Rich Man, Poor Man: Lawmakers Should Raise and Index the SSI Asset Limits

January 17, 2013 at 5:32 pm

We’ve pointed out previously that the recent tax deal permanently granted a big estate-tax break to the very richest Americans while only temporarily extending credits that are crucial to low-paid working families.  Here’s another way that it treats the super-rich better than the very poor.

The deal exempts the first $5.25 million of an estate from tax in 2013 — $12.5 million for a couple — and indexes those thresholds for inflation in the future.  Meanwhile, the asset limits under the Supplemental Security Income (SSI) program — which pays subsistence benefits to 8.3 million very poor elderly or disabled Americans — haven’t increased since 1989.

The maximum SSI benefit in 2013 is $710 a month for an individual and $1,066 for a couple (assuming that both spouses qualify).  Those amounts are about 75 percent of the poverty line for individuals and 83 percent for couples.  And recipients can’t own assets — with a few exceptions, such as a home, a vehicle, and a burial plan — worth more than $2,000 for an individual (or $3,000 for a couple).  The benefit amount is updated every year for inflation, but the asset limits haven’t budged for almost a quarter century.

SSI’s stingy asset limit keeps its recipients from saving for contingencies, such as fixing the roof or repairing the car.  Moreover, SSI counts the entire value of 401(k) and other retirement accounts as assets — even though those savings are meant to last for a lifetime, not consumed all at once.

If SSI’s asset limits had been tied to inflation — like the program’s basic benefits — they’d be almost twice as high today as they actually are (see graph).

Other programs with federally determined asset limits index them to inflation.  The Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) adjusts its asset limits for inflation and also disregards retirement accounts.  (Those improvements were enacted in the 2008 farm bill.)  The asset limits for low-income enrollees who are eligible for additional federal help with Medicare Part D (prescription drug) and Part B (physician and other outpatient services) premiums and out-of-pocket costs are also updated for inflation.

Another aspect of SSI that’s overdue for an update is its income disregards — the small amounts of other income (chiefly from Social Security) that it doesn’t count when determining benefits — which have been frozen for more than four decades.  Lawmakers should raise them now and tie them to future inflation.

By 2022, the estate-tax exemption — which, as noted above, is $5.25 million for an unmarried decedent in 2013 — will rise to over $6 million.  But the SSI asset limit will still be stuck at $2,000.  Very poor elderly or disabled Americans deserve better.

Print Friendly

More About Kathy Ruffing

Kathy Ruffing

Kathy Ruffing is a Senior Fellow at the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, specializing in federal budget issues.

Full bio | Blog Archive | Research archive at

1 Comments Add Yours ↓

Comments are listed in reverse chronological order.

  1. Gloria Whitchurch #

    I would like to say that I do not believe SSI recipients should be means tested at all. There should be no $2,000 or $4,000 asset limit. If they are DISABLED and ELIGIBLE, they should not be discriminated against by trying to own a house or own a vehicle that is valued over $2,000.00!

    That is a total insult to the poor. A situation like this might mean that a person who receives SSI must purchase a vehicle in the poorest of conditions, and use a sizable part of their $700.00 or less per month to keep it running and in repair.
    This also exempt them for having a home! Why? Are they criminals? What is it that they have done to be so treated?

    All they have done is to have a disability of some sort that made employment impossible for them. It is time to fight this stupidity.

Your Comment

Comment Policy:

Thank you for joining the conversation about important policy issues. Comments are limited to 1,500 characters and are subject to approval and moderation. We reserve the right to remove comments that:

  • are injurious, defamatory, profane, off-topic or inappropriate;
  • contain personal attacks or racist, sexist, homophobic, or other slurs;
  • solicit and/or advertise for personal blogs and websites or to sell products or services;
  • may infringe the copyright or intellectual property rights of others or other applicable laws or regulations; or
  • are otherwise inconsistent with the goals of this blog.

Posted comments do not necessarily represent the views of the CBPP and do not constitute official endorsement by CBPP. Please note that comments will be approved during the Center's business hours. If you have questions, please contact

− 5 = one

 characters available