- 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: Senate stealing from the poor - this should be a crime.
Posted on 12/20/24 at 10:43 pm to Narax
Posted on 12/20/24 at 10:43 pm to Narax
quote:
because it would show your greed.
What in the actual frick?
I'm greedy because I chose to work more than 1 job? And paid into both retirement systems with my own money? Exactly how short was the bus you rode to school on?
1) I have a state retirement. Its based on my years of service, my salary level, and the age that I chose to retire
2) From the time I was 15, I also worked in the private sector. I worked those extra jobs during nights, weekends, holidays, leave days, years when I left govt service, and years since I've been retired. None of which was paid for by you
But I'm greedy if I want to claim retirement from both systems that I worked under, so that I could provide more for my family?
frick you
3
Posted on 12/20/24 at 11:14 pm to RobbBobb
quote:
There are no numbers dumbass, because the law currently prevents me from filing for my SS retirement. But if it does pass, I will receive roughly 1,800 a month, because that wasnt my main source of income
There's no law in place preventing someone from collecting social security if they have the minimum 40 qualifying quarters of income that pay into social security. If you read my other post, there's a minimum income that they start taking out social security; then, there's a higher income that qualifies you for social security. So they can be taking the social security contribution, but, if you didn't make enough money in any particular quarter, you don't get credit for those for the minimum 40 quarters.
What exactly are you claiming is preventing you from collecting anything?
GPO is a different story as it relates to spousal benefits.
Posted on 12/20/24 at 11:24 pm to Narax
quote:
So is your pension only for 16 years? Does it end when you turn 66? Or are you saying at 66 you will get in pension+ social security exactly what someone else would get from just SS?
Now to note, you choose to make more money by working 2 jobs, which you admit was a lot.
You chose knowing that your Fire Fighter Pension was not a huge benefit.
When you started this, you knew the USG was not going to pay you out of the collection, you chose to accept that.
He's saying in his 16 years as a fire fighter, they withheld 10% of his income each year. His vestment in the pension accrued at 2.5% per year. Multiplied times 16 years, that gives him 40% of his salary as the pension he draws. At $2000/mo. that's $24,000. Divide that by 40%, and his fire fighter salary at retirement was about $60,000/year.
If he paid into social security for those 16 years as a fire fighter and paid in for 11 years in the private sector, he'll have 27 years of income in his calculated average income used in the social security pay out formula. The WEP will ding him a little bit since he's less than 30, but it's not much. He may have more qualifying income from his years prior to being a fire fighter, but that won't matter if it was high enough to credit him with a qualifying quarter even if it was high enough to trigger the social security contribution.
He will draw his pension and a slightly reduced social security benefit. His reduced social security has nothing to do with his pension.
Posted on 12/20/24 at 11:26 pm to davidsheroes
Expanding SSA benefits will definitely put more strain on an already broken system. But I’d rather our own people benefit from a giveaway than Ukrainians. We’re $34 trillion in debt so what’s another trillion at this point?
Posted on 12/20/24 at 11:43 pm to RobbBobb
quote:
I'm greedy if I want to claim retirement from both systems
Yup, look at the title of this thread stealing from the poor.
Yup that's you, no shame.
You claim to have tons of money but you want more, even though you never were entitled to both.
You did what you did fully knowing that.
But now you want more.
That's literally greed.
You can try to insult others, but you need a long look in the mirror wanting that which you were never promised nor need.
Posted on 12/20/24 at 11:47 pm to Narax
The bill has passed!!!!
Posted on 12/20/24 at 11:48 pm to DakIsNoLB
quote:
He will draw his pension and a slightly reduced social security benefit. His reduced social security has nothing to do with his pension.
Appreciate the facts and numbers, that's what I've been trying to figure out, but it really feels like a bunch of well off people who are losing a tiny bit of money because they are split between two systems.
But are claiming to be owed, and poor, and high roller all at the same time.
It really feels like anyone in such a situation is already doing far better than anyone on social security alone.
Posted on 12/21/24 at 7:41 am to davidsheroes
All of those who feed off of the gooooooooooooberment teat knew, from the very first day of employ with the gooooooby they would receive a very healthy goooooooby pension without social security.
Since they want to change the rules, well, just clearly lower their extremely healthy gooooooby pension to offset the SS pension they think they should now receive.
I can not wait until the unfunded pension liability balloon hits the fan. It will be glorious.
Posted on 12/21/24 at 7:49 am to RobbBobb
The taxpayers paid into your state retirement as well baw.
Posted on 12/21/24 at 7:53 am to RobbBobb
quote:
I'm greedy because I chose to work more than 1 job? And paid into both retirement systems with my own money? Exactly how short was the bus you rode to school on?
This whole issue shows how the SS allocation system is broken.
There should not be a way for an employee to be able to be fully vested in 2 systems due to math (not legal eligibility). SS should have a much more severe step ladder to benefits based on time in. People shouldn't get fully vested in SS by hitting the min level of participation. If you work the current min (10 years, IIRC) you should get a much smaller portion than the current allocation (say, 15-25%) increasing each year of more work participation.
