re: Senate stealing from the poor - this should be a crime.

quote:

---

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

---

You are continually mischaracterizing what the WEP did. It's not a penalty for working extra jobs or having pension. It was put in place because under the benefit calculation, SS security beneficiaries who paid less in for less time were getting back more relative to their income compared to those who earned more in their career and therefore paid in more. It just so happens that working extra jobs or working a job that provided it's own pension in lieu of SS placed those people in the WEP category.

quote:

---

This^^^ is because they have government/taxpayer provided pensions so they get a reduced SS benefit.

---

There's no logic to that mindset. That would be little different than saying someone who gets matching 401k from their employer should get reduced SS benefits because the match doesn't pay into SS.

If someone works in the private sector for 40 quarters then goes to work in a system that doesn't pay into SS, it makes zero sense why they should lose ~50% of what they would normally get.

To put this into perspective, if someone worked their 40 quarters then went to jail for 25 years, they would receive whatever benefits they are eligible for -without penalty- the moment they get out. However, if someone works in a pension system for that 25 years, they lose ~50% of what they should be getting.

If someone retires from teaching in a system that doesn't pay into SS, then works 40 quarters in the private sector, they too take a penalty to their SS.

There's no absolutely no reason for the two to not be exclusive from one another.

quote:

---

And the funding for the pensions those groups enjoy came out of our paychecks, too.

Why should I be paying for two retirement programs for you?

---

Govt employment is lavish employment. Guy worked 16 years and gets a $2k pension per month. I'm about to hit 40 years and my SS is barely projected to be more than that. Plus I have to save other for my retirement.

This is why I'm glad govt size is being reduced.

Know a bunch of cops why retired at 45 and working private jobs now, driving Tahoes and boats and lakehouses.

quote:

---

The law word for word says, if you qualify for another pension, we can now reduce your benefit. Word for word. Thats theft. By law

---

Yes and you KNEW that, you also know that your retirement will be better than the majority of SS recipients.

quote:

---

They were using my money to pay retirement to everyone else. By law

---

Yes, again you knew this working under it.

quote:

---

So there never was an "advantage" for me in SS

---

You admit that you chose to keep your funds in the state plan because it was better.

How much is your state pension? It's probably more than most SS payments.

You are no better than a college student who doesn't want to pay back what he agreed to.

quote:

---

The law word for word says, if you qualify for another pension, we can now reduce your benefit. Word for word. Thats theft. By law

---

No it doesn't.

quote:

---

A pension from a job for which they didn’t pay Social Security taxes. Congress passed the WEP to remove that advantage.

---

You're note quoting the whole part:

"Before 1983, people whose primary job wasn’t covered
by Social Security had their Social Security benefits
calculated as if they were long-term, low-wage workers.
They had the advantage of receiving a Social Security
benefit that represented a higher percentage of their
earnings. They also had a pension from a job for which
they didn’t pay Social Security taxes. Congress passed
the WEP to remove that advantage."

quote:

---

They even admit they were punishing me by calling it an advantage. Whatever job i worked on I either paid into SS or into a separate plan. Whereas, others could work 10 jobs and never get penalized, as long as it was a SS covered job

---

The WEP penalized any earner, pension or not, if they did not meet the substantial income thresholds.

quote:

---

They were using my money to pay retirement to everyone else. By law

---

Yeah? Welcome to Social Security. Your contributions are paying the people drawing now. Mine will help pay yours. You're welcome. You're not special in this regard.

quote:

---

It was wrong. And now its been corrected. I m treated just like anyone else that paid into the same system. Based on my earnings, my quarters in the system, and my age at retirement. I'm not getting ANY EXTRA CREDIT for my service or salary from the other system. Only what I paid into SS. So there never was an "advantage" for me in SS

---

You were being treated the same as everyone who failed to meet the substantial income threshold for the requisite number of years to avoid the WEP.

Also, your benefit has zero to do with how much you paid in. It has everything to do with how much you earned and how many years you earned it. That's it.

And your advantage, as the government saw it, was this:

"Social Security benefits are intended to replace only
some of a worker’s pre-retirement earnings.
We base your Social Security benefit on your average
monthly earnings adjusted for average wage growth.
We separate your average earnings into 3 amounts and
multiply the amounts using 3 factors to compute your
full Primary Insurance Amount (PIA ). For example, for a
worker who turns 62 in 2024: the first $1,174 of average
monthly earnings is multiplied by 90%; earnings between
$1,174 and $7,078 are multiplied by 32%; and the
balance is multiplied by 15%. The sum of the 3 amounts
equals the PIA, which is then decreased or increased
depending on whether the worker starts benefits before
or after full retirement age (FRA). This formula produces
the monthly payment amount.
When we apply this formula, the percentage of career
average earnings paid to lower-paid workers is greater
than higher-paid workers. For example, consider workers
age 62 in 2024, with average earnings of $3,000 per
month. They could receive a benefit at FRA of $1,640
(approximately 55%) of their pre-retirement earnings
increased by applicable cost of living adjustments
(COLAs). For a worker with average earnings of $8,000
per month, the benefit starting at FRA could be $3,084
(approximately 39%) plus COLAs. However, if either of
these workers starts benefits earlier than their FRA, we’ll
reduce their monthly benefit."

So, by the old formula, you would receive a higher percentage benefit relative to your average monthly earning than someone who earned more and therefore paid in more. If you don't think that's an advantage, I can't help you.

Regardless, youre getting yours now. I just wish you'd inform yourself better before you go off the rails about it.