- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- 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
re: Rep. Garret Graves escalates effort to repeal Social Security penalty for teachers, police
Posted on 9/17/23 at 10:13 am to BigJim
Posted on 9/17/23 at 10:13 am to BigJim
quote:
It is completely a cost-saving move that screws widows most of whom are teachers.
It does save cost but the reason why they do it is because the social security benefit calculation is skewed to those that have paid less into the SS system. The reason for this is to provide people with a basic income in their retirement.
If a person has a public pension (meaning they didn’t pay into SS) then they have an income that isnt otherwise accounted for when calculating SS benefits. The idea was to stop people with public pensions from double dipping in both systems by working just enough in private sector to qualify for SS.
That said, the system does need to be reformed. The threshold and reduction need to be adjusted. As it stands now. if you spent, say, a third or half your career in the private sector and half in public sector, you are getting screwed out of your SS.
1
Posted on 9/17/23 at 10:14 am to ragincajun03
This would allow those that havent been paying into SS to draw disproportionately large SS checks if they work a few years in non exempt jobs. Due to the way SS is calculated it pays out at a higher rate for lower incomes and GPO/WEP address this. Sounds like pandering to teachers and other exempt state employees and their unions to me. Plus it allows them to claim theyre looking out for teachers, fighter fighters and cops which resonates w uninformed public.
Center for Budget and Policy Priorities
Center for Budget and Policy Priorities
Posted on 9/17/23 at 10:29 am to ragincajun03
I worked half my adult life in private business and paid into social security. Then I changed careers and went into teaching. It's only fair I get my social security back.
Posted on 9/17/23 at 10:30 am to TorchtheFlyingTiger
This example (from link above) makes it more clear. Even the widow penalty makes sense when you consider if they'd contributed to SS during primary career their SS benefit would typically exceed spouse benefit and workers can only draw one or other. If SS is so great, public employees should demand to drop exempt status and start paying in (returns on SS contributions are awful so of course they prefer.to remain exempt). Cant have your cake and eat it too.
quote:
To understand the effect of repealing the WEP, consider two people who each earned $40,000 a year for 35 years, adjusted for growth in average wages. Suzy paid into Social Security every year, while Stephen paid into Social Security for 15 years and worked outside the system for 20 years, not paying Social Security taxes during those years. Because the Social Security benefit formula averages the highest 35 years of a worker’s covered earnings, Suzy’s average earnings in the Social Security benefit formula would reflect her full $40,000 salary — but Stephen’s would be the same as someone who earned just $17,000 per year (40,000 x 15/35).
Suzy’s Social Security benefit at full retirement age ($1,661 per month or $19,932 annually) would replace half of her average monthly covered earnings. If WEP were repealed, Stephen’s Social Security benefit ($1,047 per month or $12,564 annually) would be relatively more generous, replacing nearly three-quarters of his covered earnings, because Social Security’s progressive benefit formula is more generous to low earners. In addition, Stephen would receive a pension reflecting his non-covered employment that was intended to replace Social Security, which for a typical WEP-affected beneficiary is over $2,000 a month. Stephen’s non-covered pension plus his Social Security could be substantially higher than Suzy’s Social Security benefit.
Similarly, Stephen could appear to have significantly lower lifetime earnings than his spouse, based only on his covered earnings, qualifying him for a Social Security dependent benefit. This could be true even if he earned more than she did, and even though his non-covered pension means he’s not dependent on his spouse. For example, if his spouse’s average annual indexed earnings were $35,000 and she died, Stephen’s Social Security benefit would increase by $480 to a total of $1,527 a month ($18,324 annually) if policymakers repeal the GPO rule. This is because he appears to have earned about half of his wife’s lifetime wages — even though he actually earned more than she did. He would also continue to receive his non-covered pension. Had they both worked entirely in Social Security-covered employment, he wouldn’t be eligible for a survivors benefit because his lifetime earnings were higher.