If we allocated SS distributions properly, we wouldn't need to prohibit SS to people with other work pensions, as there would be no way to double dip (unless they worked for 70 years of their life or so). As they worked more in the private system to vest in that system, their SS allocation would decrease (as they couldn't be increasing their time paying into SS).
Posted on 12/21/24 at 10:56 am to Timeoday
quote:
I can not wait until the unfunded pension liability balloon hits the fan. It will be glorious.
I find it amazing how all these people who pretend they hate the swamp suddenly are pro swamp.
It shows how the swamp survives, it keeps bribing people and they will sell out principles for another government check, then lie about how somehow it's fine this time.
I'm not shocked it passed.
The swamp never loses.
Posted on 12/21/24 at 11:01 am to SlowFlowPro
quote:
If you work the current min (10 years, IIRC) you should get a much smaller portion than the current allocation (say, 15-25%) increasing each year of more work participation.
Yup, this is why it will go broke, immigrants (looking at you India) bringing their parents to barely work 10 years from 58 to 68 to hit the minimum.*
*while hiding significant overseas assets
Double dippers.
Old guys marring young women.
I know a guy who's 70 and he's still working because his wife who's 25 years younger knows she will get his whole ss if she works him to death.
It's all a problem because people pay in 100k and get out 500k.*
*over a very short time duration before they pull back.
This post was edited on 12/21/24 at 11:54 am
Posted on 12/21/24 at 12:12 pm to Narax
quote:
You did what you did fully knowing that.
Talking with you is like talking to a child
My first retirement contract was with SS at 15. I worked under that system until I was in my 20s. During that time they changed to agreement to include WEP and GPO rules. Next the state of La forced me to participate in their retirement system and leave SS
However, Unlike SS, La did give me the option of pulling out all of my contributions. I chose to leave them there and retire
But alas MY GREED made me work private sector jobs during my free time. Once again paying into my original agreement with SS. And now your idiot arse is pretending that I had a choice in any of that
Posted on 12/21/24 at 1:00 pm to RobbBobb
quote:
I chose to leave them there and retire
You chose.
You lie
You just don't want to look into the mirror and realize who you are.
quote:
pretending that I had a choice in any of that
You literally admitted 2 lines earlier that it was your choice.
Posted on 12/21/24 at 1:57 pm to Trevaylin
Not double dipping at all if you get another job and pay into and earn SS Credits! WTF People? Pull your head out of your Arse!
Posted on 12/21/24 at 2:15 pm to Narax
quote:
You literally admitted 2 lines earlier that it was your choice.
How do you function irl?
I didnt choose to go to work and then have a law passed that kept me from my retirement funds, AFTER I began working
I didnt choose to deposit my funds in SS. They took it
I didnt choose to deposit my funds in state retirement. They took it
I didnt choose to leave my funds in SS. They kept it
But all that changes now, and youre still too stupid to understand why
Posted on 12/21/24 at 2:31 pm to tigger4ever
quote:
So as a retired teacher of 30’years in the public system what does this mean for me. Husband has been receiving SS payments for 6 years.
This means if something happens to your husband, you will be able to draw a widows pension, just like everyone else who draws SS. The way it was, you would be left with only your retirement. You would not be able to draw on his Social Security.
Posted on 12/21/24 at 2:36 pm to RobbBobb
quote:
I didnt choose to go to work and then have a law passed that kept me from my retirement funds, AFTER I began working
What law, when did you start working?
quote:
I didnt choose to deposit my funds in state retirement. They took it
You literally just said you chose to keep your retirement in there.
You only attack others because you can't live with how much of a leech you are.
Are you that poor that you need the money?
The title is stealing from the poor.
Not the well off are greedy from having lived off the taxpayers want more again.
Posted on 12/21/24 at 3:35 pm to Idlpeach
quote:f
This means if something happens to your husband, you will be able to draw a widows pension, just like everyone else who draws SS. The way it was, you would be left with only your retirement. You would not be able to draw on his Social Security.
Except that's not what happens with Social Security for a couple where both spouses have paid in. When one spouse dies and both qualify for benefits, the survivor only gets the highest of the two. In other words, if the survivor's is higher, then that's all they get. If the deceased was higher, the survivor's benefit remains the same and they also receive the difference between their benefit and the survivor's benefit.
Posted on 12/21/24 at 3:56 pm to Narax
quote:
What law, when did you start working?
If you have no clue what the argument is about, maybe its time to stop posting your ignorant arse opinions
quote:
Windfall Elimination Provision - The effects of the WEP were phased in between 1986 and 1990. It reduces a person's benefits when that person is eligible for another pension. It also affects the benefits of others claiming on the same social security record.
So prior to the passing of this law everyone was treated equally. The current bill repeals this stupid insertion into SS, and everyone is now back on the original footing. No one is getting a dime that they didnt earn, exactly as all other retirees earned theirs. The penalty for working extra jobs has now been removed. Because you should have never been penalized by a rule that wasnt in place, when you started your retirement account. Thats normally called theft
Page 5 of 6
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News