Democrats Are Once Again Sabotaging Desperately Needed Social Security Reform

[22lcidw]

GOP have a retirement plan which has a scene from Logan's Run...

While all the other first world countries are talking about how to give their workers more time off and create better work life balance because technology has improved our lives... If we leverage this tech advances we can have more free time...

GOP version: More Tech mean more productivity which makes more profit which goes to Shareholders & Owners, the Ownership Class...
Note: 3 people in US have are wealthier than the combined 50% of US Citizens. That is the tip of the iceberg in the ownership class...


Workers should work longer in life because we can work them harder.

The same countries that do not pay out a fair share for their defense and use us as the suckers. More socialism for them due to it.

 

[kyzr]

Get you a .gov job.
Good luck.

No matter. Musk will end that paper in a mine nonsense.

 

[WorldWatcher]

True. But DOGE just discovered that the Federal retirement system records are kept in a PA mine.

The federal paperwork mine in DOGE's crosshairs is real and bizarre

In the Oval Office on Tuesday, Elon Musk said the government stores and processes retirement paperwork in an old limestone mine. It's real.

www.businessinsider.com

• Elon Musk said on Tuesday that the government stores key retirement paperwork in a converted mine.
• The limestone mine is real, and in the Department of Government Efficiency's crosshairs.
• The US government started storing records in the underground facility in the 1960s.

So if Federal workers are in the SS system, why are records still kept in a mine instead of by SS like the rest of us??????

You are mixing the two things.

#1 Ours and Federal earnings histories are maintained by the SSA - there is no difference. There is no "like the rest of us".

#2 The documents stored in the mine are Federal employee retirement applications and documents related to earning their fedreal pension.

Federal Pension != SS Benefis.

Hope this helps.

WW

 

[bendog]

If the gop raises the retirement age and does not raise the cap on top earner's taxes, the dems will take the house .... if they stop running progressives to protect hamas and people who don't work.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Are you really this gullible and stupid, or is this an act you put on when you post???

Have you noticed that government employees make LESS than the private sector workers doing the same job. A lot LESS. A government mechanic averages about $50,000 per year, but the average private sector earnings is $66,500, 1/3 MORE than the government employee earns for the same work.

Over a 40 year career, the government worker will be paid $660,000 LESS than the private sector workers, but so often you hear the government workers say that they took the government jobs to give service to the country that has given them so much.

In return for their SERVICE, and their lower wages, government workers receive medical coverage and a pension.

If you'd paid attention in Civics Class, you'd know this stuff.

Have you noticed that government employees make LESS than the private sector workers doing the same job. A lot LESS.

Baloney.

So now, when they get a private sector job, they'll grow the economy, pay into the system, instead of living off of it, and they'll make more money?

Sounds like wins all around.

Makes me wonder why all you left-wing morons are whining so much about it.

 

[WorldWatcher]

So how do the rest of us get some of this FERS stuff?
The article calls it a Federal Pension system.

Get a job with the Federal government.

Isn't "disability" a state responsibility?

Not necessarily.

Persons can qualify for SSDI (Social Security Disability Income) which is different than SS retirement.

No matter, there is no fucking way that ANY Federal paperwork should be on paper in a fucking mine.

Agree, should have been modernized decades ago. My wife just retired, we did her retirement and Medicare enrollment all online.

WW

 

[kyzr]

You are mixing the two things.
#1 Ours and Federal earnings histories are maintained by the SSA - there is no difference. There is no "like the rest of us".
#2 The documents stored in the mine are Federal employee retirement applications and documents related to earning their federal pension.
Federal Pension != SS Benefits.
Hope this helps. WW

None of my documents are stored in that mine.
#1. SSA tracks all SS benefits. Good so far.
#2. What documents for what "Federal Pension"? The only "pension" I have is SSA. That makes no sense.
Then you say Federal Pension = SS benefits. So why doesn't the SSA track their pensions like for the rest of us. It sounds like there is a "deep state" Federal Pension system stored deep in a mine with secret documents.

 

[WorldWatcher]

None of my documents are stored in that mine.

If you aren't a federal retiree, that makes sense.

#1. SSA tracks all SS benefits. Good so far.

Yep.

#2. What documents for what "Federal Pension"? The only "pension" I have is SSA. That makes no sense.
Then you say Federal Pension = SS benefits. So why doesn't the SSA track their pensions like for the rest of us. It sounds like there is a "deep state" Federal Pension system stored deep in a mine with secret documents.

