Reply
Honored Social Butterfly
Honored Social Butterfly


@TxGrandpa2wrote:

@ManicProgressivewrote:

 

 

Public pensions are more valuable than private pensions. Public pensions for law enforcement, for example, only require 20 years of service rather than the typical 30 years of service.  Public pensions have much richer spousal and dependent benefits.  

 

 


But of course military and law enforcement careers are by nature more hazardous than most industrial jobs where safety is paramount.  While they might encourage safety, they do put one in performing hazard duties.

 

I'm not ashamed of how I earned my pension from the government as those of us earned them honorably.  I didn't ask any to do so in my place, even volunteering from the beginning and for duty in combat areas.  

 

Is it that liberals are suggesting that one not serve in the military or in law enforcement?  It appears so, either that or they are jealous that we made a deal, keeping our part of the bargain and the government is keeping theirs.

 

 


Why do you say liberals  say one should not serve in the Armed Forces. You call me a liberal and I served. I resent your stupid implication. As people tell their children: Grow up. By the way the one you should be directing your comment at is Trump. He dodged the draft and never served in the Armed Forces.

Honored Social Butterfly


@TxGrandpa2wrote:

@ManicProgressivewrote:

 

 

Public pensions are more valuable than private pensions. Public pensions for law enforcement, for example, only require 20 years of service rather than the typical 30 years of service.  Public pensions have much richer spousal and dependent benefits.  

 

 


But of course military and law enforcement careers are by nature more hazardous than most industrial jobs where safety is paramount.  While they might encourage safety, they do put one in performing hazard duties.

 

I'm not ashamed of how I earned my pension from the government as those of us earned them honorably.  I didn't ask any to do so in my place, even volunteering from the beginning and for duty in combat areas.  

 

Is it that liberals are suggesting that one not serve in the military or in law enforcement?  It appears so, either that or they are jealous that we made a deal, keeping our part of the bargain and the government is keeping theirs.

 

 


The statistics - numbers - backed by facts say otherwise.

 

Dying for a Paycheck: These Jobs Are More Dangerous Than Military Service 

 

The 25 most dangerous jobs in America

 

 

44>dolt45
0 Kudos
250 Views
0
Report
Honored Social Butterfly


@TxGrandpa2wrote:

@ManicProgressivewrote:

 

 

Public pensions are more valuable than private pensions. Public pensions for law enforcement, for example, only require 20 years of service rather than the typical 30 years of service.  Public pensions have much richer spousal and dependent benefits.  

 

 


But of course military and law enforcement careers are by nature more hazardous than most industrial jobs where safety is paramount.  While they might encourage safety, they do put one in performing hazard duties.

 

I'm not ashamed of how I earned my pension from the government as those of us earned them honorably.  I didn't ask any to do so in my place, even volunteering from the beginning and for duty in combat areas.  

 

Is it that liberals are suggesting that one not serve in the military or in law enforcement?  It appears so, either that or they are jealous that we made a deal, keeping our part of the bargain and the government is keeping theirs.

 

 


Nobody is expecting you to be ashamed of anything.   Or that people shouldn't serve in law enforcement.     Nobody is jealous.   

 

What liberals would like is that people understand that we are all interdependent.  Nobody stands alone in this country.   You can't.  That ended when we switched to a pay check-driven, urban nation.   And since we are all interdependent, have a little empathy for those who haven't fared as well as you have. 

Honored Social Butterfly


@ManicProgressivewrote:


And since we are all interdependent, have a little empathy for those who haven't fared as well as you have. 

I have no empathy for those who complain about the success of others while they sit around and complain.  Over the years I've seen too many blame others rather than themselves for their failures.

 

I set my course in my teens with planning a career that would offer security and a good retirement.  And I worked hard for that goal, not sitting around waiting for it to be handed to me.  For the past several decades I've been enjoying that goal.

0 Kudos
261 Views
5
Report
Honored Social Butterfly


@TxGrandpa2wrote:

@ManicProgressivewrote:


And since we are all interdependent, have a little empathy for those who haven't fared as well as you have. 

