Reply
Highlighted
Honored Social Butterfly
0
Kudos
234
Views

Re: TO PRESERVE SOCIAL SECURITY

234 Views
Message 11 of 74

@Olderscout66wrote:

@ManicProgressivewrote:

@TxGrandpa2wrote:

@ManicProgressivewrote:


Again, it doesn’t matter. They are dependent on tax payers and legislators. That pension could go away with the swoop of a pen.


To the contrary, they need to have the authorization of Congress.  And imagine every military retirees are voters.  Also you are forgetting we EARNED those benefits and they are not given gratiously.  They have been modified for future retirees to be partly contributory.  But present recepients are grandfathered.

 

But is appears that you are jealous that government workers are as entitled to retirement benefits as those working in private industry. 


That’s exactly my point. Congress are legislators. They can change the law right from under your feet. While the risk is low, it is real. Do you really trust Congress to do what’s in the public good?

 

Also, not jealous. I have a government pension, too. I’m just being realistic. Public pensions are worth more than double that of private pensions, and most government employees have pensions. In the private sector, only about 15% of workers do. The rest, if they have anything at all, have defined contribution plans like 401ks. That alone causes great animosity among taxpayers who get upset that their tax dollar is funding a much richer public sector benefit than they themselves will ever get.   So if there is ever a real battle over defunding public pensions, we pensioners are outnumbered.  And perhaps outvoted.  


For several generations, Corporate pensions for their workers far exceeded anything the Government offered and the vast majority of employees had defined benefit pensions . Then the Reagan Taxscam allowed the Oligarchs dividing the corporate pie to keep all they gave themselves instead of just handing it over to the Government come income tax time, and keep it is what they did.

 

The result has been stagant worker wages that had been growing faster than executive compensation for 40 years, narrowing the gap between rich and poor.

 

Now to make the workers they raped feel better, the GOPerLords have sent word to their dupes that Government Workers pensions are "unfair" and need to be slashed so those snooty bureaucrats (about 80% of whom have college degrees) should make less in retirement that Joe Schmuck the ragman.

 

Never mind that the Government employees contributed a great deal more toward their retirement, scum like Trump and his ilk know nothing makes stupid people feel better about themselves than making someone else worse off.

 

And now the wingers have the audacity to claim it's JEALOUSY that drives people to want the Reagan taxscam repealed so the very rich go back to supporting the Government and the middle class ca ngrow again, but only "fair play" when they argue for taking away wthe pensions government workers have built for themselves, based on agreements renewed wit htheir employer every year for the 30- 40 years they worked.


The usual nonsense about the Reagan tax cuts. It's not all that complex, benefits are and have always been a part of the total compensation package - and that is the point. More benefits, less salary; more salary, less benefits.

Report Inappropriate Content
0
Kudos
234
Views
Highlighted
Honored Social Butterfly
1
Kudos
247
Views

Re: TO PRESERVE SOCIAL SECURITY

247 Views
Message 12 of 74

@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.

Report Inappropriate Content
1
Kudos
247
Views
Highlighted
Honored Social Butterfly
1
Kudos
245
Views

Re: TO PRESERVE SOCIAL SECURITY

245 Views
Message 13 of 74

@ManicProgressivewrote:

@TxGrandpa2wrote:

@ManicProgressivewrote:


Again, it doesn’t matter. They are dependent on tax payers and legislators. That pension could go away with the swoop of a pen.


To the contrary, they need to have the authorization of Congress.  And imagine every military retirees are voters.  Also you are forgetting we EARNED those benefits and they are not given gratiously.  They have been modified for future retirees to be partly contributory.  But present recepients are grandfathered.

 

But is appears that you are jealous that government workers are as entitled to retirement benefits as those working in private industry. 


That’s exactly my point. Congress are legislators. They can change the law right from under your feet. While the risk is low, it is real. Do you really trust Congress to do what’s in the public good?

 

Also, not jealous. I have a government pension, too. I’m just being realistic. Public pensions are worth more than double that of private pensions, and most government employees have pensions. In the private sector, only about 15% of workers do. The rest, if they have anything at all, have defined contribution plans like 401ks. That alone causes great animosity among taxpayers who get upset that their tax dollar is funding a much richer public sector benefit than they themselves will ever get.   So if there is ever a real battle over defunding public pensions, we pensioners are outnumbered.  And perhaps outvoted.  


