Home

Blog

H.R. 288, The Notch Baby Act of 2007 (10 comments ↓)

  • This item is from the 110th Congress (2007-2008) and is no longer current. Comments, voting, and wiki editing have been disabled, and the cost/savings estimate has been frozen.

H.R. 288 would amend title II of the Social Security Act to provide for an improved benefit computation formula for workers affected by the changes in benefit computation rules enacted in the Social Security Amendments of 1977 who attain age 65 during the 10-year period after 1981 and before 1992 (and related beneficiaries) and to provide prospectively for increases in their benefits accordingly.

(read more ↓)
[50 views]

Visitor Comments Comments Feed for This Bill

am

May 2, 2007, 3:52pm (report abuse)

My father has been dead for over 20 years. He was 65 in 1983. He was waiting for the Notch Baby

Act to pass. He died waiting.

Marsha

May 31, 2007, 7:09pm (report abuse)

It is a shame that we can take care of people that are here illegal, but these people are living in poverty due to nothing being corrected on something that should have never been in effect. They have worked all their lives, did not expect help from anyone and can barely make ends meet. This is a shame and needs to be changed now. We all need to fight for the very few that are still alive and help them get what is due them.

Alex

September 14, 2007, 1:45pm (report abuse)

Actually, they are getting more than what is due them. The notch baby claim is a fraud. Read AARP ste in regards to this. Beneficiaries born before the 1917-1921 group did get higher benefits than those in the 1917-1921 group, but htat was due to an error by Congress in the early 70s that was then corrected in 77. The notch group, while receiving less than the windfall the 1916 group received, got benefits calculated at a higher rate than the 1922 on group, because congress felt it was unfair to take away all of the higher benefits they had planned on. The reason people who retired after the notch group retired may generally have higher benefits is they earned more during their working years as wages were going up.

Margaret

April 29, 2008, 10:18pm (report abuse)

I am one of the notch babies and it is definitely not of my doing and yet I am penalized and getting less than others who were not within the notch baby period. Exactly what is fair about this!

Elizabeth

May 29, 2008, 1:18pm (report abuse)

At the time I retired I figured my amount according to the booklet given to me. When my first check came it was less than shown in the booklet and when I went to Social Security to complain I was told that mine was figured differently.

Bob

August 19, 2008, 5:15pm (report abuse)

Do we have any chance at all???

kathy

September 30, 2008, 10:54pm (report abuse)

My Dad was born in 1924. Everyone keeps talking about the years 1917-1921, also 1922. What about 1924-1926. My father worked all his life and fought for this country. All he wants is what he is entitled to and nothing more. Where is the justice? Maybe I'm not getting all the facts, I just know that I get sad when my Dad says nobody cares because he's old and born in the wrong year. He shouldn't have to feel that way.

Marlys

November 15, 2008, 5:12pm (report abuse)

My father was born in 1917 and died in 1999...waiting for the Notch Baby problem to be solved. I think they are waiting for all to die and then they won't have to pay anyone!

jack

December 22, 2008, 7:20pm (report abuse)

born in 1925

combat infantry vet. over

125 days bronze star etc

yhanks for fairless

Virginia

December 28, 2008, 12:27pm (report abuse)

MY HUSBAND WAS BORN IN 1923 AND THEREFORE A NOTCH BABY. DON'T TELL ME HE ISN'T PENALIZED. HE GETS $400 A MONTH LESS THAN I DO.

BESIDES HE IS A WWII VET AND WORKED ALL HIS LIFE. YET ILLEGALS GET BENEFITS JUST FOR BEING IN OUR COUNTRY. CONGRESS JUST CARES ABOUT THEIR POCKETS!!!

RSS Feeds for This Bill

Keep yourself updated on user contributions and debates about this bill! (Learn more about RSS.)