Actually does make sense if you understand what was typed. (I don't mean that negatively, I mean that as lack of knowledge. That we can fix.)

What I typed was "Federal Pension != SS Benefits".

"=" means "equal to"

"!" is commonly called the bank operator by Database geeks. Technically it is a "Not" operator.

So when you combine them in a logic statement it says:

• "Federal Pension != SS Benefits".
• "Federal Pension NOT EQUAL TO SS Benefits".

Sometimes people will use "=/=" in the same was as "Not Equal To".

Hope this helps.

WW

 

[MarcATL]

What solution are you proposing OP?

 

[kyzr]

Actually does make sense if you understand what was typed. (I don't mean that negatively, I mean that as lack of knowledge. That we can fix.) What I typed was "Federal Pension != SS Benefits". WW

Okay, so my original comment was, why do Feds get SS & and a Federal pension?
There should be no taxpayer funded "Federal Pension", correct?
Otherwise there should be no pension records kept in a mine in PA.
relic in post #25 explains it away as FERS, which sounds like a separate pension. There are 3 parts, two you pay and one the taxpayers pay. A better deal than the rest of us get.

"FERS is a retirement plan that provides benefits from three different sources: a Basic Benefit Plan, Social Security and the Thrift Savings Plan (TSP). Two of the three parts of FERS (Social Security and the TSP) can go with you to your next job if you leave the Federal Government before retirement. The Basic Benefit and Social Security parts of FERS require you to pay your share each pay period. Your agency withholds the cost of the Basic Benefit and Social Security from your pay as payroll deductions. Your agency pays its part too. Then, after you retire, you receive annuity payments each month for the rest of your life."

 

[Mac1958]

We don't have a Revenue problem, and we don't have a Spending problem.

We have a Revenue AND Spending problem.

Until we grow up and admit this, the problem will only get worse.

 

[WorldWatcher]

Okay, so my original comment was, why do Feds get SS & and a Federal pension?

Because they pay into both.

There should be no taxpayer funded "Federal Pension", correct?

Actually I'm a supporter of Defined Benefit retirement programs. Thou care has to be taken they are funded on the front end to support payments on the back end.

Otherwise there should be no pension records kept in a mine in PA.
relic in post #25 explains it away as FERS, which sounds like a separate pension. There are 3 parts, two you pay and one the taxpayers pay. A better deal than the rest of us get.

I'm sorry, you act like storing things in a climate controlled "mine" is any different then storing them in a climate controlled warehouse. There is no differencec, but I get that "mine" sounds bad.

"FERS is a retirement plan that provides benefits from three different sources: a Basic Benefit Plan, Social Security and the Thrift Savings Plan (TSP). Two of the three parts of FERS (Social Security and the TSP) can go with you to your next job if you leave the Federal Government before retirement. The Basic Benefit and Social Security parts of FERS require you to pay your share each pay period. Your agency withholds the cost of the Basic Benefit and Social Security from your pay as payroll deductions. Your agency pays its part too. Then, after you retire, you receive annuity payments each month for the rest of your life."

Yes so.

Let's review:

Federal employees pay into SS.
Federal employees pay into FERS.
In both cases there is an employer match.

Other employees (large company, unions, etc.) pay into SS.
Other employees (large company, unions, etc.) pay into a pension system.
In both cases there is an employer match.

I'm not seeing the problem.

WW

 

[Frankenstein]

I will have 40 years in with my company at 62, will have been paying into SS it for 46 years, at 62. They have been taking that money, and give us no interest on itg screw the Government they just want to raise the age so you don't get to use much of it

 

[jwoodie]

where I tried to get Democrats to offer proposals for saving SS. Their only proposal was to jack up taxes on the rich enough to cover any shortfall. That is not a viable solution, neither politically nor economically.

Actually, the earnings limit for SS taxes is a huge tax break for high income earners. Why should their marginal tax rates suddenly drop by 6% after they earn $200k? Any additional SS benefits they might receive would be calculated at a greatly reduced rate of return. That is why they are opposed to this idea.

 

[bendog]

Actually, the earnings limit for SS taxes is a huge tax break for high income earners. Why should their marginal tax rates suddenly drop by 6% after they earn $200k? Any additional SS benefits they might receive would be calculated at a greatly reduced rate of return. That is why they are opposed to this idea.

And the irony is that for middle class folks who have both SS and a second retirement fund (be it private savings, a federal or state employee plan, or better yet for workers - something along a the lines of a 401k or tiaa-cref - we get to pay federal taxes on benefits while those under the cap may pay no taxes at all.