I have no empathy for those who complain about the success of others while they sit around and complain.  Over the years I've seen too many blame others rather than themselves for their failures.

 

I set my course in my teens with planning a career that would offer security and a good retirement.  And I worked hard for that goal, not sitting around waiting for it to be handed to me.  For the past several decades I've been enjoying that goal.


I know you don’t. And that makes me feel sorry for you.

Honored Social Butterfly


@ManicProgressivewrote:

@TxGrandpa2wrote:

@ManicProgressivewrote:


And since we are all interdependent, have a little empathy for those who haven't fared as well as you have. 

I have no empathy for those who complain about the success of others while they sit around and complain.  Over the years I've seen too many blame others rather than themselves for their failures.

 

I set my course in my teens with planning a career that would offer security and a good retirement.  And I worked hard for that goal, not sitting around waiting for it to be handed to me.  For the past several decades I've been enjoying that goal.


I know you don’t. And that makes me feel sorry for you.


 

 

Aesop's  The Ant and the Grasshopper

http://www.eastoftheweb.com/short-stories/UBooks/AntGra.shtml

0 Kudos
380 Views
3
Report
Honored Social Butterfly


@TxGrandpa2wrote:

@ManicProgressivewrote:

@TxGrandpa2wrote:

@ManicProgressivewrote:


And since we are all interdependent, have a little empathy for those who haven't fared as well as you have. 

I have no empathy for those who complain about the success of others while they sit around and complain.  Over the years I've seen too many blame others rather than themselves for their failures.

 

I set my course in my teens with planning a career that would offer security and a good retirement.  And I worked hard for that goal, not sitting around waiting for it to be handed to me.  For the past several decades I've been enjoying that goal.


I know you don’t. And that makes me feel sorry for you.


 

 

Aesop's  The Ant and the Grasshopper

http://www.eastoftheweb.com/short-stories/UBooks/AntGra.shtml


In one of your earlier posts you had posted that you had no sympathy for - now you post that you feel sorry for...

 

Which is the truth and which is the lie?

 

44>dolt45
0 Kudos
374 Views
2
Report
Honored Social Butterfly


@alferdpackerwrote:


"I know you don’t. And that makes me feel sorry for you."


 

 

Aesop's  The Ant and the Grasshopper

http://www.eastoftheweb.com/short-stories/UBooks/AntGra.shtml


In one of your earlier posts you had posted that you had no sympathy for - now you post that you feel sorry for...

 

Which is the truth and which is the lie?

 


Please read the post more carefully and you would find that was what was posted to me by TemperMental67. 

0 Kudos
366 Views
1
Report
Honored Social Butterfly


@TxGrandpa2wrote:

@alferdpackerwrote:


"I know you don’t. And that makes me feel sorry for you."


 

 

Aesop's  The Ant and the Grasshopper

http://www.eastoftheweb.com/short-stories/UBooks/AntGra.shtml


In one of your earlier posts you had posted that you had no sympathy for - now you post that you feel sorry for...

 

Which is the truth and which is the lie?

 


Please read the post more carefully and you would find that was what was posted to me by TemperMental67. 


If what TemperMental67 posted was/is not true - can you post valid empirical proof that it's untrue?

 

We await, with bated breath, link(s) to proof refuting the allegation...

 

44>dolt45
0 Kudos
360 Views
0
Report
Honored Social Butterfly

Did I say resent ? Just call it what it is. A Perk that most dont enjoy !!!

Doesn't mean you worked any harder or are any smarter than those who don't have or lost their Pension, just that you were fortunate enough to have received a mostly tax payer funded Pension and Benefits that the Government still provides to you. 

Honored Social Butterfly


@mandm84wrote:

Did I say resent ? Just call it what it is. A Perk that most dont enjoy !!!

Doesn't mean you worked any harder or are any smarter than those who don't have or lost their Pension, just that you were fortunate enough to have received a mostly tax payer funded Pension and Benefits that the Government still provides to you. 


