Old-Age Benefits in Current-Payment Status, December 31, 1955
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
income but rather in how much they Table 2.-Comparison of estimated since 1948 in the proportion of old- add to the retirement incomes of per- number of men and women aged 65 age assistance recipients who are in- and over receiving money income sons receiving both types of payment. from specified sources, December surance beneilciaries. Such persons probably represented 1955 and December 19501 The estimated number of aged per- about one-seventh of the retired [Continental United Hates; numbers in million sl sons without money income or with workers and wives receiving old-age income solely from sources other and survivors insurance benefits at I Men women than employment or a public-income the end of 1955. I- - ~- maintenance program dropped from Per- The number of old-age and surviv- cent-‘w- “b? cent- about 3.1 million at the end of i950 ors insurance beneficiaries with some we - age to some 1.6 million in December 1955. cl rmge, ~me, earned income as of December 1955 1955 1956 Such persons live on income from in- 0 from 1966 195 from is estimated at roughly 700,000, com- 1950 1950 vestments, savings, or proceeds of pared with barely 300,000 in Decem- -- --- private insurance policies, rely ‘on Total _______ t-13 7.7 6.6 +17 ber 1950. The margin of error in the -- --- relatives or friends for support, or estimate for December 1955 is con- _. _- - - - - 1.7 1.5 +17 live in public institutions and have siderable, however, because sufficient no income from public income-main- information is not yet available on +lCnl 3.7 1.6 tenance programs. In December 1955, +;;; 3:; 1.1 $% the effect that the liberalization of ..5 +.V about seven-eighths of them were the retirement test in the Social Se- -15 1.5 1.6 -5 women, and probably more than curity Act has had on the labor-force three-fourths of these women were participation of beneficiaries. More- widows. over, until reports by beneficiaries on -76 1.4 2.2 -36 1955 earnings have been processed, it - will not be known how many persons 1 For items included in each category, definitions, Old-Age Benefits in and source, see table 1. Percentage changesicom- receiving benefits in December should puted from unrounded figures. Current-Payment Status, have had those benefits suspended December 31, 1955 (and will therefore lose benefits in in December 1950 to 3.5 per 100 in Old-age benefits under the old-age 1956) or how many benefits that were December 1955. Just before the pres- and survivors insurance program withheld in December should in fact ent retirement test became effective, were being paid on December 31, have been in current-payment status in December 1954, benefits were with- 1955, to almost 4.5 million persons- then. held because of employment from about 0.7 million more than in De- Available data? point to a relative- 268,000 aged persons, or 5 per 100 in cember 1954. The accompanying ly large number of beneficiaries who current-payment status. table shows the average monthly ben- do some work for pay. While the Public assistance continues to play efit amount and gives a percentage number of persons aged 65 and over an important if diminishing role in distribution of the number of bene- who had some earnings increased the economic protection of the aged. ficiaries according to the size of their slightly between December 1950 and At the end of 1955, it is estimated to benefit. The data are classified by the December 1955, the number who were have been the major source of sup- beneficiaries’ State of residence at fully insured under old-age and sur- port for more than 1 in 10 of all aged the close of 1955. vivors insurance but not drawing men and 1 in 6 of all aged women in The average old-age benefit being benefits dropped from 1,368,OOOto the continental United States. It was paid in December 1955 was $61.90, 1,212,OOO.As a proportion of all aged also important as a supplementary about $2.76 higher than the average persons fully insured, the decline was source of income for others whose so- a year earlier. The higher average from 44 percent to 21 percent. Most cial insurance benefits failed to meet resulted partly from the increasing of them had never filed a claim for their needs as determined by State proportion of benefits computed on benefits: the others had filed and welfare department standards. Be- the basis of