For several generations, Corporate pensions for their workers far exceeded anything the Government offered and the vast majority of employees had defined benefit pensions . Then the Reagan Taxscam allowed the Oligarchs dividing the corporate pie to keep all they gave themselves instead of just handing it over to the Government come income tax time, and keep it is what they did.

 

The result has been stagant worker wages that had been growing faster than executive compensation for 40 years, narrowing the gap between rich and poor.

 

Now to make the workers they raped feel better, the GOPerLords have sent word to their dupes that Government Workers pensions are "unfair" and need to be slashed so those snooty bureaucrats (about 80% of whom have college degrees) should make less in retirement that Joe Schmuck the ragman.

 

Never mind that the Government employees contributed a great deal more toward their retirement, scum like Trump and his ilk know nothing makes stupid people feel better about themselves than making someone else worse off.

 

And now the wingers have the audacity to claim it's JEALOUSY that drives people to want the Reagan taxscam repealed so the very rich go back to supporting the Government and the middle class ca ngrow again, but only "fair play" when they argue for taking away wthe pensions government workers have built for themselves, based on agreements renewed wit htheir employer every year for the 30- 40 years they worked.

Report Inappropriate Content
1
Kudos
245
Views
Highlighted
Honored Social Butterfly
1
Kudos
241
Views

Re: TO PRESERVE SOCIAL SECURITY

241 Views
Message 14 of 74

@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.

Report Inappropriate Content
1
Kudos
241
Views
Highlighted
Honored Social Butterfly
1
Kudos
218
Views

Re: TO PRESERVE SOCIAL SECURITY

218 Views
Message 15 of 74

@GailL1wrote:

@ManicProgressivewrote:

Why does that matter so much?  What's wrong with its being a little bit of both?  If modifcation keeps more seniors out of poverty, that's a good thing.


It already is a "little bit of both" due to the computation of the benefit and where the bend points line up.  It is already tilted to those with lower lifetime earnings.

 

Imthink you and others here should figure up what a person's annual contribution would be at even today's rates for income of $ 250,000 or $ 400,000 per year and don't forget to add in the matched by employer.  Yes, paying this annually for their working career but NOT getting a benefit would definitely hurt their bottom line and standard of living.

 

Now what would happen if this same high earner became disabled in their 40's or 50's - still no added benefit for their high contributions.

 

Who is to say how much is too much?  Higher income retirees already pay tax on their SS benefit - which I might add goes back into the Trust Fund to help keep it afloat - this, in addition to the bend point benefit computation, helps out those who are low income seniors.

 


Social Security is meant to keep people out of poverty. Not to maintain any particular standard of living on top of that.   High earners who care about maintaining a certain standard of living save for their retirement outside of Social Security. 

 

I mean, it’s insurance. It’s not an annuity or pension. If you die at 62, you are SOL. 

 

 

Report Inappropriate Content
1
Kudos
218
Views
Highlighted
Honored Social Butterfly
1
Kudos
218
Views

Re: TO PRESERVE SOCIAL SECURITY

218 Views
Message 16 of 74

@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.

Report Inappropriate Content
1
Kudos
218
Views
Highlighted
Honored Social Butterfly
0
Kudos
219
Views

Re: TO PRESERVE SOCIAL SECURITY

219 Views
Message 17 of 74

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.

Report Inappropriate Content
0
Kudos
219
Views
Highlighted
Honored Social Butterfly
0
Kudos
220
Views

Re: TO PRESERVE SOCIAL SECURITY

220 Views
Message 18 of 74

@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.


“Only Thing We Have to Fear Is Fear Itself”. . . FDR
Report Inappropriate Content
0
Kudos
220
Views
Highlighted
Honored Social Butterfly
2
Kudos
221
Views

Re: TO PRESERVE SOCIAL SECURITY

221 Views
Message 19 of 74

@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.

 

 


 

Report Inappropriate Content
2
Kudos
221
Views
Highlighted
Honored Social Butterfly
0
Kudos
216
Views

Re: TO PRESERVE SOCIAL SECURITY

216 Views
Message 20 of 74

@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.

Report Inappropriate Content
0
Kudos
216
Views
cancel
Showing results for 
Search instead for 
Did you mean: 
Users
Announcements

Introducing jen43, one of our featured ACEs! Check out their profile and fill yours out, today!

Meet an ACE

Top Authors