Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News Editorials & Other Articles General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

passiveporcupine

(8,175 posts)
21. You are correct
Sat Apr 12, 2014, 03:54 PM
Apr 2014

I found a better article at Washington Post.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/social-security-treasury-target-hundreds-of-thousands-of-taxpayers-for-parents-old-debts/2014/04/10/74ac8eae-bf4d-11e3-bcec-b71ee10e9bc3_story.html

the part that bothers me is that the government claims an overpayment and then when people ask for proof, they say they have nothing to show them...how then, can they claim anyone was overpaid? If they don't have records that show that?

And apparently the ten year statute of limitation being dropped was inserted into a farm bill three years ago, and nobody knows who did it? Huh?

There is a story of one man who admits he was overpaid, and they asked him in 1978 to repay $600 and he did. Now they just took almost $200 more money out of his tax return without any notice. He wants some kind of letter from them stating his debt has been paid in full, and they said they probably can't (won't) do that. This has got to be very frustrating. Who keeps records that far back?

I'm guessing they are going after money paid to children who were no longer eligible. But the way they are doing this is really not cool.

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

This country is just humming along like a well-oiled machine. Brigid Apr 2014 #1
I knew they can collect from an estate.... Historic NY Apr 2014 #2
Nice. progressoid Apr 2014 #3
, blkmusclmachine Apr 2014 #4
it's perfectly fine as long as the richest among us are never inconvenienced nt pragmatic_dem Apr 2014 #5
I can't believe this since a child would not be able to defend against a charge like that. JDPriestly Apr 2014 #6
The repayment was not for "dead parents' debt." JayhawkSD Apr 2014 #7
Awww... fleabiscuit Apr 2014 #8
Even if that's true, Art_from_Ark Apr 2014 #9
I agree. JayhawkSD Apr 2014 #16
thank you passiveporcupine Apr 2014 #10
That's not what it was. JayhawkSD Apr 2014 #17
You are correct passiveporcupine Apr 2014 #21
Except that the article inaccurately references "parents' old debts." JayhawkSD Apr 2014 #22
No, the article states the money was taken because of an overpayment to "someone" 7962 Apr 2014 #11
The article did not equivocate. JayhawkSD Apr 2014 #18
While you're correct, a child should not be held responsible. joshcryer Apr 2014 #12
Still a child cannot enter a contract. gvstn Apr 2014 #13
"who inserted the sentence" - Not a sentence, a philosophy. Popular with one side of the aisle jtuck004 Apr 2014 #14
It's not a contract... JayhawkSD Apr 2014 #19
well, they can't tax the rich, so they had to find a way to screw 2pooped2pop Apr 2014 #15
thats a gawker link pitohui Apr 2014 #20
Latest Discussions»General Discussion»The Government Will Take ...»Reply #21