Thanks a lot Grassley, Ernst, Cruz

[southlakehawk]

Voting no on the Social Security Fairness Act...Thank goodness other members of Congress saw the unfairness in the WEP(Windfall Elimination Provision) & GPO( Government Pension Offset) laws and said good by to those ideas !! You three get a lump of coal in your christmas stockings from me!! Merry Christmas everyone !! Here are some receipts in case you didn't know...
In case you don't know about WEP & GPO....heres what they did:
Windfall Elimination Provision (WEP):** This provision reduces the Social Security benefits for individuals who receive pensions from jobs not covered by Social Security, typically affecting public sector employees like teachers, police officers, and firefighters who worked in states or municipalities that offer their own pension plans instead of contributing to Social Security.

- **Government Pension Offset (GPO):** This affects the spousal or survivor benefits of someone who also receives a government pension from work where they did not pay Social Security taxes. It can significantly reduce or eliminate these benefits, particularly impacting widows, widowers, and spouses.

 

[CarolinaHawkeye]

Question: Does this mean these people didn't pay into Social Security?
"Windfall Elimination Provision (WEP):** This provision reduces the Social Security benefits for individuals who receive pensions from jobs not covered by Social Security, typically affecting public sector employees like teachers, police officers, and firefighters who worked in states or municipalities that offer their own pension plans instead of contributing to Social Security."

 

[SolarHawk]

Question: Does this mean these people didn't pay into Social Security?
"Windfall Elimination Provision (WEP):** This provision reduces the Social Security benefits for individuals who receive pensions from jobs not covered by Social Security, typically affecting public sector employees like teachers, police officers, and firefighters who worked in states or municipalities that offer their own pension plans instead of contributing to Social Security."

Let’s say you worked 16 years private sector and paid into SS and you worked 30 years in public sector. You would not be fairly compensated for the years you paid in because you worked public sector for a portion of your life. Cons trying to screw the working class yet again.

 

[CarolinaHawkeye]

Let’s say you worked 16 years private sector and paid into SS and you worked 30 years in public sector. You would not be fairly compensated for the years you paid in because you worked public sector for a portion of your life. Cons trying to screw the working class yet again.

Thank you for clearing that up for me.

 

[SolarHawk]

Thank you for clearing that up for me.

 

[NorthernHawkeye]

Let’s say you worked 16 years private sector and paid into SS and you worked 30 years in public sector. You would not be fairly compensated for the years you paid in because you worked public sector for a portion of your life. Cons trying to screw the working class yet again.

To clarify, it applied to people who worked a public sector job that did NOT take out social security deductions in their paycheck. So for those 30 years, they contributed nothing to social security.

But those same employees may have worked a job before the public sector job, or a part time side job at the same time as the public sector job or a job after their public sector retirement. In those three scenarios they paid into social security.

Upon retirement, for some reason those employees received a reduced social security check because they received a public sector pension.

It really makes no sense. I support the legislation. There should be no reduction. Of course this change will cause an even bigger shortfall in social security but these people shouldn't be blamed for that.

 

[SolarHawk]

To clarify, it applied to people who worked a public sector job that did NOT take out social security deductions in their paycheck. So for those 30 years, they contributed nothing to social security.

But those same employees may have worked a job before the public sector job, or a part time side job at the same time as the public sector job or a job after their public sector retirement. In those three scenarios they paid into social security.

Upon retirement, for some reason those employees received a reduced social security check because they received a public sector pension.

It really makes no sense. I support the legislation. There should be no reduction. Of course this change will cause an even bigger shortfall in social security but these people shouldn't be blamed for that.

Thanks for reiterating my point I guess?

 

[NorthernHawkeye]

Thanks for reiterating my point I guess?

You should have made it more clear that the public sector years included no deductions.

You're welcome by the way.

 

[SolarHawk]

You should have made it more clear that the public sector years included no deductions.

You're welcome by the way.

 

[Moral]

To clarify, it applied to people who worked a public sector job that did NOT take out social security deductions in their paycheck. So for those 30 years, they contributed nothing to social security.

But those same employees may have worked a job before the public sector job, or a part time side job at the same time as the public sector job or a job after their public sector retirement. In those three scenarios they paid into social security.

Upon retirement, for some reason those employees received a reduced social security check because they received a public sector pension.

