U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Retirement
 [Register]
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.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 10-04-2009, 08:53 AM
 
29,782 posts, read 34,880,403 times
Reputation: 11705

Advertisements

The offset rule is often discussed and debated. About 20% of teachers in the Unitied States belong to pension plans and don't contribute to SS. Most do. This also applies to other state employees I am just not familiar with the percentage of. I for one am very much in support of the offset rule. What happens is that states with pensions and not making contributions are in most cases offering higher contributions to their employees pensions instead. Thus a comparable pension is higher. The offset rule applies to those without enough quarters to qualify for SS from other jobs. It hits spouses and career changers who worked a number of year in a SS paying job but not enough to qualify for benefits. If they then go to a state job that doesn't pay into SS they feel they are being cheated etc etc etc.

Retirees should be aware of pension offset rules
Government Pension Offset

It can be hard to find objective discussion on the offset rule as there is considerably lobbying to try to change it. I have stated my bias in favor of it.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 10-04-2009, 02:38 PM
 
8,204 posts, read 11,921,160 times
Reputation: 18020
Quote:
Originally Posted by TuborgP View Post
The offset rule applies to those without enough quarters to qualify for SS from other jobs. It hits spouses and career changers who worked a number of year in a SS paying job but not enough to qualify for benefits. If they then go to a state job that doesn't pay into SS they feel they are being cheated etc etc etc.

Retirees should be aware of pension offset rules
Government Pension Offset

It can be hard to find objective discussion on the offset rule as there is considerably lobbying to try to change it. I have stated my bias in favor of it.
You may have a bias in favor of it, but you don't understand it. The offset has absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with the number of quarters someone has earned. In fact, it has absolutely nothing at all to do with an individual's own work history under Social Security. The offset comes into play whether an employee has 40+ quarters of Social Security or has never had any quarters covered by Social Security.

The offset applies to any spousal or widow or widower benefits an individual may be entitled to. If the individual has a pension based on work not covered by Social Security, then in most cases the offset has the effect of completely eliminating any spousal benefits that the individual may have been entitled to.

You seem to be confusing elements of the Government Pension Offset with the Windall Elimination Provision (WEP). The WEP pertains to an individual's own work history and has the effect of reducing - but not eliminating - the individual's Social Security benefit if he or she has a minimum of 40 quarters, but less than 30 years of work covered by Social Security.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-04-2009, 06:26 PM
 
4,948 posts, read 16,530,115 times
Reputation: 2866
Quote:
Originally Posted by MadManofBethesda View Post
You may have a bias in favor of it, but you don't understand it. The offset has absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with the number of quarters someone has earned. In fact, it has absolutely nothing at all to do with an individual's own work history under Social Security. The offset comes into play whether an employee has 40+ quarters of Social Security or has never had any quarters covered by Social Security.

The offset applies to any spousal or widow or widower benefits an individual may be entitled to. If the individual has a pension based on work not covered by Social Security, then in most cases the offset has the effect of completely eliminating any spousal benefits that the individual may have been entitled to.

You seem to be confusing elements of the Government Pension Offset with the Windall Elimination Provision (WEP). The WEP pertains to an individual's own work history and has the effect of reducing - but not eliminating - the individual's Social Security benefit if he or she has a minimum of 40 quarters, but less than 30 years of work covered by Social Security.
You did explain it all, and when not sure contact S.S for the correct answer!
I did rep you, for this hard to understand question.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-04-2009, 10:00 PM
 
29,782 posts, read 34,880,403 times
Reputation: 11705
Quote:
Originally Posted by MadManofBethesda View Post
You may have a bias in favor of it, but you don't understand it. The offset has absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with the number of quarters someone has earned. In fact, it has absolutely nothing at all to do with an individual's own work history under Social Security. The offset comes into play whether an employee has 40+ quarters of Social Security or has never had any quarters covered by Social Security.

The offset applies to any spousal or widow or widower benefits an individual may be entitled to. If the individual has a pension based on work not covered by Social Security, then in most cases the offset has the effect of completely eliminating any spousal benefits that the individual may have been entitled to.

