In D.C., it is very common for a LT Colonel or above to line up a GS-15 civilian position before they retire, and step right into that position immediately. In some offices, it is a waste of time for a career civilian employee to even apply for the position because the office is managed and controlled by military retirees.

You’ve got that right.
I have a good friend,Mary, who never worked a day in her life. She receives SS from her ex-spouse. He married two more times. When George died all three wives received an increase in benefits, to George’s amount.
Mary’s next relationship was with Bill. He was a retired teacher, and received his benefits through the State Teachers Retirement Plan. Although they weren’t married, Bill named Mary as beneficiary.
Upon his death, she began receiving his full amount.
I had a 33 year career as a teacher, and because of WEP/GPO I could not collect my deceased husbands SS. Mary never worked a day in her life, she collects two monthly checks, and her retirement income is more than double of mine.

This is some of the inequality that the SS Fairness Act addresses.

Are you sure you were fully vested in your retirement plan after 8 years? More than 10 was required for us.

I worked hard, long hours, and extra jobs to earn additional quarters - who do I talk to about receiving the three SS checks that I have jobs and quarters for?

Those affected by WEP and GPO are not being "punished" at all, they are/were simply NOT being rewarded for avoiding SS taxes for half of their careers. They were not chosen simply because those jobs were in the public sector, public service and not for a profit-driven company. They were chosen because the DID NOT PAY SS taxes in those jobs.

One of my jobs was in the public sector, public service and not for a profit-driven company. I still receive both a pension and (soon) SS retirement. This is the case because I DID PAY SS taxes in that job.

EXAMPLE: Here is what happened to me. I worked in the private sector before working for the postal service. Once I turned 66, i began collecting my full social security benefits. Once I retired from the postal service I was told they would be cutting my social security benefits by 50%. Now with new bill that passed last week I will be collecting my full social security benefits finally after so many years of only getting half of what I actually earned through social security.

All the weirdness, esoteric rules, and insolvency could be eliminated if we could bear to admit that SS is not a retirement system, but just a ridiculously expensive and inefficient welfare program for the middle class. Over half of every other government program depends on taxes from the 1% of wealthiest Americans. But with SS, we normals get hit for 15% of our income for a ponzi scheme that, by law, excuses anyone making over $110K from paying into. Meanwhile SS has been forbidden from "investing" the surplus in anything other than T-bills for all our lives. All, so we can pretend it's a retirement program -- even though you can't even claim ownership of your own "retirement" funds!

Here's a little statistic for you. The annual deficit SS is running right now, halfway into the Boomers retirement, could be covered for the next HUNDRED YEARS by HALF of Mark Zuckerburg's personal wealth -- and he'd still be a BILLIONARE ONE HUNDRED TIMES OVER. Try to imagine how little of your wealth would have been required to deliver your SS check, if Zuck and every other wealthy individual in America had been contributing the same percentage you did!

Or look at it another way. I started saving ANOTHER 15% of my income, the day I became eligible for "catch-up" contributions to my 401K. Even after losing half in the market during the housing bust, the income from my personal savings would be twice my SS check, if I actually tried to spend it all before I die. And I only had two years where my income exceeded the SS contribution limit. THAT'S how stupid Social Security is. I doubled the return on the same money in 1/3rd the time.

I'm not against the government insuring that stupid people who refuse to save for retirement don't starve in their old age. And I'm certainly not advocating that anyone like me who had 15% of their lifetime income confiscated for a ponzi scheme not be repaid every cent they are owed -- even if they don't need it. But I cannot for the life of me understand why any retired American would not argue for a sane replacement for their kids, THAT EVERYBODY PAYS FOR.

Social security was designed to give the MIDDLE CLASS a small amount of stability. In other words a base from which innovation and setting up small businesses could be more imagined and acted upon. It was (and should be in the future) a building block for UPWARD MOBILITY. Today the statistics for UPWARD MOBILITY in the US are VERY dim and discouraging. The top ONE ( 1 ) percent have more WEALTH than the bottom Ninety ( 90 ) percent. All the advantages that we have in the US today were built upon MIDDLE CLASS factory workers in the 40s to 70s when UNIONS were strong. Today UNIONS are decimated by the upper 1% that OUTSOURCED US industry and WEALTH to China (we make almost nothing in factories today). We no longer have VOCATIONAL High Schools so that the poor have only one avenue for improvement - crime or joining the MILITARY.
.........My statements are proven by the generally known FACT that since 1970 each generation has been LESS SUCCESSFUL (and wealthy) than the prior generation. Today the US and Russia have one major thing in common.......OLIGARCHY !

Baloney!
 

Actually very rare for a military officer, regardless of rank at retirement, to transition into a civil service position in less than six months. In 26 years as a civil servant myself I personally know of this happening in fewer than five instances. I know of many who tried, but failed, to make such a switch. Those who were successful had knowledge, skills or abilities (KSAs) specific to the civil service position they were hired into.

