Been a government employee since the late 90s and have paid into social security every single day. The only Oregon government entity I am personally aware of that does not is Keizer. There may be more but I’m not sure. I don’t think this change will benefit me at all but the bottom line is those who pay in should get money out same as anyone else who paid in. Those who didn’t should not.

 

Now let’s get rid of state and federal income taxes on it

M

 

You can thank joe biden, in 1984 he championed the bill to tax ssi payments.

 

These federal employees didn't contribute into the system. It's a terrible. Move.

 

Federal employees who were hired under the old Civil Service Retirement System (CCRS) before 1983, and who also never paid into Social Security will not receive Social Security benefits under the new bill. Only those CCRS retirees who did pay into Social Security and earned at least 40 quarters will have their benefits increased by the elimination of the Windfall Elimination Provision (WEP) and the Government Pension Offset (GPO). Those federal retirees who paid into Social Security and had their benefits drastically reduced have been ripped off for over 40 years. The new Social Security Fairness Act rights a wrong.

 

I’m not crazy about giving retired federal employees more money. When do the rest of us get more money?

Most bills as of late are the opposite of their name.

 

2 things wrong with SS. Poor return on investment
It's your money you should be able to get it without penalty any time you want.

I wish I could have half of mine to put in a real investment and let the government waste the rest.. I'd be better off in 20 years.

 

If they didn't pay into it then they should get $0. I heard post office workers paid $0 but now will get SS?

Funny how these radical changes come before the changing of the guard...

This change only affects about 2.4 million people (of about 335 million). On the federal side (USPS and civil service) it only affects employees covered by CSRS (Civil Service Retirement System) which was discontinued in 1987 (no new enrollees but those in could stay). CSRS employees did not pay into SS and could not (still can't) claim SS for their federal service. This change affects how non-federal spousal benefits are paid and how former feds can claim SS earned in a NON federal job where they DID pay into SS. CSRS annuitants are a quickly disappearing group.

All federal employees (postal and non postal) that began federal service during or after 1987 are covered by FERS (Federal Employee Retirement System). Part of the reasoning (along with several others) for the change was to boost SS viability by adding millions of contributors/participants. FERS employees are and always have been entitled to SS.

Oh. And this bill passed with broad bipartisan support. It passed in the House by a 327-75 vote and the Senate 76-20.

 

I'll take the other side of this argument. The bill doesn't just grant SS $$ to retired government employees that haven't paid in. People tend to change jobs over their working life and some, maybe a lot, work in both the public sector in the government retirement system and a second job in the private sector paying their SS taxes. This bill eliminates the provision that reduces their SS benefit when retired or disabled when they also receive pensions from public sector jobs not covered by SS.

The bill allows them to receive the full SS benefits they would receive if they didn't have a non SS pension instead of having their rightful SS benefits reduced because of it. I said rightful because if you paid into SS, you ought to be getting your 'fair share' of it back.

 

Hey Don, read the article, specifically the part about how benefits are calculated. It is right and fair to calculate benefits on the entire amount you earned over your career, both in and out of SS. This bill separates your earnings, so that the SS is calculated based only on your SS earnings. This makes it appear that you never earned much. That is false information. Low earners get a much higher percentage return of their life earnings than high earners. So, those with a Gov pension will now get much more from SS.

Let's make up an example based on income tax, which is also skewed. Say you have a Gov job paying $70k, and a side gig paying $30k. Income tax is computed on the total you make, $100k, with tax due of $13,841. If you were able to file a separate tax return for each job, the one at $70k would owe $7,241 and the one at $30k would owe $1,616. The total would be $8,857. That's $4,984 less. The pension/SS calculation is the same idea in reverse. You get far more benefits if you add the SS based on $30k and the pension based on $70k than you would if the benefit was calculated on $100k.

 

The bill will hasten SS insolvency. Here's a crazy idea: Why don't we fix SS by fully funding it?

 

Yes, and have a separate budget for everything else, let SSI go to those that paid into it not to phony baloney applicants claiming they can no longer work because of drinking problems.

