202 Republicans
If we can be honest about this, we must admit that the Democrats couldn't have done diddly about passing this bill if the majority of the Republicans hadn't wanted it passed too.
I guess we'll have to dig deeper and find out who added this. Not that I approve to defaulting, but to change the rules this far after the fact seems odd. Obama could just wave his magic money wand and make it all go away. Also, I count RINOs as Democrats.
I would also like to know more about the details of this provision. And while I'm not sure how well I understand it. But should it work as I think it does, then it may not be all that bad.
If, for example, the 2 of us are both drawing Social Security and we have both defaulted on a government small business loan. Me 11 years ago and you 9 years ago. To my understanding, under the old law with it's "ten-year statute of limitations" the government could withhold some of your SS benefits, but not mine. While under the new law, they can also attach my SS benefits. I admit that doesn't help you any, and losing some of my benefits isn't going to make me all that happy. But it does seem to be a somewhat more equitable way to do it. Because it just doesn't seem right that for doing virtually the same thing. I get a pass and you get nailed.
So I can see only 2 possible solutions to the problem, either we should all pay for our defaulted loans or no one should.
By the way, I don't believe either the conservatives or liberals have a lock on all that's right and good. So to those on the right I'm a Rino and to those on the left, I'm a Dino. And that's good.
Defaulting on one's obligations is bad; it's breaking a contract. And many are being encouraged to do this now as housing values fall making them worth less than the mortgage value. However, changing the rules after the fact (me 9 you 11, you finally get caught) is in that category in my opinion, especially in this case where it may throw more people into poverty, resulting in more gov't programs, etc.
A retroactive change in the statute of limitations for collection of a federal debt has happened previously. In 1990, President Bush signed the law that changed the time frame from 6 years to 10 years to collect past due federal tax debts. It was enforced retroactively.
Despite the political rhetoric, the fact is that most in congress, Republicans, Democrats, Independents, Hystericrats (or Hystericans if you prefer), most of them, want to see the tax dollars going to the treasury, despite the words that sometimes come from their mouths. The fact that they might extend the time to collect it retroactively doesn't mean much to any of them.
I don't really care how or when the government collects on defalted Federal loans. Just let them collect. I have had the good fortune to receive a government loan when I lost my home to a hurricane. I thank the American tax payer they were so generous. I would never have even thought of defaulting on that loan. But it is WE the American tax payer people default on when they fail to pay their government loan off. This isn't some pie in the sky nice guy who loans that money out honey. It is you and me. By gosh the loans should have been paid. And, we deserve to collect on them.
Post a Comment