[OrangeBlossomBaby]

Originally Posted by Pugchief

I had said "okay" meaning I acknowledge your statement and don't dispute it.

Again, and I don't know how I can be any clearer, my point wasn't whether or not it was true, it was the credibility of the source being based on lived experience of another poster versus hearsay.

So you don't dispute Top's statement. His undisputed statement is in agreement with Jimjam's statement.

Seems like Jimjam's source is irrelevant at this point, you've already acknowledged the claim itself, and have chosen not to dispute it.

Unless you just want to tweak Jimjam because you think he makes a good target?

[Bill14564]

Originally Posted by OrangeBlossomBaby

So you don't dispute Top's statement. His undisputed statement is in agreement with Jimjam's statement.

Seems like Jimjam's source is irrelevant at this point, you've already acknowledged the claim itself, and have chosen not to dispute it.

Unless you just want to tweak Jimjam because you think he makes a good target?

I don't read it that way at all. Pug acknowledged Top's agreement with Jim's statement based on Top's lived experience. That makes *one* personal experience.

Jim's claim is still hearsay unless Jim himself has personal experience. Those who have spent time on these forums have reason to be skeptical. We're still at *one* personal experience.

Before accepting Jim's blanket assessment/accusation as anything but regurgitation of a common stereotype, it is reasonable to ask whether he has personal experience, making it *two* personal experiences, or if his statement was just hearsay.

[Pugchief]

Originally Posted by Bill14564

I don't read it that way at all. Pug acknowledged Top's agreement with Jim's statement based on Top's lived experience. That makes *one* personal experience.

Jim's claim is still hearsay unless Jim himself has personal experience. Those who have spent time on these forums have reason to be skeptical. We're still at *one* personal experience.

Before accepting Jim's blanket assessment/accusation as anything but regurgitation of a common stereotype, it is reasonable to ask whether he has personal experience, making it *two* personal experiences, or if his statement was just hearsay.

Thanks, couldn't have said it better.

[bmcgowan13]

Originally Posted by Craftylady

My husband worked for the VA and is collecting a pension, which he paid into, from there. He also worked many part time jobs and paid into social security. Currently he gets 1/3. Of money he paid into social security. Is that fair, no.

Exactly. I worked over 30 years for a federal pension. I also worked part-time as police and paid into Social Security for 20 years--I paid the SAME amount into Social Security as everyone else at my PD. My weekly SS contributions were NOT reduced because I also paid into CSRS.

I earned a stipend of $1,089 per month from Social Security. But since I started collecting at full retirement age they have reduced my SS payment by $547 per month--simply because I am receiving a federal pension. I get $542 per month. To me--that is not fair. I did NOT pay a reduced amount for my Social Security--I paid the same as everyone else.

My wife collects a pension from her NY Hospital. AND she gets her entire Social Security every month. Is this different?

The GPO/WEP was enacted to have federal employees help bail out SS.

This is a great explanation:

GPO WEP EXPLAINED VIDEO - Google Search

[Bill14564]

Originally Posted by bmcgowan13

Exactly. I worked over 30 years for a federal pension. I also worked part-time as police and paid into Social Security for 20 years--I paid the SAME amount into Social Security as everyone else at my PD. My weekly SS contributions were NOT reduced because I also paid into CSRS.

I earned a stipend of $1,089 per month from Social Security. But since I started collecting at full retirement age they have reduced my SS payment by $547 per month--simply because I am receiving a federal pension. I get $542 per month. To me--that is not fair. I did NOT pay a reduced amount for my Social Security--I paid the same as everyone else.

My wife collects a pension from her NY Hospital. AND she gets her entire Social Security every month. Is this different?

The GPO/WEP was enacted to have federal employees help bail out SS.

This is a great explanation:

...

With 109 posts it is hard to read them all but here is a short recap...

- While you were paying into the pension you WERE NOT paying into SS. Your wife paid into her pension AND SS. THAT is what is different. She paid into SS her entire career, you did not.