It really makes no sense. I support the legislation. There should be no reduction. Of course this change will cause an even bigger shortfall in social security but these people shouldn't be blamed for that.

You should have made it more clear that the public sector years included no deductions.

You're welcome by the way.

 

[NorthernHawkeye]

Details matter.

If you were in my employ, I would have concluded that your presentation was half-assed.

 

[SolarHawk]

Details matter.

If you were in my employ, I would have concluded that your presentation was half-assed.

Well rest easy knowing I would never work for an insufferable cvnt such as yourself.

 

[Moral]

Details matter.

If you were in my employ, I would have concluded that your presentation was half-assed.

 

[NorthernHawkeye]

Well rest easy knowing I would never work for an insufferable cvnt such as yourself.

My business model isn't dependent on government subsidies so you probably wouldn't fit in.

 

[seminole97]

Let’s say you worked 16 years private sector and paid into SS and you worked 30 years in public sector. You would not be fairly compensated for the years you paid in because you worked public sector for a portion of your life.

Anyone have idea how the benefit is calculated in that scenario?

If you worked and paid into SS from 1978 to 1994, then didn’t work anymore and retired 30 years later, how would your payments differ from someone who worked and paid into SS from 1978 to 1994, and then worked another job that paid into a privately funded pension instead of SS taxes for 30 years? Is it based on how good that private pension is?

The trust fund was predicted in the last report to be exhausted in 2033, at which point payroll taxes will only meet 79% of promised benefits. Adding 3 million beneficiaries can only accelerate that, at which point the Ponzi is either made even more upside down for ‘contributors’ (people born 1975 and later are anticipated to receive back less than they pay in), or means testing begins, or across the board benefit cuts are made.

 

[Jimmy McGill]

Congress shouldn't be cutting benefits yet trying to give themselves raises.

F them

 

[SolarHawk]

My business model isn't dependent on government subsidies so you probably wouldn't fit in.

Weird you don’t consider food stamps a government subsidy but ok.

 

[southlakehawk]

A lady I taught with in Carroll ISD, previously taught in Brownwood, Texas(west Texas area) and she told me out there, she was paying Social Security Taxes(FICA) and TRS ( Teacher Retirement of Texas) taxes. When she retired from Carroll and from teaching, she would only be collecting half of her Social Security benefit because she was labeled a double dipper. For myself(as a teacher), I have only paid into TRS.But I have worked in the private sector prior to becoming a teacher and I have enough credits to get my full SS benefit.

 

[Kelsers]

Let’s say you worked 16 years private sector and paid into SS and you worked 30 years in public sector. You would not be fairly compensated for the years you paid in because you worked public sector for a portion of your life. Cons trying to screw the working class yet again.

Maybe some states, not Iowa.

 

[Doodads and Hoohah]

This affects me. I worked about 10 years and paid into social security before moving to the public sector where I have a defined benefit pension but do not pay into social security. So I should now get a small SS benefits at retirement age. FYI, Icontacted Ernst took a few months ago about this and she indicated that she would support it. Liar

 

[SolarHawk]

Maybe some states, not Iowa.

My dad would have been negatively affected by this, and he lives in Iowa.

 

[Kelsers]

My dad would have been negatively affected by this, and he lives in Iowa.

I was a public employee for 35 years and paid into ss. What did he do?

 

[lucas80]

Details matter.

If you were in my employ, I would have concluded that your presentation was half-assed.

If any of us were in your employ we'd be wearing paper hats and have acne.

 

[NorthernHawkeye]

I was a public employee for 35 years and paid into ss. What did he do?

Certain public sector agencies were affected by this. Their employees did not pay into SS.

 

[mthawkeyes]

Let me make a modest proposal:
From now on, all income is subject to social security taxation.
All retirees are entitled to full benefits based on their contributions.

 

[SolarHawk]

I was a public employee for 35 years and paid into ss. What did he do?

My dad was a USPS carrier for 30 years. He also worked in the private sector for 16 years prior to that.

 

[Kelsers]

My dad was a USPS carrier for 30 years. He also worked in the private sector for 16 years prior to that.

That's federal, I don't know how their retirement is. I worked city, which has the same retirement as county and state. Police and fire are different.

 

[NorthernHawkeye]

That's federal, I don't know how their retirement is. I worked city, which has the same retirement as county and state. Police and fire are different.

This article talks about Louisiana, but the situation isn't exclusive to just that state.