Posted on 9/17/23 at 10:40 am to ragincajun03
Great, just great. They tell us Social Security is going bankrupt. Currently, the system can pay benefits through 2033. I suspect the government (aka Joe Biden) is lying to us, the system will go bankrupt much earlier. Social Security recipients are already being told not to expect even a meager raise in 2024. Before you go gloating over the demise of S/S remember we recipients paid into this system through payroll and employer taxes. It's our money. Now this clown partners up with a democrat to drain the system further.
The theft of Social Security that began in the eighties continues. I was there, I watched on TV as Joe Biden and his pals stole it. It's just a Ponzi Scheme now. A slush fund that crooked Uniparty politicians use to fund their little projects. Projects like proxy wars in Ukraine.
Institutional theft is now the standard modus operandi. I suppose that's to be expected when we have a thief in the Oval Office.
Society in every state is a blessing, but Government, even in its best state, is but a necessary evil; in its worst state an intolerable one - Thomas Paine
The theft of Social Security that began in the eighties continues. I was there, I watched on TV as Joe Biden and his pals stole it. It's just a Ponzi Scheme now. A slush fund that crooked Uniparty politicians use to fund their little projects. Projects like proxy wars in Ukraine.
Institutional theft is now the standard modus operandi. I suppose that's to be expected when we have a thief in the Oval Office.
Society in every state is a blessing, but Government, even in its best state, is but a necessary evil; in its worst state an intolerable one - Thomas Paine
This post was edited on 9/17/23 at 12:32 pm
Posted on 9/17/23 at 10:41 am to LSU9102
quote:
Are they paying into Social Security because if they are not they should.
That's the thing. If a civil servant in Louisiana pays into Social Security earlier in life at another job, or their spouse does then there's penalties. It's beyond fricked up but Louisiana has low standards so it's expected.
Posted on 9/17/23 at 10:50 am to TorchtheFlyingTiger
Got my first social security paying job at 15. Went into teaching at 32. Retired after 25 years. Back in public sector as an independent contractor 6 years and counting. I am paying 15.2% of earnings to social security! I have paid into the system for 23 years. Rule needs to be repealed or amended or give me my fricking money back!
Posted on 9/17/23 at 11:01 am to LSU9102
quote:
Are they paying into Social Security because if they are not they should.
that is what this is all about, if they paid, but are denied their rights to collect soc sec, since they have a gov pension.
now if they paid nothing in, then there should be nothing there for them to collect. but if they fully paid their SS, they should be able to collect their SS.
this suit makes it sound like its trying to undo a bad law, and everyone who believes in fairness should support this, but its really trying to pay them unearned benefits in addition to the pensions
This post was edited on 9/17/23 at 11:10 am
Posted on 9/17/23 at 11:02 am to Boss13
quote:
but some teachers in Louisiana don't pay into social security.
And thats the issue. They wont ever be allowed to draw from any earnings as a teacher, but from jobs they did outside of teaching.
However, if they started working at 16, and continued all the way through college, plus summer jobs once they began teaching, and any jobs post-retirement, they are never allowed to draw their money that was stolen from their paychecks and put into SS. It just gets passed on to other retirees
Sucks actually
Posted on 9/17/23 at 12:11 pm to ragincajun03
I’m caught up in that now. I’m a retired Federal Probation Officer. After a year of retirement I decided to do a second career and went to work as a Florida Probation Officer. I frankly like the second career a lot more than the Federal.
I his 57 and 8 months old a while back and and had to decided to forfeiting my Social a security Supplement or quitting my current job. I decided to forfeit the supplement and keep working until I’m age 62. It’s money that I earned and deserve that I’m having to give up. It’s stupid and quite unfair to those caught in that trap.
I his 57 and 8 months old a while back and and had to decided to forfeiting my Social a security Supplement or quitting my current job. I decided to forfeit the supplement and keep working until I’m age 62. It’s money that I earned and deserve that I’m having to give up. It’s stupid and quite unfair to those caught in that trap.