- Your pension was intended to replace SS and that is what it is doing. Whatever pension you are receiving is replacing $547 of the SS you would have received IF YOU HAD PAID INTO SS DURING THOSE YEARS.

- I paid into SS for 40 years. Can I divide that by two and ask for two full SS checks? Of course not, I get ONE SS check for the entire 40 years. You worked 40 years (or so) and are receiving a full pension for the time you DID NOT PAY SS plus a partial benefit for the time you did pay SS - you are already receiving more benefits than your wife or me.

- The math behind WEP is based on the way replacement salary is calculated for SS. 100% of the lowest $X of salary is replaced followed by a lower percentage of higher amounts. Your pension is replacing at least 100% of your lowest salary so WEP recalculates your benefit taking that into account. Again, this is because you did not contribute to SS while you were earning your pension.

- You should be grateful WEP left as much as it did. With most straight-SS calculations, benefits like spousal or survivor aren't reduced, they are completely eliminate - you receive 100% of one benefit and 0% of the other.

But in the end, all the above is moot if the bill gets signed. (perhaps it has been already)

[retiredguy123]

The latest news is that the President will sign the bill into law on January 6, 2025.

[retiredguy123]

Originally Posted by Bill14564

With 109 posts it is hard to read them all but here is a short recap...

- While you were paying into the pension you WERE NOT paying into SS. Your wife paid into her pension AND SS. THAT is what is different. She paid into SS her entire career, you did not.

- Your pension was intended to replace SS and that is what it is doing. Whatever pension you are receiving is replacing $547 of the SS you would have received IF YOU HAD PAID INTO SS DURING THOSE YEARS.

- I paid into SS for 40 years. Can I divide that by two and ask for two full SS checks? Of course not, I get ONE SS check for the entire 40 years. You worked 40 years (or so) and are receiving a full pension for the time you DID NOT PAY SS plus a partial benefit for the time you did pay SS - you are already receiving more benefits than your wife or me.

- The math behind WEP is based on the way replacement salary is calculated for SS. 100% of the lowest $X of salary is replaced followed by a lower percentage of higher amounts. Your pension is replacing at least 100% of your lowest salary so WEP recalculates your benefit taking that into account. Again, this is because you did not contribute to SS while you were earning your pension.

- You should be grateful WEP left as much as it did. With most straight-SS calculations, benefits like spousal or survivor aren't reduced, they are completely eliminate - you receive 100% of one benefit and 0% of the other.

But in the end, all the above is moot if the bill gets signed. (perhaps it has been already)

Nice recap, but you only addressed half of the bill, the WEP. The other half is the GPO, or Government Pension Offset. Since I retired, I have received no Social Security "spouse" benefit because my Government pension totally offset any spouse benefit that other spouses are receiving. Also, I receive no SS benefit for work I performed because I did not have a 40 quarter SS work record. With the new law, I will be able to apply for a spouse benefit based on my former spouse's income. I will receive an amount equal to half of her SS monthly benefit, and if she dies before me, my monthly benefit will double. This benefit will be retroactive for the entire year of 2024. This could be thousands of dollars in income per year because she was a high-income earner.

[Bill14564]

Originally Posted by retiredguy123

Nice recap, but you only addressed half of the bill, the WEP. The other half is the GPO, or Government Pension Offset. Since I retired, I have received no Social Security "spouse" benefit because my Government pension totally offset any spouse benefit that other spouses are receiving. Also, I receive no SS benefit for work I performed because I did not have a 40 quarter SS work record. With the new law, I will be able to apply for a spouse benefit based on my former spouse's income. I will receive an amount equal to half of her SS monthly benefit, and if she dies before me, my monthly benefit will double. This benefit will be retroactive for the entire year of 2024. This could be thousands of dollars in income per year because she was a high-income earner.

I intended to address GPO when I wrote:

- You should be grateful WEP left as much as it did. With most straight-SS calculations, benefits like spousal or survivor aren't reduced, they are completely eliminate - you receive 100% of one benefit and 0% of the other.

