[Blueblaze]

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.

[jimjamuser]

Originally Posted by CoachKandSportsguy

Senate passes Social Security bill to repeal WEP and GPO

Not sure what this means, other than more people can collect, and that means the insolvency is now approaching sooner.

Lets hope the Congress can fix social security without all the continuing resolutions to fix the debt ceiling and the budget ever increasing spending

good luck to us!

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 !

[Achilles]

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.

[jimjamuser]

Originally Posted by ElDiabloJoe

Ronald Reagan did two things that I heartily disagree with (with the benefit of hindsight, of course): 1) closed the mental hospitals, and; 2) enacted the WEP and GPO to social security.

Passage of this bill, the Social Security Fairness Act and signature by a president (both Biden and Trump have said they supported the Act) will return fairness to social security by eliminating the WEP and GPO.

Currently, if you earned 40 credits, AND you earned a public pension, they greatly reduced your social security - usually by 70%!! If your benefit was $700, you are getting $145/month simply because you paid into two different systems.

This Act does NOT give people with public pensions double-dipping access to social security UNLESS they also have earned their social security via 40 credits like everyone else.

This Act gives full credit that is due to anyone who worked their full 40 credits - as it should be.

Currently, someone with a government pension, even though they worked 10 years before and 10 years after in the private sector or otherwise worked enough to earn their 40 social security credits, has that social security benefit drastically reduced simply because they also worked in public service. Mostly it's cops, puddle-monkeys, and teachers.

Is it fair if you worked for IBM until you were 35 or 40, and then went and joined a police department for 20 years until you were 55 or 60 to only get what you earned from the police force, but get 70% of your social security benefit taken because you did that?

The other thing it does is protect mostly women. If your spouse worked for a city, county, state or the feds, your spousal benefit from their social security would be normally be negative or zero dollars. You did not get a thing even though the spouse earned their 40 credits.

This Act gives the rightfully earned fair benefit to those who earned it, regardless of whatever other career path they may have chosen over time.

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.

[retiredguy123]

Originally Posted by Achilles

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.

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.

[MandoMan]

Originally Posted by CoachKandSportsguy

Senate passes Social Security bill to repeal WEP and GPO

Not sure what this means, other than more people can collect, and that means the insolvency is now approaching sooner.

Lets hope the Congress can fix social security without all the continuing resolutions to fix the debt ceiling and the budget ever increasing spending

good luck to us!

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.

[jimjamuser]

Originally Posted by retiredguy123

Personally, I think the spouse benefit should be eliminated. If someone doesn't pay into the system, they should not get a check. The way the current system works is that a worker can be married 4 or 5 times, and as long as each marriage lasts at least 10 years, all of the ex-spouses are entitled to a check, even if they never worked at all. Some ex-spouses, who never worked, are receiving a check that is higher than a fulltime worker who worked for 30 or 40 years.

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?

[jimjamuser]

Originally Posted by Pmelo

But, the most absurd situation is that military people can retire after 20 years, and then immediately return as a GS-15 or SES civilian employee and earn another full pension. They have an inside track with military preference, and sometimes they return in one day to the same desk.

Anyone could have joined the military (unless a medical condition, etc). And yes members of the armed services can retire after 20 years but perhaps what many don't know is the hours put in during those 20 years, the sacrifices, the works conditions, and NO overtime to name a few. And many don't make it to the 20 years.
cheers...

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.

[jimjamuser]

Originally Posted by Blueblaze

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.

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.

[jimjamuser]

Originally Posted by MandoMan

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

[OrangeBlossomBaby]

Originally Posted by MandoMan

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.

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.

[Pugchief]

Originally Posted by jimjamuser

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.

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

[Pugchief]

Originally Posted by jimjamuser

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.

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

[Pugchief]

Originally Posted by jimjamuser

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.

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.

[Pugchief]

Originally Posted by OrangeBlossomBaby

People earning $168,600 have deductions on 100% of those paychecks. Wealthy people do not. I think they should.

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.