​

​

Bill Allows Firefighters, Police to Receive Social Security Benefits​

Dec. 22, 2024

The Windfall Elimination Provision reduced the Social Security benefits paid firefighters and police who received pension benefits.

Dec. 20—WASHINGTON — After a 40-year fight, thousands of Louisiana public employees with local and state pensions are set to get paid their full Social Security benefits, because the U.S. Senate early Saturday morning gave final legislative approval for two long-sought changes.

Bill Allows Firefighters, Police to Receive Social Security Benefits

The Windfall Elimination Provision reduced the Social Security benefits paid firefighters and police who received pension benefits.

www.firehouse.com

 

[SolarHawk]

That's federal, I don't know how their retirement is. I worked city, which has the same retirement as county and state. Police and fire are different.

It’s pretty obvious you don’t know shit, but thanks for admitting it.

 

[NorthernHawkeye]

Also from the above article:

"Finally, Congress showed up for the millions of Americans — police officers, firefighters, teachers, federal employees, and other local and state public servants — who worked a second job to care for their families or began a second career to afford to live," said U.S. Rep. Garret Graves, R-Baton Rouge, and Democratic Rep. Abigail Spanberger, of Virginia, the chief sponsors of the legislation.

"State and local workers in Louisiana deserve the full Social Security benefits they've earned. Now they will get it," said U.S. Sen. Bill Cassidy, R-Baton Rouge. "This was a long overdue step."

About 94,000 Louisiana employees and retirees from public service jobs — 2.1 million nationwide — lost part or all of their Social Security benefits because of two provisions, the Windfall Elimination Provision and Government Pension Offset.

Some state and municipal governments, including Louisiana's, did not pay Social Security taxes on the pensions for teachers, police officers, firefighters and other public service workers. Many of those employees held jobs before or after their public service, or worked second jobs — such as teachers often take at night and during the summer — that contributed to Social Security.

 

[hawkdave007]

The opt out provisions from years ago should never have been allowed. Just another illustration of how badly this program has been managed over the decades.

 

[theiacowtipper]

I think the previous laws needed to be adjusted, not repealed. I know a Battalion Chief at a fire department who retired maybe 6 years ago. Never paid a dime in social security. His wife was an accountant for Aldi and did. If she does before him, the previous laws eliminated the possibility be draws his pension and also hers from SS. My reading is that now he would be able to draw both if she died first.

If both were covered by SS, he could only draw the larger one. Now he can do both. I think.

 

[Kelsers]

It’s pretty obvious you don’t know shit, but thanks for admitting it.

Well you effing moron!

 

[seminole97]

Congress shouldn't be cutting benefits yet trying to give themselves raises.

F them

Your payroll taxes don’t fund congressional salaries.
The funds are segregated, and what wasn’t used to pay outlays was used to buy treasury debt. But payroll taxes aren’t enough to cover outlays anymore, so the ‘trust fund’ of treasury debt is liquidated to pay the remaining outlays.
When it runs out in 2035 law says that social security has no other funding source, so benefit cuts and/or payroll tax increases will follow.

 

[seminole97]

The opt out provisions from years ago should never have been allowed. Just another illustration of how badly this program has been managed over the decades.

It was a Ponzi from the jump, it could never be ‘managed’ into anything else. They overpaid benefits for decades relative to the actual funding source and stuck the grand kids and great grandkids with the fallout.

 

[Hans81]

Your payroll taxes don’t fund congressional salaries.
The funds are segregated, and what wasn’t used to pay outlays was used to buy treasury debt. But payroll taxes aren’t enough to cover outlays anymore, so the ‘trust fund’ of treasury debt is liquidated to pay the remaining outlays.
When it runs out in 2035 law says that social security has no other funding source, so benefit cuts and/or payroll tax increases will follow.

Hopefully, calmer/cooler political heads will prevail b4 2035 to allow SS to remain fully viable into the future.

 

[markfromj]

$36 Trillion.

 

[seminole97]

Hopefully, calmer/cooler political heads will prevail b4 2035 to allow SS to remain fully viable into the future.

Calmer/cooler political heads can't make a Ponzi viable.
People born after 1975 are already facing a negative return on their payroll tax contributions. Increasing the tax will just make that hole deeper.
The 'good' part of the Ponzi has already passed (generations who raked more than they put in), and it can't come back.