What's The Deal With Social Security? (Congress, Obama, how much, retirement)

[Yooperkat]

Can well to do Americans refuse to accept Social Security checks?

[evilnewbie]

You mean after having money stolen from them every year for over 40 years, they should "donate" their money to the government after paying more taxes than any of his neighbors? If you want to give the Treasury your social security checks, they will be happy to accept but keep in mind the money you donate to them is to pay people to figure out how to rob you some more...

[JamesAbilene]

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.

[TuborgP]

Originally Posted by JamesAbilene

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.

While you were teaching did you pay into Social Security? Typically teachers in states that don't pay into Social Security are better off as their pensions are a higher percentage payback then those states where employers and teachers pay into social security. Look at you pension options with regards to spousal options and see if they are better then what Social Security recipients have if both work. There are those who say that what you get out of what you put in as a pension contribution gives a greater payback then what someone in your later year income category gets back from Social Security. If you work 35 years contributing to SS your benefits are based on all 35 years. Most teacher pensions are based on the highest three years. You folks in the states that don't contribute to SS are better off then those who do. AFT is selling a con job to the American people. In addition you can begin collecting your larger pension benefit at the formula of age plus service= eighty. Thus if you have thirty years in you can start collecting your full pension at age 52 if you started teaching at age 22. That is a full 10 years of full benefits earlier then the reduced SS benefits at age 62. The basic mindset is that pension in those state without SS is equivalent to pension plus SS on states that pay in. The motivation for government is to have all teachers pay in to the SS system to help solvency

[JamesAbilene]

Originally Posted by TuborgP

While you were teaching did you pay into Social Security?

Not for most years. However, I paid maximum the 12 years that I worked for a corporation and am currently paying it in another job. If I can pull off 30 years of social security payments, the adjustment is cancelled. However, I was expecting to get benefits for the 12 years that I paid maximum, and that is not going to happen. I don't expect the years that I taught and did not pay to be figured into my social security formula. All I am asking for is what social security I have earned without a penalty. As it stands now, I get a penalty on what I would otherwise get for those 12 years. The penalty can go up to 60% of what you would otherwise get.

[JamesAbilene]

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.

Texas AFT - Support New Legislation for Social Security Fairness!

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.

[TuborgP]

Originally Posted by JamesAbilene

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.

Texas AFT - Support New Legislation for Social Security Fairness!

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.

I hear you. The advantage that those with both pension and SS have is that they have two pools and hopefully one if not both will stay solvent long term. With only having one all of your eggs are in one basket.

[teatime]

James,
I feel for you. TRS STINKS! When I calculated how little I would get from TRS when I became disabled, it made more sense for me to take a lump sum distribution of my contributions and use that money to help in paying cash for my current home. If you are disabled when you take the lump sum distribution, you don't face the additional tax penalties so it was worth it.

Besides that, TRS frequently changes their rules. I think that system is a big rip-off.

[Yooperkat]

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?

[JamesAbilene]

My father-in-law did not take social security. When he reached a certain age--maybe 70 or 75--the system pushed him into drawing it. He didn't think he needed it, and he didn't want to take it, but he did finally.