- 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
re: Social Security Fairness Act
Posted on 12/14/24 at 11:26 am to trinidadtiger
Posted on 12/14/24 at 11:26 am to trinidadtiger
quote:
Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) caught some senators by surprise this week when he took the first step to set up consideration of the Social Security Fairness Act, announcing plans to bring up the bill for a vote next week.
“The Senate is going to vote on the Social Security Fairness Act before the end of the year,” he said Thursday, calling the move a chance for senators to “do the right thing for our teachers and nurses and postal workers and law enforcement officers and firefighters.”
Schumer and other backers say the bill aims to prevent unfair reductions in benefits for millions of people who have worked in public service by repealing two tax rules known as the Windfall Elimination Provision and the Government Pension Offset.
Posted on 12/14/24 at 11:40 am to KillTheGophers
If you were an employee of the federal government before 1983, you did not pay Social Security taxes, per USA.gov. As a result, your Social Security earnings record will not reflect that pay. At that time, the federal government used the Civil Service Retirement System (CSRS) to offer benefits to its employees.
Today, however, the government uses the Federal Employees Retirement System (FERS) instead. All federal employees under FERS are eligible to collect Social Security. If you decided to stay in the CSRS, you won't be eligible for Social Security even if you continued working for the federal government, the Social Security Administration explains.
The FERS system began in 1987. Workers who participate in FERS are eligible for Social Security. If you chose to stay in CSRS after 1983, you are not eligible for Social Security
Today, however, the government uses the Federal Employees Retirement System (FERS) instead. All federal employees under FERS are eligible to collect Social Security. If you decided to stay in the CSRS, you won't be eligible for Social Security even if you continued working for the federal government, the Social Security Administration explains.
The FERS system began in 1987. Workers who participate in FERS are eligible for Social Security. If you chose to stay in CSRS after 1983, you are not eligible for Social Security
This post was edited on 12/14/24 at 11:43 am
Posted on 12/14/24 at 11:55 am to Adajax
quote:
Plus every member of Congress. I didn't "opt out" of the private sector. I was laid off and needed to feed my family. I became a first responder and now I've lost 20+ years of SS contributions. But Julio snuck across the Rio Grand and gets handed money.
Exactly this is the case for me as well, OP is an idiot.
Posted on 12/14/24 at 12:03 pm to UtahCajun
quote:
But government retirees are more than adequately compensated to make up the loss.
You know have no idea how government retirees are compensated. First of all they contribute to FERS, second they contribute to social security, and third they contribute to thrift savings plan (401k). FERS only pays 1.1% of salary x number of years of service. TSP is a 1-1match up to about 5% of salary per year and it rides the market like any other 401k.
This post was edited on 12/14/24 at 1:11 pm
Posted on 12/14/24 at 12:30 pm to BlackAdam
quote:
I do ok, but not ok enough to not miss 20 grand a year I have to send to SS
SS is limited to 6.2% of max 176k per year......or maximum around $10,900.
I assume that you are saying the company match puts you there.
Posted on 12/14/24 at 12:35 pm to KillTheGophers
This is the problem. I'll use firefighters as a example. Say a F.F. hired full time in 1983, most did not make enough money to support a wife and two children. So the wife goes to work. Plus the F.F. has a "part time job", which most did. They were required by law to participate in a public retirement system. They pay S S. from their part time job and put in their 40 plus quarters. The F F. retires after putting in 30 years. When the F.F. reaches the age to draw S.S., that amount its cut to a miniscule amount because of them being required to participate in a purchase retirement system. Instead of drawing their full amount of S S., they end up drawing $400 a month from S S. Take out Medicare and they end up putting about $150 in their pocket. Next, the wife dies. The F F. cannot draw from the wife's s s. because of being forced into a public retirement system. Yea, I worked over 40 years, I get $1,900 a month from public retirement system, worked part time for 32 years and paid S S , but can only draw $400 a month.and not one frickin dime of my wife's S.S. I just depends on what boat your in. I paid my share. My wife paid her share. But I get $400 minus Medicare. And nothing from her S.S It aint right. This also applies to some law enforcement officer as well as teachers.
This post was edited on 12/14/24 at 12:38 pm
Posted on 12/14/24 at 12:39 pm to KillTheGophers
quote:
Please educate me on why this bill is so great. Thanks
Because a lot of people have public pensions and have also paid into Social Security, so it's not fair their benefits are cut because of the former.
Posted on 12/14/24 at 12:43 pm to KillTheGophers
Anything but the sunsetting* of the Social Ponzi System is unfair.
* Anyone not presently or future in the system are not subject to having their wages stolen to prop up the federal pyramid scheme.
* Anyone not presently or future in the system are not subject to having their wages stolen to prop up the federal pyramid scheme.
Posted on 12/14/24 at 1:29 pm to LouisianaLonghorn
quote:
That's not fair.
There is zero fix to SS that is “fair.” Thought processes like yours are exactly why it will never be reformed or done away with.
Posted on 12/14/24 at 1:42 pm to UncleD7734
If my wife stayed home and did not teach, she could collect full SS Spousal support. But since she was a teacher she is penalized by SS.
This post was edited on 12/14/24 at 1:45 pm
Posted on 12/14/24 at 2:44 pm to LouisianaLonghorn
If they have private sector SS payments as well as government job in their career, they deserve SS payments. Alot never contribute but receive funds.
Posted on 12/14/24 at 2:56 pm to LSU7096
Over 30 years in private. $100 short of substantial income in 1 year of college. SS wants to reduce because 10 years in state pension. The system is a complete scam.
Posted on 12/18/24 at 4:20 pm to Mandtgr47
quote:
S is limited to 6.2% of max 176k per year......or maximum around $10,900.
I am self employed so have to pay the full 12.4%.
But the Senate just made cloture on this bill, so it should pass the Senate tomorrow or Friday. What a major relief that is to me.
Posted on 12/18/24 at 4:52 pm to BlackAdam
Here's a rule of thumb - if they put the word fairness in the name of the bill, it has nothing to do with fairness. They are simply trying to imply that the previous system was unfair, which it wasn't.
Inflation Reduction Act - DUH. Do some reading.
Inflation Reduction Act - DUH. Do some reading.
Posted on 12/18/24 at 5:27 pm to fwtex
quote:
If my wife stayed home and did not teach, she could collect full SS Spousal support. But since she was a teacher she is penalized by SS.
This is where I'm conflicted. Husband and wife both wore non-government jobs and pay into SS. They both receive SS payments based on their earnings after retirement. If the higher earner dies first, the other gets a step up in their SS payment amount. They don't get both. So lets say person A gets 2,500/month and B get 2,000/month. After A dies, B gets 2,500/month.
Now change that to where B was a teacher and didn't pay into SS. As long as both A and B are living, total retirement payments would be 4,500 in both situations. Why should B get to keep A's full benefit. I'd be ok with B getting 500 of spousal support on top of their 2,000 teacher retirement, but not to keep the full 4,500 household retirement income.
Popular
Back to top

0







