The Social Security rule that draws a hard line at age 22 for "disabled adult child" benefits might have fit the 1950s. Writing for the Washington Post, APDG Everett argues that that cutoff no longer fits how contemporary young adulthood actually works. Under the current law, someone who becomes disabled before 22 can collect benefits based on a parent's earnings; become disabled just after that birthday, however, and you're pushed out on your own (often thin) work record.
Everett points out that the age cutoff assumes an antiquated world where people finished school at 18, jumped straight into steady jobs, and were financially established by their early 20s. Today, however, college commonly runs through the age of 22 or 23; grad school and credentialing can stretch into the late 20s; and many young adults haven't worked long enough to build meaningful Social Security coverage.
Other federal policy has already adjusted: The Affordable Care Act lets young adults remain on a parent's health plan until age 26. Everett says Social Security, which he notes "remains frozen in an earlier model," should follow suit, raising the cutoff to 26 as a modest, targeted fix. "Updating that rule would not solve every edge case, nor would it eliminate the need for other targeted reforms," Everett writes. "But it would bring Social Security's survivor framework back into alignment with modern adulthood." He adds: "That is not radical reform. It is overdue maintenance." Read Everett's piece in full here.
,
uBlock 
,
and
Ghostery 
)
