- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Coaching Changes
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message

HR 82 - Social Security Fairness Act
Posted on 12/20/24 at 11:41 pm
Posted on 12/20/24 at 11:41 pm
Passes in the Senate 76-20
Now to the President to be signed,
Now to the President to be signed,
Posted on 12/20/24 at 11:48 pm to tommy2tone1999
What does this bill say? 
Posted on 12/21/24 at 12:23 am to LSUBALLER
Repeals the WEP and GPO laws effective 1/1/2024.
Posted on 12/21/24 at 12:48 am to HEtiger
Explain to me like I am 5 years old please. No idea what you mean.
Posted on 12/21/24 at 1:29 am to tommy2tone1999
So more people who didn’t contribute are going to be getting paid social Security benefits
I guess they figure that will help make Social Security solvent.
And I guess that’s how you can legitimately call Social Security an entitlement.
I just want my money back.
I guess they figure that will help make Social Security solvent.
And I guess that’s how you can legitimately call Social Security an entitlement.
I just want my money back.
Posted on 12/21/24 at 1:34 am to wallowinit
quote:
I guess that’s how you can legitimately call Social Security an entitlement.
nothing about our hilariously limited social safety net can be described as an “entitlement”
those who frame it as such want hand that money over to the same people who gave you the great recession for them to gamble on. Consequences be damned.
This post was edited on 12/21/24 at 1:35 am
Posted on 12/21/24 at 2:16 am to wallowinit
quote:
I just want my money back
Posted on 12/21/24 at 3:07 am to Draconian Sanctions
What do you think about SSI payments?
Posted on 12/21/24 at 4:46 am to wallowinit
Incorrect. I paid into SS for 25 years and my cost was over $300,000. Do you think I am getting something I did not earn?
Posted on 12/21/24 at 5:09 am to dwr353
quote:
paid into SS for 25 years and my cost was over $300,000. Do you think I am getting something I did not earn?
In addition to your contribution, your employer matched it. That's north of 12% of yout annual salary handed over to feds to "manage"
Posted on 12/21/24 at 5:21 am to dwr353
I believe it seeks to extend the benefit to those who paid into the system but were not allowed to draw because of retirement nuances within particular sectors....I could be totally wrong on this, teachers in Texas as an example.
Posted on 12/21/24 at 6:12 am to GrizzlyAlloy
Well it was supposedly for retirement after working 40 plus years and having money taken from you and your employer and not getting proper interest and then living just long enough not to get it back. What it’s morphed into is a piggy bank for Congress to steal from, a tool to beat each other with and a handout to many more people than ever paid into it
Posted on 12/21/24 at 6:22 am to dwr353
While no doubt people had money taken out by government decree and no interest added you paying 300,000 over 25 years seems to equal 1000.00 per month over that time. Being that 25 years ago the percentage of 7.5 of income with a cap at the first 75K would have been 5625. That would be 140k ( still money you may never get back) not 300K
Posted on 12/21/24 at 6:27 am to LSUBALLER
quote:
Explain to me like I am 5 years old please. No idea what you mean
My mom spent zero days working in the private sector. She paid into the La teachers retirement fund. Now somehow she’s going to get social security.
I could be wrong here and I’m happy to be told that. But mom’s excited.
Posted on 12/21/24 at 6:32 am to wfallstiger
quote:
I believe it seeks to extend the benefit to those who paid into the system but were not allowed to draw
If that is ALL it says, I can't see how anyone would have a problem with this...
Okay, I can see how they'd have a problem, but they shouldn't have a problem with this.
Posted on 12/21/24 at 6:33 am to Gee Grenouille
This bill gives people who paid into SS, but also have a state retirement, their full SS benefits. Before this anyone who had a state retirement, but also had their 40 quarters in SS payments, were penalized by around 50% on their SS payments.
Posted on 12/21/24 at 6:37 am to Gee Grenouille
No I believe it is a rule change for people that initially worked in private sector and paid enough quarterly payments to qualify for SSI but then worked in government sectors up into retirement. They were only able for the government retirement program and not allowed to collect the benefits from earlier years of SSI contributions. Now if allowed to happen people could collect both but the early contributions are generally tiny but at least they are not lost . If nothing paid into or not enough quarterly contributions then they would not collect any money
Posted on 12/21/24 at 6:39 am to LSUBALLER
quote:
Explain to me like I am 5 years old please. No idea what you mean
You could not collect both a public pension and social security. Think about a cop who had a second job as security for Walmart or a Plant. Because they get a pension on their police salary, SS got to keep all of their SS contributions paid by Walmart. Or a retired school teacher's husband dies and they can't get the widows benefit because they have a pension.
It was basically an extra tax on people with a pension.
It was designed to prevent someone from retiring from a job with a government pension then working the minimum quarters to also get a ss benefit greater than the amount contributed, but the net was way to large and penalized millions who legitimately contributed.
Posted on 12/21/24 at 6:40 am to Nosevens
If Lincoln said "You can fool some of the people all of the time, and all of the people some of the time, but you cannot fool all of the people all of the time," then FDR proved him wrong. Case in point:
In the Depression era, money was tight. Lenders were scarce. FDR needed money to fund his social programs. So he foisted SS onto the US workforce, turning it into an unwitting lender, subject entirely to terms of the borrower. Then, as now, every 1¢ of SS paycheck contributions was/is converted into a US Debt Obligation. Then the money is immediately spent on whatever the government wants to spend it on. That was the case from inception on day 1.
quote:Social Security was always, first and foremost, a government borrowing program. I was a way to force the US public to fund FDR's "New Deal" expenses. It was labeled a "retirement program," just as the most costly medical program in the history of the planet was named "The Affordable Care Act," or the Dem's highly inflationary spending over the last few years came courtesy of "The Inflation Reduction Act."
Well it was supposedly for retirement after working 40 plus years and having money taken from you and your employer
In the Depression era, money was tight. Lenders were scarce. FDR needed money to fund his social programs. So he foisted SS onto the US workforce, turning it into an unwitting lender, subject entirely to terms of the borrower. Then, as now, every 1¢ of SS paycheck contributions was/is converted into a US Debt Obligation. Then the money is immediately spent on whatever the government wants to spend it on. That was the case from inception on day 1.
Popular
Back to top


9