I do know of many former military who applied for, and were selected for a civil service position in which their former military service was a consideration in their selection. As a supervisor, I filled several positions with people, male and female, who had had prior military service. They also had the education and private sector experience to make them the most qualified for the position I was filling.

I only want to comment on one small part of this post - "the other thing it does is protect mostly WOMEN". To me that is a VERY GOOD thing because women typically earn only 70% of what a man does for the SAME job.

In my last position as a civilian Federal employee, the newly hired office head was a retired Colonel, who hired no one but retired military personnel. If you were a civilian trying to get promoted, forget about it. There was no way you would be considered. In 3 years, he hired about 10 retired military personnel. He would even bring in GS-14 employees at the step 10 level, when they were supposed to start at Step 1. Many of these jobs were hand crafted so no one else could qualify except the person he wanted to hire.

I think this practice is rampant in the D.C. area in agencies that are controlled by the military. I don't know about other Federal agencies.

Fixing Social Security is pretty easy. Raise the employee contribution by 1% and raise the employer contribution by 1%. If that had been done ten years ago, we wouldn’t be having this conversation. But no Congress wants to be seen to raise taxes.

I believe that women would put up the counter-argument that they have the job of raising the children, getting them to school. the Doctors, driving the children around, being a child psychiatrist at times, being an adult psychiatrist to her husband at times. We all agree that children are the future of America, so we have a DEBT of gratitude to WOMEN - that NEEDS to be PAID.
........Today, a US family needs the wife to work in order to JUST survive so they are having fewer and fewer children. So, what does US industry do to get more low paid workers ? And how does that differ from Australia and other countries?

Serving in the military can be difficult even if you are never in a shooting war. The conditions are difficult and you can't even choose where you live. The military CONTROLS your life like you are in a Dictatorship. You have to have a VERY HARD shell and a certain personality to go EVEN 20 years. And those 20 years are the most productive for most people. The military life is very hard on families and children. Anyone in the military deserves rewards such as V.A. benefits.

I believe that i agree with you. To me, the most equitable form of taxation is where the TAX increases progressively the more a person makes. The way that SS tax stops after 110K of income is the OPPOSITE of a tax where the more you make the more you are taxed. It seems that in Washington D.C. that the tax laws (most all laws) are made by the WEALTHY to benefit the WEALTHY. Strict term limits would help prevent the country from being CONTROLLED by the RICH. But, that needed to be put into effect by around 1970. We have slowly drifted away from a Democracy since then.

I agree that SS could be EASILY fixed. The idea of it failing is just a smoke screen.

That won't do any good at all, when the max income affected by the deduction is still less than $168,600/year. Starting next year that'll be $176,100/year.

If you earn paychecks (since this is exclusively a payroll deduction) totaling $500,000 in a year, they'll only take 6.2% out of your paycheck up to the first $168,600. Your employer has to pay the same amount. Another 1.45% comes out for Medicare. NOTHING will come out for SS or Medicare for the other $331,400 that you earned that year.

Granted, most people who earn that kind of money aren't getting it via paychecks. But some are. People earning $168,600 have deductions on 100% of those paychecks. Wealthy people do not. I think they should.

I also think "early retirement" could be eliminated. Right now, the basic eligibility is 65, with 67 being the expected, and 62 considered "early" retirement. Get rid of that. Have social security benefits start at age 65 (unless you're disabled, that's another ball of wax).

If you do that, then SOME folks will be paying in for 3 years longer than they otherwise would have. And that means more money available to spread around.

So - remove the max income cap AND eliminate "early" retirement, and you'll be funding it just fine for a few more generations.

LOL, no they don't. Debunked multiple times. One of many debunks

Have you served in the military? Otherwise, what are these statements based on?

The US was never a Democracy, it is a Constitutional Republic. That being said, the issue is that what was once an economy based on capitalism is now corporatist. So if you have any complaints, they should be directed at the lobbyists for big corporations and their employers.

Do you also think that people who contribute on 100% of $1M should get SS checks of $15,000/month when they retire? The reason there is a cap on earnings is bc there is also a cap on benefits.

Captain B
 

I worked as a firefighter fighting air plane fire, structure fire, NY TOWERS 1 AND 2 . I worked there for 44 years paying. I ALSO worked at a welding supply store for 34 years. I paid SS MY WELDING JOB . When I retired I was told I'm only getting 50 percent of what I was told collect BECAUSE I WAS A FIREFIGHTER. I got 753. I was penalized for firefighter ING. Do to this law congress put into effect. Now that the law is gone I get what I put 35 years into for SS.

And a VA Disability.

This is Social Media. People post on social media to interact with others. Yes. Calling SS will get you answers. Having a running conversation on Social Media will get you information that will allow you to ask many more questions than you would have thought of.