 

As a guy who may not ever see a social security check I’d prefer the whole thing was liquidated, paid out proportional to contributions and dissolved.

 

People should read the actual Bill before making judgement. There is so much false information floating around the internet and social media that you need to go to the source and decide for yourself. Some of the posts in this thread are not accurate.

I've read the Bill. There are some people that paid into SS and are not getting their full benefits.

Read the actual Bill for yourself. Don't go by the solely on what you read on social media or a forum. And also look who sponsored the Bill along with the 330 co-sponsors.


Passed House (11/12/2024)
Social Security Fairness Act of 2023

This bill repeals provisions that reduce Social Security benefits for individuals who receive other benefits, such as a pension from a state or local government.

The bill eliminates the government pension offset, which in various instances reduces Social Security benefits for spouses, widows, and widowers who also receive government pensions of their own.

The bill also eliminates the windfall elimination provision, which in some instances reduces Social Security benefits for individuals who also receive a pension or disability benefit from an employer that did not withhold Social Security taxes.

These changes are effective for benefits payable after December 2023.

The Bill is available at this government website link.

https://www.congress.gov/bill/118th-congress/house-bill/82

 

I would prefer that all Government/State employees be responsible for taxes that contribute to their benefits/retirement policies. Tax payers that do not work in that sector should not pay taxes that contribute to their benefits; it's a completely ridiculous policy that needs to be squashed.

 

Ding! Ding! Ding! We gots a winner!

Dump all the exclusions and put everyone on their government operated pension/safety net on SS. RR is another special case with their own program. One system, one set of rules and benefits for all. Or, better yet, shut down all of them and instead mandate a 401k type program instead. The return would be so much better even if only invested in the S&P 500 index. I've been pushing that idea for over 50 years.

Or, keeping the existing bureaucracy, treat it like it really is - a welfare program. Set a cap on income level, say the magic $400k, and anyone over don't get benefits. That would extend the go-broke date. While we're at it, tax all earnings with contributions by both employer and employee. Don't stop collecting from high income folks - that's nonsense.

Medicare? No, save that for a different thread.

 

There are people that have worked both in the private and public sector. They paid into SS and they also have a government pension. Their SS benefits should not be penalized because of their pension. That's my take on this mess.

 

My sister a Texas resident has never paid into SSI rather she used the offered private retirement along with the teacher's retirement fund. She worked as a school administrator for years and when she retired two years ago her retirement is considerably more than SSI would have provided. It would be nice to have a choice.

 

All this excitement over an article in the mouthpiece publication of the Chinese Falun Gong organization.

Amazing.

 

All this excitement over an article in the mouthpiece publication of the Chinese Falun Gong organization.

Amazing.

Never ceases to amaze when 'informed Americans' are happy to do others' bidding.

Lucky for us Musk is 'in'... rest assured he will bring an end to the disinformation.

 

A lot of people that go to work or enlist in the military right after high school have multiple pensions. The implication is that it's double dipping. It's not double dipping. They did separate work at separate times for each separate pension.

If double dipping is a concern, one need look no farther than PERS.

 

Those under the railroad retirement act and social security were hosed. Friend who died last year at 85 worked for railroad for 10 years in his younger days. When he t retired at 65 and startEd collecting SS and RR funds, he never got a raise in all those years. When S.S. went up, they reduced RR, when RR went up SS went down. Fair? You have to realize S.S. is an insurance policy, not retirement fund. Even FDR who started S.S. said was not a retirement plan. So, comparing your and company contributions to investing the same amount is not really valid. Get injured and S.S. pays rest of your life, even if you are 20 when injured. Killed? You kids get S.S. until 18 or out of school. Bad parts is SSI was for those not in the SS plan, like farmers. But now includes any immigrants and minimum SSI is more than minimum SS.

 

The peasants fight over scrapes, while the rich get richer.

 

Interesting thread with lots of views and points. As a landlord, I've seen a lot of the perfectly able-bodied folks who were "disabled" living off the system, kind of always irked me.

