Re: Why would we repeal?

Easy answers to your comments.
(1) We were not given the option of contributing to social security. If we were and we said no, then your point might be valid.
(2) The computation is still based on the number of years we did contribute to social security. If we do not contribute for 40 quarters, we do not collect social security. If we contribute for 40 quarters, then we have 25 zeroes in the computation and 10 years of contributions. Divide that by 35 years and the average salary used is quite small.
Hope this answers your questions.

Re: Why would we repeal?

I do believe that the SSA Claims Rep might have a different viewpoint if he/she had spent over 20 years in the military including time in Vietnam and then another
20 years as a civil service employee and is allowed to draw only approximately 1/3 of the the full amount of social security due to WEP. Considering that if a person had spent over 20 years in the military and gone to work in a civilian job, they would be drawing the full amount. But at least we got credit for combat time too,
that was not taken away by WEP.

Re: Why would we repeal?

Then let me work for Wal-mart after I retire and don't take out any FICA. And I won't claim any. Why should I pay full charge for and then get penalized 60% because of CSRS. Not all CSRS will retire at the GS-14 level like our friend in NM. Some will retire at the GS-7 level and could use the extra money they are paying in to FICA on an after retirement job that they will never see a return on. I am not asking for a higher return, I am asking to get what I paid for.

Re: Why would we repeal?

My recolection was that this pimple came to a head in the early 80's under Ronald Reagan. He felt that it was unfair and overly generous to collect more than one pension. However, he collected 4 prior to his death. (SSI, California Gov Pension, US President's pension, and SAG President's pension).

Don't do as I do; Do what I tell you.

Re: Why would we repeal?

I once attended a retirement seminar taught by a retired Social Security manager. When the subject of Social Security inequities was brought up, he made this very insightful statement:

Remember Social Security starts with the word SOCIAL, as in SOCIALISM.

The votes of 69 million people have ensured our march towards socialism is accelerated. Its the change we can believe in.

Re: Why would we repeal?

Post number 1, worker Federal government:

It is because of those 25 zeros that you get a higher return on your contributions than I did. I would much have preferred not to have contributed to SS myself, but I didn't have a choice either.

Re: Why would we repeal?

Post number 2, Retired Civil Service/Military:

I did spend 20 years in the military, and even though there is a Soc Sec kicker for military service, it doesn't begin to make up for the fact that your taxable earnings were 33% lower due to allowances (we thought we were getting over - Uncle Sam was). Most do not learn until later in their career that 50% retirement is actually around 33%. Nonetheless, I am grateful for I what do get, and which is what I agreed to.

However, I did not serve under CSRS. There are whiners on both sides of this isle. FERS whine about CSRS benefits being better and CSRS whines about FERS being better. CSRS had a choice, FERS didn't. So what!. My "limited" understanding of the whole issue indicates that - on the whole - CSRS is somewhat better off.

All Irrelevant! I am getting what I agreed to, and so are you.

Re: Why would we repeal?

*** Don't do as I do; Do what I tell you. ***
==================================

Unlike Joe Biden who said it was unpatriotic not to pay taxes and then worked with Obama to put more tax cheats in their administration than all previous administrations combined?

Unlike Obama who said the people need full accountability of their leaders and then worked feverously to ensure his actual birthplace was never investigated?

Unlike Obama who said the days of lobbyists running Washington would be over if he was elected, and then turned around hired a string of lobbyists?

Although, considering Reagan earned his retirements that would make him unlike the ones mentioned above who just duped gullible people with their lies.

Re: Why would we repeal?

Retired Retired

I hope your point is that Democrats are as Hypocritical as Republicans. If not, you are just launching a swiftboat attack to stir up the party base with a lot of babble that has nothing to do with the pension offset. I could also bring up all of the scandals of the last 8 years but it has nothing to do with the pension offsets, and it would take several pages to write about the known ones

Re: Why would we repeal?

To the claims rep
It is because of the 25 years of zeroes that the fica pension is small. My average contribution would be negligible. Therefore, my fica pension would be small. Even in the 90% bracket it would still be small. In the 40% bracket, it is minor.
Please note that I have no option about contributing to social security while in CSRS.
Note also that I do not believe that FERS is better than CSRS. That is why I did not convert when given the opportunity. Anything made up byu Ronald Reagan or his cronies cannot be good for the federal employee.
However again, the fact remains that I had no option about social security.

