Can One Make Any Money After Getting Iu?

[griffcher]

Can I make any money if I am on IU?

[Philip Rogers]

Sorry, hawkfire27! I just said "if" that's the case. "If" he went back to work he "apparently" wasn't disabled anymore, especially TDIU, which is what you first stated. He also apparently decided not to fight the reduction or lost, if he did. Remember, I'm saying "apparently" because I haven't seen any evidence but am going based on what you've stated and if he continued to receive TDIU while working "it is fraud."

Sorry, but it bothers me when claimants claim to be "disabled and can't work" and then when they win, want to, or expect to be allowed to, continue to draw full disability pay and still work. These are not lottery winnings, although approximately 2673, tax free, monthly, dollars is pretty good and may seem like it. That works out to roughly $15.43 an hr or $614 a wk (tax free), for not working. Not too shabby! With SSDI that's even more! I live in northern VT where $20k annually is a fairly good income and average take home, for a single person, is more like $15k, w/overtime. jmo

pr

Ummmmmmmmmm No it wasn't fraud! He just wanted to work, and stopped going to his VA appointments. I really don't like that you are insinuating he committed fraud.... Sorry but I'm a little annoyed by that comment.

Edited December 28, 2009 by Philip Rogers

[free_spirit_etc]

can I invest and make money from home. Since most of my investing is done on the computer?

Jerr

Investing is generally not considered a job, or self-employment - as long as you are just doing some average buying and selling of stocks, bonds, funds, whatever. But if you did it enough that you made a living at it, such as a day trader - then it could be looked at as an earned income, rather than a passive income.

[free_spirit_etc]

So, as long as my gambling operations are not legal...........then I'm legal?

Not that I'd ever gamble illicity.

or anything like dat!

LOL - you are funny (sometimes.... well, most of the time...)

But in all seriousness, I think people also need to watch it with gambling. Most generally we think of gambling winnings as unearned income (i.e. it is a game and I won something). But the IRS has two ways of treating gambling winnings - as a hobby or as a profession. The professional gambler can deduct gambling expenses (such a travel, etc.) as business income. The people that just gamble for fun (i.e. hobby) can only deduct their losses. Here is one IRS link on it:

http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-utl/am2008013.pdf

So a disabled vet, or someone on SSD who gambled some and won (or lost) some money - Yes, that would be unearned income from a hobby. But if that person gambled to such an extent that the IRS would consider their gambling to be a business / profession - that would move the income into the realm of earned income. That consistent income, combined with whatever skills, etc. it may take to consistently gamble - could result in a finding that you are no longer disabled to the point of being unemployable.

[free_spirit_etc]

I think, that if one "needs to keep" below the minimum income threshold, that you will not be "fine". What one should do is just be honest and go back to work- stop gaming the system. This type of behavior sets the system back for those whom really need the IU benefit and struggle to get it.

On the flip side of the coin, you will surly be under the magnifying glass if income is reported by an IU beneficiary or if discovered by other means. Yes, its a catch 22, but think about how VA benefits are suppose to be awarded- compensate for veterans occupational limitations. To me, that means one should be incapable of even remotely coming close to the minimum income threshold.

I agree with you in many ways (I think..). The regulations don't require that a person does not work at all to be considered unemployable, as unemployable is not defined as NO employment, but the inability to maintain consistent "gainful" employment.

So someone, like hawkfire's example of her husband, who can develop a hobby somewhat, and earn some money at it - but not near the income it would take to support themselves - then the VA (and SSA) would still consider them to be "unemployable." Likewise, someone who really wants to work, but is actually only capable of working a couple hours a day would still be considered unemployable, because they are only capable of what the VA considers "marginal employment, and not capable of maintaining what SSA considers "substantially gainful" employment.

Actually, both systems even have a safety net of sorts built in for those who want to try working at a more significant level. SSA has the Trial Work Period and the VA has the regulation where you have to be able to sustain your employment, generally for a year, before they no longer consider you "unemployable." So there is still a safety net for those who TRY working full-time for awhile and then find out they really can't do it.

I am not sure how that works out in real life, but I do think it looks good on paper (i.e. the regs) because some people try working and eventually can work again. But for those who try and don't succeed, there isn't an automatic loss of benefits just for trying.

But like you, I believe that just "skating" under the allowable earnings is "gaming the system." Someone who is capable of working enough to earn more than the threshold amount, that merely keeps their income down so they can skate under the allowed amount - is not what the regulations intended.

So even though the regulations say that anything under the federal poverty level is "marginal employment" you would have to wonder if someone can consistently earn $700 or $800 a month was actually capable of earning $1000. And if the reason they only earn $700 is because they intentionally keep their earnings down - that is gaming the system.

If someone really can only earn a few hundred dollars a month, or if someone works a couple months sometimes, but can never actually keep a job very long - they are, in essence, "unemployable" according to the standards.

For those on SSI, the standards are a bit different. Because SSI is based on need, they deduct $1 from your SSI benefits for every $2 you earn (after the standard deduction).

Edited December 27, 2009 by free_spirit_etc

[free_spirit_etc]

Ummmmmmmmmm No it wasn't fraud! He just wanted to work, and stopped going to his VA appointments. I really don't like that you are insinuating he committed fraud.... Sorry but I'm a little annoyed by that comment.

There are many veterans who have PTSD, who are not approved for IU benefits. And some of those veterans continue to work for years. And some of those veterans, at some point, become unable to work anymore. And some are eventually granted IU benefits.

I am getting that you are saying that your brother-in-law was granted IU right off the bat. But he chose to go to work. And because he sustained gainful employment for quite some time, the VA decided he was no longer "unemployable," and that, in fact, his SC condition had "improved" as he was now able to work.

That makes perfect sense to me. I am not quite sure why people want to call it fraud.

Unfortunately though, it seems like your brother-in-law is at a disadvantage compared to some other vets with PTSD who eventually stopped working. The other vets, who were not declared disabled (or disabled "enough") in the first place - can now sometimes show that their PTSD has worsened to the point they can no longer work.

As your brother-in-law was declared unemployable in the first place - a determination was made that he had actually improved once he maintained steady gainful employment. So now he is having trouble getting them to connect his disability level to his SC PTSD.

I would hope that some vets would actually feel compassion for a fellow vet with PTSD, who decided to work instead of drawing IU, and later became unable to work and had difficulty reestablishing IU.

"Never judge a man until you've walked a mile in his shoes."

As you said your brother-in-law stopped going to the VA appointments, he also lacked the continuity of care for his condition. Sounds like he decided to just "bite the bullet" and "tough it out" - and let his PTSD go untreated until it came back and bit him in the butt.

But then, again, many vets have toughed it out and got bit in the butt by their untreated PTSD. And many of them also have trouble getting their PTSD SC'd or IU granted. And again, your brother-in-law has most likely had a tougher time because of the determination that his PTSD had improved. And regardless of how unemployable he is from all conditions, he can't get IU unless he has a high enough rating on an SC condition.

I am not quite sure why some people want to call it fraud.

Is there a possibility your brother-in-law can get a VA Pension?

Edited December 27, 2009 by free_spirit_etc

[jerrbilly]

20k a month FAIRLY good income and average take home?????

I seriously don't think that's the average...Maybe that was a typo.

jerr

I live in northern VT where $20k a month is a fairly good income and average take home, for a single person, is more like $15k, w/overtime. jmo

pr