[Soulakala]

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.

 

[duke1122]

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.

So a person that paid in to S.S. at the max rate as a high earner should not get to collect at retirement because he has also saved his after tax income for many years and invested it so as to have an income flow in his later years. Bah humbug. Cut off the thieves that fake a disability in their 20's, then collect for the rest of their life while they golf, run a drift boat, and/ or work a cash 'Side job" for extra income.

 

[HeavyMetal BankFisherman]

So a person that paid in to S.S. at the max rate as a high earner should not get to collect at retirement because he has also saved his after tax income for many years and invested it so as to have an income flow in his later years. Bah humbug. Cut off the thieves that fake a disability in their 20's, then collect for the rest of their life while they golf, run a drift boat, and/ or work a cash 'Side job" for extra income.

It's going to be harder to catch those "thieves" with the planned cuts they have coming to reduce Social Security staff.

 

[Don G Baldi]

It's going to be harder to catch those "thieves" with the planned cuts they have coming to reduce Social Security staff.

That's what those 87,000 new IRS agents are for.

 

[HeavyMetal BankFisherman]

That's what those 87,000 new IRS agents are for.

Is that still floating around?

A 2021 U.S. Treasury Department report estimating that around $80 billion in funding would allow the IRS to incrementally hire nearly 87,000 employees by the year 2031. Most of those hires would be replacements for workers retiring from existing positions, including not only IRS enforcement agents, but also customer service and technology specialists.

 

[Old Coot]

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

Amazing.

 

[Lucky Guy]

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.

 

[Califbill]

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.

 

[Don G Baldi]

Is that still floating around?

A 2021 U.S. Treasury Department report estimating that around $80 billion in funding would allow the IRS to incrementally hire nearly 87,000 employees by the year 2031. Most of those hires would be replacements for workers retiring from existing positions, including not only IRS enforcement agents, but also customer service and technology specialists.

Well, read up on what the House Ways & Means Committee Chairman had to say about that. He may be a bit biased, but makes some relevant points. Including the one that new money isn't needed to hire replacements. That funding is already in the budget.

Fact Check: Hell-bent on Supercharging IRS Against Middle Class, Democrats Once Again Mislead Public - Ways and Means

As Republicans drew closer to passing legislation to protect the middle class and small businesses from an IRS supercharged with...

waysandmeans.house.gov

 

[WhiskyTangoFoxtrot]

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

 

[HeavyMetal BankFisherman]

Well, read up on what the House Ways & Means Committee Chairman had to say about that. He may be a bit biased, but makes some relevant points. Including the one that new money isn't needed to hire replacements. That funding is already in the budget.

Fact Check: Hell-bent on Supercharging IRS Against Middle Class, Democrats Once Again Mislead Public - Ways and Means

As Republicans drew closer to passing legislation to protect the middle class and small businesses from an IRS supercharged with...

waysandmeans.house.gov

That $80 billion wasn't just for employees. It was also for other expenditures like rent, equipment, technology, upgrades, etc... and accounted for about half of that money.

I'm not saying they need all that money but they are not hiring 87,000 new IRS agents.

 

[lilnorthfork]

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.

 

[ChinookSlayer]

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. "

 

[Waterfish]

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.

 

[Rocklock]

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.

 

[Waterfish]

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.

You are probably right; those people who were drafted and served two years or had two-year enlistments may not have earned the minimum of 40 quarters to qualify for Social Security.

A separate issue for veterans who later have careers in the federal government is the Military Service Buyback.

Defense Finance and Accounting Service > CivilianEmployees > militaryservice > militaryservicedeposits

Myself and all of my federal coworkers who were veterans all made the deposits described above so that our military time would be added to our federal retirement time.

 

[Don G Baldi]

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.

 

[Waterfish]

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 just read that the increased Social Security payments to federal retirees will be retroactive to December, 2023 - great news for me!

 

[Don G Baldi]

I just read that the increased Social Security payments to federal retirees will be retroactive to December, 2023 - great news for me!

Well, I hope you get it. I'd be fine if it could be retro back to when you started receiving SS because that would right the wrong and make you whole. I hate that it will hasten the system's funding crisis but that's a management problem. No reason to continue screwing over retirees.

 

[Waterfish]

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.