Re: Why would we repeal?

Ahhh dear worker you were offered the opportunity to contribute to SS it was called FERS. You opted to stay with CRS and as a result what your receiving in reduced benefits is much more than you ever contributed

Re: Why would we repeal?

Rub the lamp and say “gullible” and like Aladdin of old, the Gullibility Genie arrives with tales of “swift boat attacks”.

Long ago and far away, a boy with political aspirations roamed the land in his swift boat. He faked injuries to get purple heart medals. He risked the lives of a crew to jump off the boat to kill a wounded man who could not walk so that he could put himself in for a medal to take back home. He invented memories of Christmas Eve in places he didn’t go to tell the gullible ones back home. He used his fake wounds to return home. There he perjured himself to Congress telling traitorous lies about the men who really did serve their country. Later when the throngs of the gullible grew large, this boy ran for the highest office in the land. But the men who had been there and saw the truth came forward to expose his lies with the truth. The gullible do not like truth, so they call this a “swift boat attack” and close their eyes as tightly as their minds.

Re: Why would we repeal?

To Diversity manager DOL

Why should I have to change my whole retirement plan just to contribute to social security? FERS was offered by Ronald Reagan and his cronies. It reduces benefits such as my pension and my pension raises after retirement.
Your comment was stupid. I was not offered the right to contribute to social security. The right to contribute to social security does not mean adding other negative items. It means giving that right without preconditions.
Hope your comment is more intelligent than your last one.

Re: Why would we repeal?

The SSA Rep really misunderstands. As a CPA/MBA, I can assure her that my paying the max into SS for over 22 years does not justify the deduction made against my SS.

Re: Why would we repeal?

Diversity manager - another affirmative action nothing job paid for by educated tax payers.

Re: Why would we repeal?

The claims rep from Az has very limited knowledge of the subject, and misinterprets that.

Re: Penalty Phase Out Period Is Too Long

Just as one should not retroactively be punished for a mistake that could not be known as a mistake, neither should you profit at my expense for a mistake that was made, by knowingly continuing the mistake.

Mistakes, by definition, should be corrected when they are identified.

After the unfair WINDFALL was recognized, AND somebody (Reagan) with a spine said this is wrong, it was appropriately ELIMINATED.

Actually I am not convinced it is completely fair, but the situation is far more fair than without WEP (& GPO) altogether.

Re: Penalty Phase Out Period Is Too Long

To the Claims rep

The system is set up so that lower income people who pay into social security get a higher percentage return. That is why you have a negative graduated system.
Ronald Reagan decided as an anti government employee person to push the two items discussed in these comments. If he was really fair, he would have given CSRS people the right to contribute to social security.
Note that he mandated that we contribute to medicare, which has little value due to FEHB. Bet you cannot explain why. I cannot give a logical explanation.
Again the two restrictions to CSRS people being in the 90% bracket and npot being able to collect on the spouse's social security are unfair.

Re: Offset & Windfall

It is not unfair!

The system is set up so that the less you paid into to Social Security, the higher return you get on what you did contribute. In some cases substantially higher.

So those of you who are getting substantial pensions from employement where you did not contribute to FICA, would now give yourselves substantially higher returns on the Soc Sec that you did contribute, while the rest of us who were forced to have SS only, would get much less.

You may call that fair, I don't.

Re: Disinsentive to work

Thanks. The point I made above though, is at least you have the benefit of knowing the rule upfront and can make your decision accordingly. A person who began working for the privates in 1964 and joined the feds in 1981 had no such benefit as the rule did not even exist.

Re: Disinsentive to work

25% Federal tax rate and 4.9% state tax rate, you are obviously doing quite well and you need to fire your accountant because you are being hosed! I would also suggest moving to a different state where you will not have to pay so much.
However, I will say I have never thought there was much fair about any of the Federal retirement provisions. I think when they introduced FERS they should have offered a TSP match to CSRS employees, and they should NEVER take away the social security benefits of ANYONE who paid a cent into the system.
As far as anyone thinking of social security and federal retirement as a "windfall", that should let you know how absurd our elected officials are! I know many CSRS retirees who have to work to supplement their income, and for them to be penalized for being productive members of society is criminal.

