Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
If rich people refused to accept Social Security, wouldn't that help to make the system last longer?
For the folks who really need it?
Only those who paid into Social Security should get anything back. That's obviously not the case and that's why it's insolvent.
Social Security was not sold as a massive welfare, wealth redistribution plan, it was always promoted as a way to force people to save money for their own retirement.
Only those who paid into Social Security should get anything back. That's obviously not the case and that's why it's insolvent.
Social Security was not sold as a massive welfare, wealth redistribution plan, it was always promoted as a way to force people to save money for their own retirement.
I am not arguing, just curious. I know that widows and widowers can draw all or a percentage of their spouses social security. Who else gets it that has not paid into it? In the case of widows and widowers, their spouse has put money into it.
I have put money into it and will not get it back. I am not aware of cases where people get money without putting anything into it.
Why do we still have social security? The fact that I am forced to contribute frustrates me to no end. I am 22 years old, and I assume I will never see any payback from social security. I assume the system will implode by the time I retire. It doesn't make sense to me why social security isn't voluntary. I can easily get a greater rate of return if I was allowed to invest that money somewhere else.
Actually, our formula is based on total years employeed as a teacher AND the average of your best three years.
I knew and expected when I went back into teaching after 12 years out that I had maximum social security for the 12 years I worked for a corporation. I also knew that I could only teach 20 years before retiring. Since Texas retirement, at that time, was your best three years times 2.0% times the number of years worked, I was looking at 40% of my average of my best three years. (That is now 46% with changes in the formula.) So, I was taking a hit on my teacher retirement because of the number of years I was unable to work as a teacher, and I was taking a hit on my social security because I was drawing teacher retirement. I could tolerate that if other pensions caused a hit on social security. Here is the AFT web site. I saw your opinion on it, but it is worth reading.
Truth is, I wish Texas would hold social security out of educators paychecks. We were not given a choice. This whole thing boils down to a political battle between the Social Security Adinistration and the Texas State Teacher Retirement System in 1986. The teachers lost.
Shame on you James for expecting to receive your fair share for those years you did pay into SS. We can't have you living too comfortably off your years of hard work. That's Unamerican!
Wealthy people can get social security regardless of how much they make per year or of other investments giving them retirement income. My mother-in-law who needs no social security gets a huge check based on her husband's income when he was living. She has other income also.
My wife and I, who are middle class, cannot draw social security because we are getting rich off of Texas Teacher Retirement. I paid maximum social security for 12 years, but I can only draw a very small percentage because of the huge teacher retirement check I get--1600/month. Also, when I die, my wife cannot get widow's benefits from my social security because she is drawing teacher retirement.
If we were drawing corportate retirement, there would be no penalty. This was passed in 1986 by Republicans. I am sure the wealthy will be trickling down their social security to us any day now.
By the way, the WEP and GPO only affect teachers, firefighters, and policemen in Texas and a handful of other states. There is legislation, the Social Security Fairness Act, designed to eliminate these conditions for those who have paid into social security, but it went nowhere under Bush because he said it would be vetoed if it hit his desk. I hope the Democratic Congress and Obama will pass this legislation finally. It is not fair for public servants to lose their social security that they have earned. But, at least the wealthy won't.
That is because state and local employees were allowed to vote to either join or not join social security as per federal court decision. Many police and fire decided not to join but alot did. The ones that joined have had social security withdrawn form their checks for years. but as to the teacher in Texas they voted not to join. Then it was found that many were switching to administrative jobs that had voted to join for a mininum of quarters and double dipping. That was stopped for the same reason that you have to decide to join the SS prescription drug benefit when eligable or get a penalty. If teachers want to join SS they need to decide to pay into it their entire working lifes just as others on social security have ;not put that money into their private retirement then want to later join and collect benefits.Teachers need to join at the start of their career if they want equal benefits not rely on others paying into the system all their careers for them to benefit.The court decision effected all sate and local empoyeees in that they could not be forced to join federal SS program and they were allowed to vote on it.Now they6 want both nenefits of not paying and then working a minumum of qaurters and collecting . Taht is unfair to those that paid all their lworking lkifes. besides they are the ones that voted not to join.
I am not arguing, just curious. I know that widows and widowers can draw all or a percentage of their spouses social security. Who else gets it that has not paid into it? In the case of widows and widowers, their spouse has put money into it.
I have put money into it and will not get it back. I am not aware of cases where people get money without putting anything into it.
I think the teachers retirement more than out weigh what you gave up in SS. My neighbor is a retired teacher and her retirement pay is A LOT more than my SS is.
And I don't remember the reason behind the no SS if you are part of the teachers retirement but I do remember it had some thing with teachers finding away around it and double dipping.
You might be glad that all of your retirement is not in the stock market.
No I'm not glad about that. As a matter of fact I've substantially increased the amount going into my 401k.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