Then there's the whole discussion of when to start taking SS, when you first hit 62, 67, 70? If you start taking it at 62, you have 8 years of income before folks taking it at 70. Taking it at 70 pays out more. If you live long enough, waiting always puts more money in your pocket. The guy who starts taking SS at 62 hits the breakeven point at around 81 years old, after that it's a benefit to wait longer before collecting (as an exercise to the student, you can plot this out). But... looking at folks in their 80's, they aren't really able-bodied running all over the place and traveling, so why not collect early while you can enjoy it? Putting a 25% discount at the year 2035 due to insolvency, moves the cross over point out a couple of years, around 83 years old before you are ahead money wise.

I always felt I'd rather have the money to do with it what I wanted, but looking back at how much I paid into the system (I was a high wage earner), it's surprising little compared to what you can collect living a longer life; you'll collect far more than paid in.

As pointed out FDR put SS in place, not as a retirement system, but as a means to take care of society after what had happened during the great depression.

From the Google Machine:

"The Social Security Act was created to address economic security in a modern industrialized society, and to protect Americans from poverty, unemployment, and the burdens of widows and fatherless children. The Great Depression was the event that finally convinced Americans to adopt a social insurance system "

"Social insurance, as conceived by President Roosevelt, would address the permanent problem of economic security for the elderly by creating a work-related, contributory system in which workers would provide for their own future economic security through taxes paid while employed. "

 

Interesting thread with lots of views and points. As a landlord, I've seen a lot of the perfectly able-bodied folks who were "disabled" living off the system, kind of always irked me.

Then there's the whole discussion of when to start taking SS, when you first hit 62, 67, 70? If you start taking it at 62, you have 8 years of income before folks taking it at 70. Taking it at 70 pays out more. If you live long enough, waiting always puts more money in your pocket. The guy who starts taking SS at 62 hits the breakeven point at around 81 years old, after that it's a benefit to wait longer before collecting (as an exercise to the student, you can plot this out). But... looking at folks in their 80's, they aren't really able-bodied running all over the place and traveling, so why not collect early while you can enjoy it? Putting a 25% discount at the year 2035 due to insolvency, moves the cross over point out a couple of years, around 83 years old before you are ahead money wise.

I always felt I'd rather have the money to do with it what I wanted, but looking back at how much I paid into the system (I was a high wage earner), it's surprising little compared to what you can collect living a longer life; you'll collect far more than paid in.

As pointed out FDR put SS in place, not as a retirement system, but as a means to take care of society after what had happened during the great depression.

From the Google Machine:

"The Social Security Act was created to address economic security in a modern industrialized society, and to protect Americans from poverty, unemployment, and the burdens of widows and fatherless children. The Great Depression was the event that finally convinced Americans to adopt a social insurance system "

"Social insurance, as conceived by President Roosevelt, would address the permanent problem of economic security for the elderly by creating a work-related, contributory system in which workers would provide for their own future economic security through taxes paid while employed. "

Ya, that's called 'income redistribution'. A very popular concept to some. And in its original form, not totally unpalatable but SS got a lot of additional social benefits added that turned it into a welfare program separate from the one administered by a different agency at what is now DHS.

Waterfish, I think you are one of the beneficiaries of this bill. It is said to eliminate the Windfall provision that is reducing your rightful SS payout.

 

I hope someone can help me understand how this new bill will affect retired federal employees like me. I retired under the old Civil Service Retirement System (CCRS). My federal retirement is based on how many years that I worked for the federal government including my military time.

Many of my government coworkers spent their whole careers working for the federal government and (some of them) time in the military. They did not work outside of the government and never paid into Social Security. And now in retirement they receive no Social Security money.

In my case, I did work outside of the government just enough to earn the minimum of 40 quarters which qualifies me for Social Security payments. The Windfall Elimination Provision (WEP) reduces my Social Security benefit significantly. I just received a statement from Social Security saying that my monthly benefit in 2025 will be $199.00. If the WEP and Government Pension Offset (GPO) have been repealed by the new Social Security Fairness Act, will I see an increase in my Social Security benefit? If so, it will not be in 2025, at least according the statement that I received.