Not quite - Government employees retiring under Civil Service Retirement System (CSRS) pensions are paid from a fund virtually identical to the SS Trust Fund. They contributed 7% of their gross income with no tax deduction (prior to the 1990's) and their employer made an equal contribution. The fund earns 4% on the special Treasury Bonds it buys with those contributions, and the average federal worker retiring after 40 years will have an imputed retirement account of well over $1,000,000. They can provide a continued annuity for their spouse if they "pre-decease", but even with that many never recover the full value of their retirement account (including interest). Folks under the FERS system have a different arrangement.

 

If private employers were required to transfer their pension funds to a Government regulated "Trust" account similar to CSRS, they could not take the pension fund and use it for Executive bonuses and everyone, not just the bosses,  would be able to retire comfortably.

0 Kudos
257 Views
3
Report
Honored Social Butterfly

Scout , when I first entered the workforce after college , many State Gov't Pensions were Non Contributory , as I explored job openings. I have friends who entered the Federal System and contributed 3% towards their Pensions. I'm sure it varies greatly , but regardless I consider it a fortunate benefit to say the least.

0 Kudos
260 Views
2
Report
Honored Social Butterfly


@mandm84wrote:

Scout , when I first entered the workforce after college , many State Gov't Pensions were Non Contributory , as I explored job openings. I have friends who entered the Federal System and contributed 3% towards their Pensions. I'm sure it varies greatly , but regardless I consider it a fortunate benefit to say the least.


Either you're very young and began working after 1974 or your friends lied to you. The contribution to Federal Retirement under the Civil Service Retirement System (CSRS) has been 7% (matched by their employer) since 1969, and it was 3.5% back in 1942. No variation, and until the 1990's the employee contribution was taxed as regular income. The new workers under FERS contribute to their retirement a minimum of 1.3%,  pay FICA and have a Thrift Savings Plan to invest in stocks and bonds with some employer matching contributions.

NOW the CSRS must look really good to all those who believed their Corporate employers 40 years ago when they began their careers, but then Reagan allowed the Oligarchs to keep all the raises they gave themselves and there was nothing for the workers OR the retirees.

Government retirement didn't suddenly get better, Republicans got elected and legislated ways for the Corporations to make their employee's retirement crapola,  so the Corporate Oligarchs did just that.

Now instead of demanding Corporations treat their workers fairly, the GOPerLords have their dupes ranting about how to take away what the Government workers built for themselves with 14% of what COULD have been their income for their working lives.

The average contribution, including interest, for a Fed retiring under CSRS after 40 YEARS is over $1,000,000 and it is highly unlikely they will live long enough to exhaust the annuity they built, which is why the Civil Service Retirement Fund is just fine while SS has got to be fixed or the benefits will drop by 40%, and eventually dwindle to virtually nothing, all because Republicans refuse to raise the cap on contributions.

Honored Social Butterfly


@mandm84wrote:

Scout , when I first entered the workforce after college , many State Gov't Pensions were Non Contributory , as I explored job openings. I have friends who entered the Federal System and contributed 3% towards their Pensions. I'm sure it varies greatly , but regardless I consider it a fortunate benefit to say the least.


What must be remembered is that benefits are "a cost of doing business". Public or private, an employer has a bottom line to pay an employee. That amount is divide up between salary and benefits. So, someone with a lesser retirement benefit probably got a larger salary and vice-versa.

Honored Social Butterfly


@mandm84wrote:

Did I say resent ? Just call it what it is. A Perk that most dont enjoy !!!

Doesn't mean you worked any harder or are any smarter than those who don't have or lost their Pension, just that you were fortunate enough to have received a mostly tax payer funded Pension and Benefits that the Government still provides to you. 


So then you do resent it?  This pension was promised before I enlisted.  Otherwise I would have went elsewhere for a career.  Further considering the conditions we had to go through to earn that retirement wasn't the same as a civilian would face.  Besides I believe I made the smart choice at the beginning with an option to renew every four years.

0 Kudos
288 Views
0
Report
Honored Social Butterfly

Well. I for one would happily pay more than my “fair share” for the benefit of the community as a whole.  I think the cap at $128,000, or whatever it is, is ridiculous. 