earnings after 1950. Con- then returned to work or lost benefits tween December 1950 and December tributing to the increase, also, was for other reasons. If only those who 1955 the total number of aged persons the progressively rising proportion of had filed for benefits at some time- in the continental United States re- beneficiaries whose benefits were including wives, widows, and parents ceiving any help under old-age assist- computed under the provisions of the of insured workers--are considered, ance or aid to the blind declined by 1954 amendments that permit the 4 it is found that in December of both about 250,000, even though the aged or 5 years of lowest covered earnings 1950 and 1955, benefits were withheld population increased almost 1.9 mil- to be dropped in the computation of from about 220,000 aged persons be- lion. The number receiving public as- the average monthly wage. This cause of employment. This number sistance but no social insurance bene- method generally produces higher represented a decline in the ratio of fit is estimated to have dropped 500,000 benefits than those obtained without such suspensions to benefits in cur- to 2 million. Preliminary reports on the dropout. rent-payment status from 8.5 per 100 concurrent receipt of old-age and sur- Persons receiving old-age benefits 2 The data relate to all beneficiaries, in- vivors insurance and old-age assist- may also be receiving secondary cluding those living outside the continental ance in February 1956 suggest a con- (wife’s, husband’s, widow’s, widower’s, limits of the United States. tinuation of the steady upward trend or parent’s) benefits. If the second- 16 Social Security ary beneflt is the larger, both types or beneficiaries who are also receiv- One out of 4 old-age benellciaries of benefit are payable, but the sec- ing old-age benefits are included only was receiving monthly beneflts of ondary benefit is reduced by the as old-age beneficiaries, and the $80.00-$108.50 at the end of 1965. amount of the concurrent old-age amount of the reduced secondary sur- Slightly more than two-fifths of all benefit. Before December 1955, aged vivor benefit is combined with the old-age beneficiaries were receiving persons who were receiving sur- amount of the old-age benefit. Since benefits in the $50.00-$79.90 range, vivor benefits, as well as old-age ben- the amount of the reduced secondary while one - third were receiving efits in their own right, were in- survivor benefits is small compared monthly benefits of less than $50.00. clubed both as old-age beneficiaries with the total amount of old-age ben- Minimum beneilts of $30.00 were be- and as widow, widower, or parent efits, the increase in the average old- ing paid to about 711,000 old-age beneficiaries. Beginning with beneflt age benefit resulting from this com- beneficiaries-35,000 more than at data for December 1955, aged surviv- bination may be less than 25 cents. the end of 1954-but as a proportion of all old-age beneficiaries the num- Number and average monthly amount of old-age benefits in current-payment ber of persons receiving minimum status and percentage distribution by amount of benefit,’ by State, December benefits declined 2.0 percent to 15.9 31,195s percent. [Percentage distribution based on IO-percent sample] Among the 48 States the average Percent of old-age beneflclarles receivlng- monthly old-age benefit at the end of 1955 ranged from $68.69 in Con- necticut to $49.27 in Mississippi. Ben- efits of $80.00-$108.50were being paid to 34 percent of the old-age benefi- ciaries in Connecticut and to 10 per- Corm_ ---- _- 68.69 86,166 loo.0 16.7 17.0 29.1 Mich _______ 67.1% 185,743 100.0 8 14.0 13.0 23.1 :Z cent in Mississippi. Only 22 percent N. Je _ ______ 67.11 176,461 100.0 14.8 18.6 of the old-age beneficiaries in Con- Pa __ _ _ - - - - _- 65.48 365,227 100.0 ;{f :::i 15.6 16.9 :; Oh10 __----_- 65.32 257,717 166.0 15.7 13.5 19.9 necticut but 56 percent of those in Ma.% _--___- 66.17 198,616 100.0 8.6 20.2 15.4 14.7 :i: Ill--__ _-____ 65.11 276,930 100.0 8.4 16.2 14.0 18.4 Mississippi were receiving beneilts of N. Y- _ __ ___ 64.45 538,179 loo.0 18.0 14.3 15. 6 1: R. I. __ _ _ ___ 64.14 33,342 100.0 i% 20.2 16.3 12.0 $30.00-$49.90. In Puerto Rico, where Wis.. __.____ 62.58 112,898 190.0 s:3 15.0 12.9 17.7 :“z the average benefit was only $41.39, Del._-. _____ 62.41 10,566 100.0 15.8 12.4 16.0 14.1 11.2 14.0 77 percent of the old-age benefici- FL.