As fishnhunt13 said, the new Social Security Fairness Act passed with broad bipartisan support; House by a 327-75 vote and the Senate 76-20. Fair or not, it is unlikely to be repealed.

 

Many of my government coworkers spent their whole careers working for the federal government and (some of them) time in the military. They did not work outside of the government and never paid into Social Security. And now in retirement they receive no Social Security money.

Not sure where the idea that the military doesn't pay into SS came from. I know I sure as hell paid into it. Your friends may have not been in long enough to get the 40 quarters required to qualify for SS and aren't getting SS for that reason.

 

A democracy will continue to exist until the time that those being elected discover they can vote themselves generous gifts from the public treasury. From that moment forward, the majority of voters vote for the candidates who promise the most benefits (from the public treasury), with the result that the democracy will finally collapse due to loose fiscal policy which is always followed by a dictatorship.

 

Our government just changed Social Security to increase payments to those with other government pensions. Here is a great read on why it's wrong and needs to be changed back.

The Social Security Fairness Act: A $200 Billion Boondoggle

This change in Social Security has got people asking questions.

www.theepochtimes.com

OMG. Quoting the Epoch Time's "analysis"....

A concise description of Epoch Times by the Baptist News.com: In reality, The Epoch Times traffics in misinformation, partisan politics, lies and propaganda. The media company behind it is associated with the religion Falun Gong and a performing dance troupe, Shen Yun.

At least The Onion is funny.

 

traffics in misinformation, partisan politics, lies and propaganda

I didn't know they were part of the mainstream media. All kidding aside, not everything from questionable sources is questionable either. Just like not everything from the mainstream media is "news", "real", or "true".

I think a better approach is to point out why the source is wrong.

If anyone still trust their sources, they need to spend more effort finding misinformation.

 

Social security was never meant to be a pension, it's a safety net. If I was king I'd remove the income limit on the ss deduction and eliminate capital gains exemption on income taxes until the ss trust fund is fully funded and solvent again, then start on the national debt.

Once the debt is gone, take a breather and then solve everything else.

 

Social security was never meant to be a pension, it's a safety net. If I was king I'd remove the income limit on the ss deduction and eliminate capital gains exemption on income taxes until the ss trust fund is fully funded and solvent again, then start on the national debt.

Once the debt is gone, take a breather and then solve everything else.

I agree with removing the income cap on SS deductions, but capital gains have nothing to do with SS and would have no effect on the trust fund.

 

SS is 22% of the federal expenditures for $1.35 Trillion. That's a high number but not much different than WWII at 22%. Social Security History

The biggest potential savings is probably medicare/medicaid. $4.9 Trillion

NHE Fact Sheet | CMS

Quick summary of NHE Facts

www.cms.gov

.

I feel like the biggest savings would be from getting people healthier which would cut medical expenses. The average number of prescriptions is rising, and of course, those people are probably going to Drs for checkups etc. Of course, we have to change our methods, activities, and food we eat to make that happen. It's probably going to take a while to make those changes, but there would be savings in any case. As a country, we've gotten less healthy over the past 50 years.

 

Of note, the Epoch Times is a criminal enterprise literally owned by a Chinese cult. Not a great source to look to for accurate information on... anything. The Epoch Times CFO charged with $67m money laundering scheme

 

Of note, the Epoch Times is a criminal enterprise literally owned by a Chinese cult. Not a great source to look to for accurate information on... anything. The Epoch Times CFO charged with $67m money laundering scheme

And my security software won't load it, so what? If you want to bash the outlet, start a new thread and go for it. But why not stick the subject - SS changes for a relative handful of retirees?

 

That posted factual information does not support your preferred conclusions does not make them off topic. The Epoch Times senior leadership is facing criminal charges for money laundering as part of a "pay to play" disinformation scheme. If you don't find that relevant to a discussion where one of their "news" articles is the topic being discussed, I don't know what to tell you.

 

And how, exactly, does that affect eliminating the Windfall Provision?