Re: Disinsentive to work

Assuming you work paying into social security for 40 quarters you will get a benefit. Unfortunately, the benefit is small. Your average salary for 35 years will have 25 zeroes. Your top layer will be 40% instead of 90%. You are right in your concepts.

Re: Disinsentive to work

Similar situations like this happen in the tax code every single day. If you want it stop for everybody and not just for yourself, vote for the flat tax (Fair Tax).

Stupidity happens when government decides to redistribute wealth, to say nothing of the obvious unconstitutionality of it, not to mention its immorality.

If they just based Soc Sec on a percentage of your earnings and left it at that, this would never have been an issue and 6th graders could estimate their own retirement. But nooooooooooooooooooooo!

Too many people out there think it is okay to tax the other guy more, or that his own tax deductions are more important. But guess what? What goes around, comes around. You burn the other guy, he (or somebody else) is going to burn you. Do unto others....

Re: Disinsentive to work

Flat tax makes no sense. Under the current system, 40% of workers pay negative or no income tax Of theremaining 60% 2/3rds use the short form 1040a. So only 20% use a long form. 80% of Americans pay less in income tax than Social security. GAO came out with a study on the fair Tax last year showing everyone would pay more with a Flat tax except those making 500k or more. With all the Republican tax cuts over the last 30 years, the middle class pays very little anymore (on a relative basis) and only arch conservatives stuck in the 1980's who are unaware of athe changed situation push it anymore.

Flat Tax? What Flat Tax? Why Pay at All?

Why should anyone have to pay taxes if you make less than $500,000 a year? Let the rich take care of all of us. We can be like the Mayans. They get the good education, work 70 hours a week, get a big paycheck and support the rest of us!

With a progressive tax system, we can take most of their money and they will still have more than those of us making $75000 a year or less. Uncle Barack will make sure that we get subsidized housing, free medical care, a "rebate" (i.e. welfare) instead of paying taxes, a payment toward our next car and money for those who are crazy enough to try to go to college.

Why should we take responsibility for ourselves? Why should we have to pay for any of this? Isn't that why we voted for the man--to give us money and to take it away from those who were stupid enough to be successful? Life is great in America! I never want to pay any more taxes and, by the way, I am entitled to a great retirement system with 70% of my health insurance being paid for by the government. Bring on the socialism/facism system now.

And, for those who think business people don't pay taxes, you are dreaming. Most small businesses (the most common ones) pay through the nose at all levels. So why should the rest of us have to work at all? Aren't we entitled to everything we want without paying for any of it?

Re: Disinsentive to work

In the last 8 years the average American has lost 4% IN PURCHACING POWER while those making over 250k have gone up 35%. And guess who makes over 250k. CEO'a executives and small business owners who decides who gets raises. And they have decided to keep it for themselves. SO WE WILL GET IT ANOTHER WAY! GO OBAMA!!!

Re: Disinsentive to work

I agree, GS14 who cannot spell. What right do they have to make more money that I do? That isn't fair!

Who told them they could go out and be successful anyway? What right do they have to make money? Ridiculous concept. Downright unAmerican.

Let's steal it from them! Love live Joe Stalin and the others who have showed us how to be successful--we will take it from them and give it to ourselves so we don't have to work for it!

Re: Disinsentive to work

Again to the claims rep

We have a progressive tax system because the wealthy can afford to pay more in taxes than the middle class or poor.
Additionally, our tax code serves two purposes. The first is to raise revenue.
The second is to influence economic policies. For example, the government wants to influence home ownership. Therefore, it allows a reduction of income for home mortgage interest, with limitations, and real estate taxes. It allows those in higher tax states and cities to reduce income by the amount of state and local income taxes paid. It encourages charity by allowing a deduction for that.
It encourages research with a research credit. It encourages businesses to buy depreciable assets by allowing acceleated depreciation or a full writeoff of the asset.
Your comment about a flat tax does not work and can never work.
I could go on with other items but do not have the space to do so.

Re: Disinsentive to work

Anybody who says a flat tax "CAN NOT" work (or suggests that it can not work very, very well) does not understand the simplest of concepts. IT CANNOT FAIL if you agree that we should all pay the exact same % of taxes above the poverty line.

Everybody will pay 23% in taxes on their purchases (which will reduce over time). We now pay 22% on every puchase when all embedded taxes are added up. Since a person who earns $100k will spend twice as much as a person who earns $50k, they will voluntarily pay twice as much.