Honored Social Butterfly


@ManicProgressivewrote:

Well. I for one would happily pay more than my “fair share” for the benefit of the community as a whole.  I think the cap at $128,000, or whatever it is, is ridiculous. 


The payroll cap relates to the maximum benefit - that's the reason it is there.

If somebody every year pays in their contribution to maximum level of the payroll cap, they earn the maximum benefit.

 

Social Security Admin. - Contributions and Benefit Base

 

Raise the payroll cap, the maximum benefit also goes higher.  Although additional "bend points" could be added to the benefit formula to decrease the benefit for higher income folks.

 

Sen. Murray's proposed legislation and also that of several other Democratic Legislators does NOT do that - they want to raise the cap tremendously but give NO benefit at all.  

 

Personally, I do not think this would fly even if ALL the legislators and the President were Democrats.

 

 

0 Kudos
404 Views
1
Report
Honored Social Butterfly


@GailL1wrote:

@ManicProgressivewrote:

Social Security Admin. - Contributions and Benefit Base

 

Raise the payroll cap, the maximum benefit also goes higher.  Although additional "bend points" could be added to the benefit formula to decrease the benefit for higher income folks. But the revenue increases faster than the benefits IF you enact the change immediately instead of "phasing it in" even without the additional "bend" points. Here's a short version of why: The contribution goes up on ALL the income between $128 and $250K, but the benefit for someone retiring next year only goes up on 1/30th of the highercap because the benefit is an AVERAGE of 30 years pay, and that AVERAGE is "capped" for the amount applicable in EACH YEAR. Check out the "conversion factors" SS PUBLISHES - that's what is being"converted".

 

Sen. Murray's proposed legislation and also that of several other Democratic Legislators does NOT do that - they want to raise the cap tremendously but give NO benefit at all.  Only necessary if the new cap is phased in.

 

Personally, I do not think this would fly even if ALL the legislators and the President were Democrats. We know for CERTAIN it will never happen with NRAGOP in charge - let's try it with Dems in charge of everything and make sure they know their jobs depend on it.

 

 


 

Honored Social Butterfly


@ManicProgressivewrote:

Well. I for one would happily pay more than my “fair share” for the benefit of the community as a whole.  I think the cap at $128,000, or whatever it is, is ridiculous. 


There are numerous charities available for individuals to do that. Why wait for it to become a government controlled action?

Honored Social Butterfly


@rk9152wrote:

@ManicProgressivewrote:

Well. I for one would happily pay more than my “fair share” for the benefit of the community as a whole.  I think the cap at $128,000, or whatever it is, is ridiculous. 


There are numerous charities available for individuals to do that. Why wait for it to become a government controlled action?


Who’s waiting? I give time and money to charity. Don’t you?

0 Kudos
257 Views
2
Report
Honored Social Butterfly


@ManicProgressivewrote:

@rk9152wrote:

@ManicProgressivewrote:

Well. I for one would happily pay more than my “fair share” for the benefit of the community as a whole.  I think the cap at $128,000, or whatever it is, is ridiculous. 


There are numerous charities available for individuals to do that. Why wait for it to become a government controlled action?


Who’s waiting? I give time and money to charity. Don’t you?


Then we are in agreement - help for our fellow man is an individual responsibility not to be designed as a government program.

Honored Social Butterfly


@rk9152wrote:

@ManicProgressivewrote:

@rk9152wrote:

@ManicProgressivewrote:

Well. I for one would happily pay more than my “fair share” for the benefit of the community as a whole.  I think the cap at $128,000, or whatever it is, is ridiculous. 


There are numerous charities available for individuals to do that. Why wait for it to become a government controlled action?


Who’s waiting? I give time and money to charity. Don’t you?


Then we are in agreement - help for our fellow man is an individual responsibility not to be designed as a government program.


Nope. Logic fail. Try again. 

