Started By
Message
locked post

HR 82 - Social Security Fairness Act

Posted on 12/20/24 at 11:41 pm
Posted by tommy2tone1999
St. George, LA
Member since Sep 2008
7615 posts
Posted on 12/20/24 at 11:41 pm
Passes in the Senate 76-20

Now to the President to be signed,
Posted by LSUBALLER
Louisiana
Member since Jul 2013
20481 posts
Posted on 12/20/24 at 11:48 pm to
What does this bill say?
Posted by HEtiger
Member since May 2008
1627 posts
Posted on 12/21/24 at 12:23 am to
Repeals the WEP and GPO laws effective 1/1/2024.
Posted by LSUBALLER
Louisiana
Member since Jul 2013
20481 posts
Posted on 12/21/24 at 12:48 am to
Explain to me like I am 5 years old please. No idea what you mean.
Posted by wallowinit
Louisiana
Member since Dec 2006
17058 posts
Posted on 12/21/24 at 1:29 am to
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.
Posted by Draconian Sanctions
Markey's bar
Member since Oct 2008
87946 posts
Posted on 12/21/24 at 1:34 am to
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 by jamiegla1
Member since Aug 2016
7888 posts
Posted on 12/21/24 at 2:16 am to
quote:

I just want my money back
Posted by GrizzlyAlloy
Member since Aug 2020
2581 posts
Posted on 12/21/24 at 3:07 am to
What do you think about SSI payments?
Posted by dwr353
Member since Oct 2007
2173 posts
Posted on 12/21/24 at 4:46 am to
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 by Dock Holiday
Member since Sep 2015
1820 posts
Posted on 12/21/24 at 5:09 am to
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 by wfallstiger
Wichita Falls, Texas
Member since Jun 2006
14690 posts
Posted on 12/21/24 at 5:21 am to
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 by Nosevens
Member since Apr 2019
17065 posts
Posted on 12/21/24 at 6:12 am to
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 by Adajax
Member since Nov 2015
8204 posts
Posted on 12/21/24 at 6:13 am to
You are correct.
Posted by Nosevens
Member since Apr 2019
17065 posts
Posted on 12/21/24 at 6:22 am to
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 by Gee Grenouille
Bogalusa
Member since Jul 2018
7546 posts
Posted on 12/21/24 at 6:27 am to
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 by MemphisGuy
Germantown, TN
Member since Nov 2023
13613 posts
Posted on 12/21/24 at 6:32 am to
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 by LCBayou
Member since Oct 2016
650 posts
Posted on 12/21/24 at 6:33 am to
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 by Nosevens
Member since Apr 2019
17065 posts
Posted on 12/21/24 at 6:37 am to
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 by Shaun176
Baton Rouge
Member since Aug 2008
2904 posts
Posted on 12/21/24 at 6:39 am to
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 by NC_Tigah
Make Orwell Fiction Again
Member since Sep 2003
135386 posts
Posted on 12/21/24 at 6:40 am to
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:
quote:

Well it was supposedly for retirement after working 40 plus years and having money taken from you and your employer
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."

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.
first pageprev pagePage 1 of 5Next pagelast page

Back to top
logoFollow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News
Follow us on X, Facebook and Instagram to get the latest updates on LSU Football and Recruiting.

FacebookXInstagram