I’m all for people getting what they deserve out of SS, but SS pays out billions that IMO shouldn’t. For example, we have friends that he worked for the railroad all his life and has a great pension which he deserves, but when his wife turned 65, she got a railroad pension too. Why did she get 1 when she didn’t work for the railroad and she had a very good job with a pension (non-government job). I heard this comes out of the SS pot. Check it out for yourself, the 1st paragraph gives you insight into this and this is on the SS website:

Research: An Overview of the Railroad Retirement Program

I watched a few videos on this new fairness act, some state it’s good while others say it’s very bad. Check this out which goes over all the things that make this new bill terrible for the remaining 97% of SS recipients. This guy has stats that can drastically increase the benefits of part time SS payees into the system and also shows that this $190B cost will cause SS to reduce benefits starting in 2031 by 20% or in 2034 by 33%. So when you look at this new bill, you have to look at the whole pucture:

Social Security "Fairness" Act is BS!! Former Insider REVEALS! | PLUS LIVE Q&A with Dr. Ed - YouTube

Protectors of your freedom
 

20 years in the military, protecting the freedom of everyone who lives in the United States and risking death not to mention all the other personal sacrifices that our military people endure . Nothing is too good for the people who sacrifice and and protect you and everybody else in the United States.

Missing in this entire thread was who avoided paying social security taxes. It wasn’t the employee’s decision. They don’t get asked if they want to pay the taxes or not. It was the employer. Those state governments that avoided paying the taxes.

I was hoping the legislation would end any exemptions and every employer is required to pay into the system. One can pretend that employees pay half, but the reality is that the employer pays all of the FICA taxes.

Where to begin, SS was to be a supplement for peoples old age, human nature has encouraged many to depend too much on it, or entirely, making for a rather meager existence. This crutch has been expanded by politicians making it ever more of a general welfare fund . Making promises is always politically easy, the hard part of funding is always kicked down the road. The western democracies practicing free market capitalism have produced the highest standard of living for the largest number of humans of any time or place in history. This is because of the demonstrated success of people like Steve Jobs, Bill Gates, Sam Walton, Jeff Bezos, they and many lessor innovators have supplied this , we are beneficiaries not victims. The Oh So Egalitarian sounding ideas of Marx produce governmental systems that will not allow individual success, concentrate central power, and well power corrupts taking away individual freedom. After WW2 the USA was in the best of all situations its economy and industry not only intact but stimulated by war production, the American worker was in the right place at the right time. The world moves on , countries rebuild , undeveloped countries improve the result, COMPETITION. How much is the Hourly wages worth of someone doing a job that can be learned in a few hours and done by any reasonably fit , intelligent human being that has ever lived ?

Much of this is over my head but I have a good friend who was a firefighter for the City of Detroit. On occasion he was getting shot at because the people that started the fires didn’t want them put out! When he retired he trained himself as a Master Electrician and then worked for many years doing that and paying into Social Security. On top of that The City of Detroit went bankrupt and reduced his pension benefits. Why wouldn’t he be able to collect SS benefits for the second career during a different time period but he cannot. Would this new repeal allow him to now collect SS?

Not every service member get Va disability especially retired military. You have qualify and they usually reject majority. The big lie I was told for 20 years. Some know how to game the system.

If he paid into the system for at least 40 quarters, he should be collecting SS already, but the new law will increase the amount he receives.

They maybe cause you paid into fire fighter union retirement plan and didn’t pay SS for 44 years? no different than railroad workers or union school teachers.

Insolvency
 

Let's remember that these folks contributed fully, just like everyone that recieves the full benefit. Yet they were only allowed under Reagan's law to get about 1/3 of their benefit. A very unfair act. Glad they finally changed it. And, no, I will not get anything under the new law.

Also lot military wife’s have little chance for career due to having to move 4 or 5 times plus during military career. IMO for those wife’s (like officers wife’s that can collect 1/2 officers retirement if married more than 10 years made claims to same thing) enlisted wife when there spouse dies should get military retirement for there sacrifices for husband and government. Heck most wife’s are real hero’s IMO for putting up with all crap they had to endure raising children and having to move around world.

For the sake of argument....

I contributed fully FOR MY ENTIRE CAREER while they contributed fully for 1/2 their career.

They are getting a pension for the time they did not pay into SS and partial SS in consideration that they only paid for 1/2 their career.

Either:
- The adjustment is fair so that those that paid only half their career do not receive twice the benefits of those that paid their entire career
OR
- I need to know who to talk to in order to get two SS checks - one for the first half of my career to match their pension and another for the second half of my career to match the SS they will now receive.

WEP/GPO was only enacted in 15 states. Public employees in these states will now have the same federal benefits as the other 35 states.
Thats Fairness.

WEP/GPO affects employees in ALL states. If anything, only 15 states had employees paying into state pension plans and NOT paying SS tax.

To clarify, the 15 states where the law was reacted only applied to non-Federal employees. But the WEP and GPO restrictions always applied to retired Federal employees in every state. So, if you are a retired Federal employee, you were subjected to the SS reductions mandated by the old law. The new law will affect Federal retirees in every state.

Biden still hasn’t signed it yet. He has 10 non-Sunday days from the bill passage to sign it or it dies.

Correct, but I don't think the bill has been sent to him yet. The 10 days start when he receives the bill for signature.