Opinion

Dear Rusty: Can my wife claim her benefits now (at 63, and we know about the reduction for claiming early) and then, when I retire at 66 years and 10 months of age almost 3 years from now, can she switch over to spousal benefits based on my benefit amount? She worked at a higher paying job for much of her career but is now at a much lower income and would be under the amount that would reduce her benefits further. I currently earn about nine times her annual salary so the spousal benefit for her would be an increase when I retire. Signed: Seeking Information Dear Seeking: Yes, your wife can claim her own (reduced) Social Security retirement benefit now, and she will be automatically awarded a spousal boost when you later claim your SS retirement benefit.

Sometimes, newspaper headlines are clever to the max, like the one in the Dallas Morning News when the Texas Rangers mauled the Tampa Bay Rays in the first two games of the American League wild card playoff. There was but a sprinkling of Texas fans in the half-filled stadium, none of whom carried brooms.

socIAl securITy m ATTers By Rusty Gloor Dear Rusty: My wife, born in 1960, was a Texas school teacher for about 10 years and receives a $1,000 per month pension from that work. She didn’t pay into Social Security while teaching, but she paid into it for about 23 years while working elsewhere.

Gov. Greg Abbott, just hours after the Senate initially approved a school voucher measure, said he would add teacher raises and increased public school funding to the ongoing special session agenda if the Texas Legislature passes his voucher plan, the Texas Tribune reported.

For the 30th consecutive month Texas showed job growth, reaching just under 14 million jobs and outpacing the nation in its annual rate of employment growth, according to the Texas Workforce Commission. “Our world-class Texas workforce has grown by more than 400,000 jobs over the last year, thanks largely to the energizing job creation by our private-sector employers,” said TWC commissioner Aaron Demerson.

Dear Rusty: I read with interest an analysis of the history, reasons, and financial costs of the SSI (Supplemental Security Income) and SSDI (Social Security Disability Insurance) programs. My question is, specifically, what portion of the Social Security budget goes toward SSI and SSDI vs. for regular SS retirement income for those who paid into the fund during their working lives? How are the costs of SSI and SSDI covered by the federal government? When did these two sections of the budget enter the law and what was the impetus behind them? Signed: An Inquiring Mind Dear Inquiring Mind: No part of Social Security’s “budget” is used to pay SSI (Supplemental Security Income). SSI is a means-tested general assistance program for disadvantaged children and needy disabled adults and aged seniors who have very little income and very few assets. Federal SSI benefits are paid from the government’s General Treasury, not from Social Security Trust Funds. SSI is jointly administered by the person’s state of residence and the Social Security Administration, and the state usually provides additional benefits to supplement the financial assistance provided by the federal government under the SSI program. The Social Security Administration only administers the SSI program, it does not fund it.

Mention the name Walter R. Chambers to families with long connection to the tiny Coleman County community of Burkett, TX, and a hush of funereal proportions is immediately evident.

Uncle Mort, my aged uncle down in The Thicket, has heard the expression since childhood. He’s used it repeatedly since about the time he thinks he became an adult.

Dear Rusty: Why are my Social Security benefits being taxed at all? The Social Security FICA payroll taxes taken out of my paycheck while I was working were paid with taxable income. Signed: Disgruntled Taxpayer Dear Disgruntled Taxpayer: Many Americans share your belief that federal taxation of Social Security benefits is unfair because we pay into the program through payroll taxes on our taxable earnings. Unfortunately, Congress took a different view in 1983 when taxation of Social Security benefits was first enacted at a time Social Security was having financial issues. Congressional logic back then was that a beneficiary only personally pays 50% of the Social Security contributions made (the other half is paid by the employer) so, since your Social Security entitlement was only half paid for by you and the other half by your employer, the portion of your benefit attributable to your employer’s contributions should be taxable. So, it’s that other half – the portion of your benefit which resulted from employer contributions - which the 1983 Congress decided should be taxed. So, starting in 1984, if a beneficiary’s overall annual income from all sources exceeded $25,000 for a single filer or $32,000 for those filing married-jointly, half of that person’s Social Security benefits became part of their income taxable by the IRS.

h Gov. Greg Abbott issued a letter to legislative leaders indicating a special session will begin on Oct.