There will be no other taxes anywhere - NO PAYROLL TAXES!

If ACCOUNTANT, RETIRED GS 14 above is correct: the middle class will pay more taxes, it can only be true if I (we) am not paying my fair share.

THAT IS THE WHOLE POINT of the Fair Tax. Stealing from the rich to give to yourself is utterly immoral and unconstitutional.

Who is paying their fair share? Right now we have to depend on scientists, who never agree - ERGO - we never know.

Re: Disinsentive to work

RE: WORKER, FEDERAL GOVERNMENT:

There is only 1 consitutional purpose for a tax system, and that is to raise revenue to fund government operations required by law.

A fair tax assesses all citizens equally so that a person who makes 100K pays the same RATE of taxes as a person who makes 50K (& therefore pays double).

Beyond that, you are singling out individuals to pay more & it is no longer FAIR or Constitutional. It is a clear penalty - even if not intended to be. Justice requires that you first prove a violation of law before you inflict a punishment.

RE: "The second is to influence economic policies".

That is synonymous with CONTROL of economic policies & is completely synonymous with restricting our freedom. He who controls how you earn your money, how you keep it, and how you spend it, controls you.

I agree with you: "a flat tax does not work and can never work." at least when it comes to penalizing the rich & restricting freedom.

Re: Disinsentive to work

This is for the claims rep. social security
You stated that what I said is unconstitutional regarding the fact that the tax code servies two purposes...Just out of curiosity, would you please cite the amendment or article that you base this assertion on. If not, would you please cite the Supreme Court case that you base this assertion on. Please do not say you are not a lawyer. You are using legal terminology so you should have a basis for doing so.
By the way, tax protestors or now called evaders have not shown the system to be unconstitutional yet. So take it to court.
Actually, a flat tax cannot be for may reasons, one of which we have something called business expenses and non business expenses. For example, a self employed indivdual incurs business expenses to earn income. An employee would call those same expenses itemized deductions with limitations. Would you takle away the latter persons right to any deduction for the same expenses?
Out of space to continue.

Re: Disinsentive to work

To Diversity Manager
I am not asking for benefits that I do not contribute to. I am asking for benefits that I do contribute to.
I am not allowed to contribute to social security. So of course I do not get credit for it.

Re: You already get a great benefit

When the last CSRS annuitant dies is when this argument dies. Obviously, you're not under CSRS. You can refer to it as "double dipping" but the fact remains, there are those of us who did our time in both Social Security and CSRS to qualify FULLY in each and we deserve those benefits.

Re: You already get a great benefit

s I understood the reasoning:

Highly paid GS workers were retiring at first opportunity, going to work in the private sector at just about any ole even relatively low-paying job, finishing up 40 quarters started when they were younger, then collecting SS based on the higher wages earned as CSRS employees....

So punish EVERYONE in CSR!

OK, tweak SS to say that the pension is based on high earning as SS, NOT the CSRS, wages. Now this is fair. People who worked many years under SS actually get their benefit, those using it to pad their higher pensions are stymied as they can only collect based on what they earned in SS, fair.

Still apply the total income test if you must have it for SS and you have helped those who are both actually earning the SS and are in the earnings brackets this intendes to help.

If people will actually address the objections of either side instead of going for a total kill then many issues are able to be resolved.

I just don't expect to see it.

Re: You already get a great benefit

Actually, if you contributed to both plans, mainly social security and CSRS pension, then you should collect from both plans. That is double dipping, but no different than the FERS pension and the thrift plan.
Please note that working while under CSRS pension you get no credit for social security.

Re: You already get a great benefit

Stay hating becuase you were not hired under CSRS

Re: You already get a great benefit

To faceless nobody in DOD

I am in CSRS. My salary in CSRS is not considered when I collect social security. Only my social security wages are considered when i collect social security.

Re: You already get a great benefit

dear worker the reason you don't get credit for SS while under CRS is that your not contributing a dime to SS. I don't get credit for FERS either but it's probably the fact that I 'm not employer by the government. Why can't i get a CRS annuity or medical care as well, just because I never worked for the feds it discrimination

Re: Offset

Did you work for 30 creditable years under social security? If so you should not be penalized. If not you are penalized at the first level only. You could also be penalized if your wife collects social security.