Honored Social Butterfly


@ManicProgressivewrote:

Well. I for one would happily pay more than my “fair share” for the benefit of the community as a whole.  I think the cap at $128,000, or whatever it is, is ridiculous. 


If I send you my address would you send me my social security check instead of it coming from the government?  Could you include a more substantial cost of living increase than the government does?

0 Kudos
277 Views
4
Report
Honored Social Butterfly


@TxGrandpa2wrote:

@ManicProgressivewrote:

Well. I for one would happily pay more than my “fair share” for the benefit of the community as a whole.  I think the cap at $128,000, or whatever it is, is ridiculous. 


If I send you my address would you send me my social security check instead of it coming from the government?  Could you include a more substantial cost of living increase than the government does?


If you are living under the federal poverty level, I’d be happy to help you out. I feel great compassion for those who cannot support themselves.

Honored Social Butterfly


@ManicProgressivewrote:


If you are living under the federal poverty level, I’d be happy to help you out. I feel great compassion for those who cannot support themselves.


With several pensions from the military, civilian employment and social security hardly.  But I'm not against even more income.  But if you want to help the Social Security funds, you can always send your contributions to the government.

0 Kudos
240 Views
2
Report
Honored Social Butterfly


@TxGrandpa2wrote:

@ManicProgressivewrote:


If you are living under the federal poverty level, I’d be happy to help you out. I feel great compassion for those who cannot support themselves.


With several pensions from the military, civilian employment and social security hardly.  But I'm not against even more income.  But if you want to help the Social Security funds, you can always send your contributions to the government.


So you are asking for a handout even if you don’t need one? I thought conservatives were against that.

Honored Social Butterfly


@ManicProgressivewrote:


So you are asking for a handout even if you don’t need one? I thought conservatives were against that.


The post was meant in jest.  No, I have several industrial pensions besides from the miliary plus social security.  I've actually retired from several different places.  Actually also worked several places as a volunteer until having to quit because of medical reasons.  Not necessarily a conservative nor liberal, but my own person. 

0 Kudos
314 Views
0
Report
Honored Social Butterfly

TM67 me too !!

Honored Social Butterfly

No doubt something needs done. That's why I hope the Dems take the House and Senate back. Without that happening, anything done will be on the backs of our seniors and the middle class and below.

 

I like some of those proposals.


Man learns from history that man learns nothing from history.
Honored Social Butterfly

Stupid proposal for lots of reasons but the biggest is that it turns the program into a welfare program rather than an insurance program.

 

From the article

The bigger issue is that Murray's proposal would raise the payroll tax, albeit modestly relative to other proposals from her own party, on those earning $400,000 or more in earned income. Even though taxing high earners is the single most popular way of fixing Social Security, based on a number of national surveys, lumping an extra tax on the wealthy wouldn't provide them with any additional Social Security benefit come retirement.

 

I know what you're probably thinking: "The rich aren't reliant on Social Security, so they should pay extra tax to shore up the Social Security Trust." However, a maximum taxable-earnings cap -- the aforementioned $128,400 figure in 2018 -- exists because there's also a maximum monthly payout from the Social Security Administration at full retirement age. In other words, it's not "fair" to add a 2% payroll tax to an extra, say, $5 million in income if that individual won't see an extra cent in Social Security benefits. 

 

Perhaps someday, sooner rather than later, I hope, they will devise a passable plan for reform that will be fair, save the system and preserve the nature of the program.

cancel
Showing results for 
Show  only  | Search instead for 
Did you mean: 
Users
Announcements

Does AARP donate to political parties or endorse candidates?

AARP is strictly non-partisan and always has been. We never endorse or donate to candidates, political parties or political action committees.

Learn more.

AARP Members Only Games

Play members only games, like FIll Ins, Lumeno, 2048 and a collaborative, multiplayer Let's Crossword.

Play Now
AARP Members Only Games Logos
AARP Rewards

Solve Crosswords. Earn Rewards. Activate AARP Rewards to earn points for games, quizzes and videos. Redeem for deals and discounts.

Get started with AARP Rewards now!
/html/assets/Rewards-program-badge-355x224.png