Posted on 9/17/23 at 12:13 pm to LSU9102
quote:
Are they paying into Social Security because if they are not they should.
They pay in but are generally not getting Jack shite back because having a government pension heavily offsets any SS payments they would get.
To say this is the cause of some hard feelings by LA state employees would be an understatement.
Posted on 9/17/23 at 1:09 pm to 92Tiger
All this crap about pressure on an already burdened SS system is push back?
How about stop sending trillions of our $ to Ukraine and the rest of the word? And evict the illegals.
Just might make the SS System solvent but WTF take care of US Citizens that paid into the "system"?
How about stop sending trillions of our $ to Ukraine and the rest of the word? And evict the illegals.
Just might make the SS System solvent but WTF take care of US Citizens that paid into the "system"?
Posted on 9/17/23 at 1:48 pm to CajunTiger92
quote:
If a person has a public pension (meaning they didn’t pay into SS) then they have an income that isnt otherwise accounted for when calculating SS benefits. The idea was to stop people with public pensions from double dipping in both systems by working just enough in private sector to qualify for SS.
That said, the system does need to be reformed. The threshold and reduction need to be adjusted. As it stands now. if you spent, say, a third or half your career in the private sector and half in public sector, you are getting screwed out of your SS.
That's WEP and I kinda see the point.
That argument doesn't hold with GPO. You could have a widow who paid nothing into either SS or a public pension. She would get full benefits. But a teacher who worked her whole life will get her benefits decreased? How is that rational?
I guess what I don't know is- if that widow HAD paid into SS, would her benefits also be decreased so as to prevent "double dipping" into both her SS account and her husbands? I very much doubt it, but I don't know either way.
Posted on 9/17/23 at 2:35 pm to ragincajun03
quote:
Graves has said the current law discourages people from entering public service professions
Posted on 9/17/23 at 2:53 pm to LSU9102
quote:
Are they paying into Social Security because if they are not they should.
My wife worked enough in other non teaching/govt jobs to qualify for SS but retired from Teachers Retirement. Her benefit would not be much but she if she claims the small amount due to her then WEP will take it all back.
Posted on 9/17/23 at 2:59 pm to BigJim
quote:
You could have a widow who paid nothing into either SS or a public pension. She would get full benefits. But a teacher who worked her whole life will get her benefits decreased? How is that rational?
This thread exposes an underlying cause of why the quality of life is so bad in this state. We push each other down and do mental gymnastics to justify it.
Makes no sense for somebody to get penalized just because they worked for the government. Like if you're a pipe fitter and paid SS but then stopped you wouldn't get penalized in such a way. Furthermore, there's people that start off as civil servants and then move to private sector. They are now penalized. It defies logic, but its what Republicans want and it's one of many reasons why they can't win a culture war.
Posted on 9/17/23 at 4:35 pm to EST
quote:
I worked half my adult life in private business and paid into social security. Then I changed careers and went into teaching. It's only fair I get my social security back.
I agree. If government is going to confiscate a portion of your income with the promise that you’ll get it back later, then you should get it back.
Posted on 9/17/23 at 4:53 pm to Mushroom1968
I can’t speak for other careers but teachers in Georgia pay SS tax, at least my wife does
Posted on 9/17/23 at 6:08 pm to Rip Torner
quote:
I can’t speak for other careers but teachers in Georgia pay SS tax, at least my wife does
The WEP/GPO issue only affects public employees and spouses of public employees in 16 states. I know Louisiana and California are part of the 16.
Posted on 9/17/23 at 7:29 pm to BigJim
quote:
But a teacher who worked her whole life will get her benefits decreased? How is that rational?
I didn’t state that it was rational. They need to reform it. I don’t think they should just totally eliminate the WEP and GOP even though my family stands to benefit if they did.
quote:
I guess what I don't know is- if that widow HAD paid into SS, would her benefits also be decreased so as to prevent "double dipping" into both her SS account and her husbands?
As I understand it, the widow would get the higher of the two SS benefits, not both.
Page 2 of 4
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News