 

[kyzr]

Because they pay into both.

Actually I'm a supporter of Defined Benefit retirement programs. Thou care has to be taken they are funded on the front end to support payments on the back end.

I'm sorry, you act like storing things in a climate controlled "mine" is any different then storing them in a climate controlled warehouse. There is no difference but I get that "mine" sounds bad.

Yes so.

Let's review:
Federal employees pay into SS.
Federal employees pay into FERS.
In both cases there is an employer match.

Other employees (large company, unions, etc.) pay into SS.
Other employees (large company, unions, etc.) pay into a pension system.
In both cases there is an employer match.

I'm not seeing the problem. WW

PA had a defined benefit pension.
They then switched to SS, so then the pay deduction (& match) into the defined benefit pension was frozen.
Some got both, but the defined benefit pensions were computed based on years paid in.
Same with SSA. Your benefit computes by what you paid in.
I'm probably being petty, but IMHO Federal employees should not get two pensions, it should be one or the other, like PA.

Thanks for the explanation!

 

[mikegriffith1]

MG talks about GOP promises regarding SS. cuts. They made promises about Roe. How’d that work out?

HUH???

Raise the &^%( payroll cap and KEEP YOUR GRUBBY HANDS OFF MY RETIREMENT

Did you even read the OP? Sheesh. It is impossible to reason with you people. Raising the payroll cap will not fix the problem, not even close. It will help, but it won't fix the coming shortfall. Any rational, feasible solution has to include adjusting benefits for people who are age 50 or younger, i.e., who are 12 years or more from the minimum SS retirement age (currently 62).

We can do this by applying a sensible means test, just as we do for so many other benefit programs. We can do this by raising the full retirement age by just a couple of years.

Another action that would help address benefits would be to greatly raise the income limit for claiming the reduced SS benefit so that more people would be enticed to start getting their SS before reaching their full SS retirement age. Right now, you pay a heavy penalty if you start drawing SS at age 62 if you make anything above a dirt wage. Many more people would start drawing SS early, i.e., the reduced benefit, if they didn't have to pay such a stiff penalty for doing so.

The current income limit for drawing SS early is an absurd $22,320, i.e., minimum-wage income. For every $2 you earn above that limit, you pay a $1 penalty from your SS benefit. That's patently ridiculous and heavily discourages people from drawing SS early. Raise the income limit to $80,000 and reduce the penalty to $1 for every $20 you earn above the limit.

 

[Dante]

In just 10 years, per the Social Security Administration itself, Social Security (SS) revenue will only cover 75% of scheduled benefits (LINK). How did we get here? Here's how: Every time Republicans have tried to enact sane, reasonable SS reform, Democrats have screamed bloody murder, and have scared many SS recipients into believing the lie that their benefits are going to be cut. This is exactly what is happening right now with the latest Republican SS reform proposal.

The Republican Study Committee has proposed the modest, rational, and badly needed reform of gradually raise the SS retirement from 67 to 69. This proposal would not affect anyone who is already on SS. It would not affect anyone who is over 60 but who is not yet drawing SS. For those who are now 59, their SS retirement age would increase three months per year beginning in 2026, and the retirement age would reach 69 for those who turn 62 in 2033.

But you'd never know this to hear how Democrats are spinning it. We have a thread in this forum that claims that the GOP is proposing to "cut SS benefits" (So in spite of the promise not to cut SS benefits). Democratic talking heads are already popping up on talk shows to spread this same propaganda, yet they offer no solutions of their own to the impending SS shortfall, except to "tax the rich."

Folks, the only viable, rational way to save SS is to (1) raise the SS retirement age for full benefits by a few years, (2) remove the cap on the amount of earnings that are subject to the SS tax (the payroll tax), (3) impose a 20% reduction in SS benefits for people aged 50 and under (giving them at least 12 years to prepare for the reduced level of benefits), (4) impose a means test for receiving SS benefits (so that people with a comfortable or affluent private retirement income receive a reduced benefit on a sliding scale), and (5) do what many state pension funds have done for years: allow people the option to have part of their SS taxes invested in conservative mutual funds and bonds.

Some may recall a previous thread of mine where I tried to get Democrats to offer proposals for saving SS. Their only proposal was to jack up taxes on the rich enough to cover any shortfall. That is not a viable solution, neither politically nor economically. The tax increase that would be required to cover the SS shortfall would be prohibitive and confiscatory. Adjusting the amount of benefits and the criteria for receiving them has to be part of the solution.