If I understand it correctly, GPO subtracts 2/3 of the amount of your pension from the spousal or survivor benefit you are applying for and gives you the rest. If your pension is 50% greater than the benefit then it would reduce the benefit to zero. So you get either:
- A reduced SS survivor or spousal benefit if it is more than 67% of your pension
- Zero SS because your pension is 50% greater than the SS benefit

Someone who has paid SS their entire career will collect either their own benefit or the spousal or the survivor, whichever is greater. There is no reduction by 2/3 of benefit they are currently receiving, they just collect whichever single benefit is greater.

You paid into your pension without paying SS.
I paid into SS.

Today, you will receive your pension plus that portion of the spousal benefit greater than 2/3 your pension
Today, I will receive my SS OR the spousal benefit, whichever is greater, but I will only receive ONE.

If your spouse passes, you will receive your pension plus that portion of the survivor benefit greater than 2/3 your pension
If my spouse passes I will receive my SS OR the survivor benefit, whichever is greater, but I will only receive ONE.

There is the potential today for you to make out better than I will even with WEP and GPO reductions.

What you would like is to collect your pension PLUS the spousal and later your pension PLUS the survivor.

What I would like is to collect my SS PLUS the spousal and later my SS PLUS the survivor.

If this bill is signed, one of us will get what they want and you will be even better off than I am.

[retiredguy123]

Personally, I don't think the spouse benefit has ever been fair. Someone who never paid into the system should not receive a monthly check. But, millions of spouses are receiving a check based on their spouse's work record. Now, I will be one of them.

[Bill14564]

Originally Posted by retiredguy123

Personally, I don't think the spouse benefit has ever been fair. Someone who never paid into the system should not receive a monthly check. But, millions of spouses are receiving a check based on their spouse's work record. Now, I will be one of them.

I don't disagree entirely but the spousal benefit might have been a way to actually save money.

What if it was determined that the benefit was not enough to cover a husband & wife when only one had worked? Perhaps the benefit needed to increase to 150% in order to serve its intended purpose. But times change and the single-earner families were becoming fewer as spouses began working also.

If they increased the benefit to 150% because of the single-earners then the two-earner families would be getting 300% (two benefits at 150% each).

On the other hand, if they kept the benefit at 100% but allowed a non-working spouse to collect a 50% spousal then single-earner families would get 150% while two-earner families would get 200%. This is slightly more for the two-earners but significantly less than the other option. To reduce the 200% further would require a discussion about double-dipping and fairness, similar to the discussion that led to this thread.

So perhaps the spousal benefit was a way to provide the level of benefit a single-earner family would need while saving money on two-earner families.

[Topspinmo]

Originally Posted by retiredguy123

Personally, I don't think the spouse benefit has ever been fair. Someone who never paid into the system should not receive a monthly check. But, millions of spouses are receiving a check based on their spouse's work record. Now, I will be one of them.

When you turn 65 you get SS whether you paid into it or not. Some spouses never had opportunities to work or have successful career. Beside SS was meant for poor or lower middle class.

[retiredguy123]

Originally Posted by Topspinmo

When you turn 65 you get SS whether you paid into it or not. Some spouses never had opportunities to work or have successful career. Beside SS was meant for poor or lower middle class.

I didn't get SS when I turned 65. I just got Medicare, Part A because I paid into it.

[Pugchief]

Originally Posted by Topspinmo

When you turn 65 you get SS whether you paid into it or not. Some spouses never had opportunities to work or have successful career. Beside SS was meant for poor or lower middle class.

False. You have to contribute for 40 quarters in order to collect SS.

[GoldenBoy]

Originally Posted by Topspinmo

I was enlisted for 20 years. Is that live enough experience for you?

I'm sorry, I guess I have been misunderstanding Talk of the Villages for the last 10 years. Does anybody read this for any reason than the entertainment value?

[bagboy]

The latest, The Social Security Fairness Act will be signed tomorrow, Sunday January 5th, at 4 pm est.