In just 10 years, per the Social Security Administration itself, Social Security (SS) revenue will only cover 75% of scheduled benefits (LINK). How did we get here? Here's how: Every time Republicans have tried to enact sane, reasonable SS reform, Democrats have screamed bloody murder, and have scared many SS recipients into believing the lie that their benefits are going to be cut. This is exactly what is happening right now with the latest Republican SS reform proposal.

The Republican Study Committee has proposed the modest, rational, and badly needed reform of gradually raise the SS retirement from 67 to 69. This proposal would not affect anyone who is already on SS. It would not affect anyone who is over 60 but who is not yet drawing SS. For those who are now 59, their SS retirement age would increase three months per year beginning in 2026, and the retirement age would reach 69 for those who turn 62 in 2033.

But you'd never know this to hear how Democrats are spinning it. We have a thread in this forum that claims that the GOP is proposing to "cut SS benefits" (So in spite of the promise not to cut SS benefits). Democratic talking heads are already popping up on talk shows to spread this same propaganda, yet they offer no solutions of their own to the impending SS shortfall, except to "tax the rich."

Folks, the only viable, rational way to save SS is to (1) raise the SS retirement age for full benefits by a few years, (2) remove the cap on the amount of earnings that are subject to the SS tax (the payroll tax), (3) impose a 20% reduction in SS benefits for people aged 50 and under (giving them at least 12 years to prepare for the reduced level of benefits), (4) impose a means test for receiving SS benefits (so that people with a comfortable or affluent private retirement income receive a reduced benefit on a sliding scale), and (5) do what many state pension funds have done for years: allow people the option to have part of their SS taxes invested in conservative mutual funds and bonds.

Some may recall a previous thread of mine where I tried to get Democrats to offer proposals for saving SS. Their only proposal was to jack up taxes on the rich enough to cover any shortfall. That is not a viable solution, neither politically nor economically. The tax increase that would be required to cover the SS shortfall would be prohibitive and confiscatory. Adjusting the amount of benefits and the criteria for receiving them has to be part of the solution.

Is this a bait thread?

asking for a few friends

 

[Dante]

In just 10 years, per the Social Security Administration itself, Social Security (SS) revenue will only cover 75% of scheduled benefits (LINK). How did we get here? Here's how: Every time Republicans have tried to enact sane, reasonable SS reform, Democrats have screamed bloody murder, and have scared many SS recipients into believing the lie that their benefits are going to be cut. This is exactly what is happening right now with the latest Republican SS reform proposal.

The Republican Study Committee has proposed the modest, rational, and badly needed reform of gradually raise the SS retirement from 67 to 69. This proposal would not affect anyone who is already on SS. It would not affect anyone who is over 60 but who is not yet drawing SS. For those who are now 59, their SS retirement age would increase three months per year beginning in 2026, and the retirement age would reach 69 for those who turn 62 in 2033.

But you'd never know this to hear how Democrats are spinning it. We have a thread in this forum that claims that the GOP is proposing to "cut SS benefits" (So in spite of the promise not to cut SS benefits). Democratic talking heads are already popping up on talk shows to spread this same propaganda, yet they offer no solutions of their own to the impending SS shortfall, except to "tax the rich."

Folks, the only viable, rational way to save SS is to (1) raise the SS retirement age for full benefits by a few years, (2) remove the cap on the amount of earnings that are subject to the SS tax (the payroll tax), (3) impose a 20% reduction in SS benefits for people aged 50 and under (giving them at least 12 years to prepare for the reduced level of benefits), (4) impose a means test for receiving SS benefits (so that people with a comfortable or affluent private retirement income receive a reduced benefit on a sliding scale), and (5) do what many state pension funds have done for years: allow people the option to have part of their SS taxes invested in conservative mutual funds and bonds.

Some may recall a previous thread of mine where I tried to get Democrats to offer proposals for saving SS. Their only proposal was to jack up taxes on the rich enough to cover any shortfall. That is not a viable solution, neither politically nor economically. The tax increase that would be required to cover the SS shortfall would be prohibitive and confiscatory. Adjusting the amount of benefits and the criteria for receiving them has to be part of the solution.

Stop baiting people!

Start a new thread that is less about baiting people and more on some sort of principle you lack.

Democrats this, Democrats that...

Evil Democrats!

Okay.

We get it.

 

[Zincwarrior]

The FRA could be increased by one year to 68

Under your idea you have to be 68 to retire, but the wealthy pay no more then they do now. OK.