You seem to be confusing elements of the Government Pension Offset with the Windall Elimination Provision (WEP). The WEP pertains to an individual's own work history and has the effect of reducing - but not eliminating - the individual's Social Security benefit if he or she has a minimum of 40 quarters, but less than 30 years of work covered by Social Security.
The following is from one of my links. You are penalized as an individual if you changed careers as noted and don't have enough years for full benefits. Your SS is reduced by a formula based on the number of years worked and contributing to SS:
Retirees should be aware of pension offset rules

There are some exceptions to this rule. For example, the 90% factor is not reduced if you have 30 or more years of "substantial" earnings where you paid Social Security taxes. If you have 21 to 29 years of "substantial" earnings, the 90% factor is reduced to somewhere between 45 and 85 percent. "Substantial" earnings are a certain amount of yearly earnings required for a year of coverage for this provision. These "substantial" earnings can be obtained by requesting the factsheet titled "A Pension From Work Not Covered By Social Security".

No I fully understand the offset rule and resent your assertion that I don't. You don't understand all of the applications of the rule and the various impact. We are both right. It impacts not just spousal benefits which I stated but also folks who worked in private industry paying into SS and then went to work for a state government and not paying into SS.

You know a lot about everything but not everything about everything. I stand by my previous post. Thus many who had 19 years in SS before taking a state job will try to work 11 more years after retiring from their state job contributing to SS to be able to get the full SS they are entitled to. There is a reason why I posted the link if you bothered to read it! There are multiple rules and provisions and my Links covered both of them if you bothered to read what I wrote and linked.


Notice the rule is effected by the number of years you work.

Last edited by TuborgP; 10-04-2009 at 10:26 PM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-04-2009, 10:10 PM
 
29,782 posts, read 34,880,403 times
Reputation: 11705
Quote:
Originally Posted by maggiekate View Post
You did explain it all, and when not sure contact S.S for the correct answer!
I did rep you, for this hard to understand question.
Did you read the link yourself? That is why it is important to read and think for yourself and you may want your rep point back.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-04-2009, 10:16 PM
 
29,782 posts, read 34,880,403 times
Reputation: 11705
Quote:
Originally Posted by MadManofBethesda View Post
You may have a bias in favor of it, but you don't understand it. The offset has absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with the number of quarters someone has earned. In fact, it has absolutely nothing at all to do with an individual's own work history under Social Security. The offset comes into play whether an employee has 40+ quarters of Social Security or has never had any quarters covered by Social Security.

The offset applies to any spousal or widow or widower benefits an individual may be entitled to. If the individual has a pension based on work not covered by Social Security, then in most cases the offset has the effect of completely eliminating any spousal benefits that the individual may have been entitled to.

You seem to be confusing elements of the Government Pension Offset with the Windall Elimination Provision (WEP). The WEP pertains to an individual's own work history and has the effect of reducing - but not eliminating - the individual's Social Security benefit if he or she has a minimum of 40 quarters, but less than 30 years of work covered by Social Security.
How can I be confused when I post a link (second one) that covers multiple rules? Only if you didn't bother to READ! If your spouse doesn't qualify for spousal benefits because of one rule then you are also impacted by a related rule and that is why the second link I provided covers both.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-05-2009, 04:48 AM
 
8,204 posts, read 11,921,160 times
Reputation: 18020
Quote:
Originally Posted by TuborgP View Post
The following is from one of my links. You are penalized as an individual if you changed careers as noted and don't have enough years for full benefits. Your SS is reduced by a formula based on the number of years worked and contributing to SS:
Retirees should be aware of pension offset rules

There are some exceptions to this rule. For example, the 90% factor is not reduced if you have 30 or more years of "substantial" earnings where you paid Social Security taxes. If you have 21 to 29 years of "substantial" earnings, the 90% factor is reduced to somewhere between 45 and 85 percent. "Substantial" earnings are a certain amount of yearly earnings required for a year of coverage for this provision. These "substantial" earnings can be obtained by requesting the factsheet titled "A Pension From Work Not Covered By Social Security".

No I fully understand the offset rule and resent your assertion that I don't. You don't understand all of the applications of the rule and the various impact. We are both right. It impacts not just spousal benefits which I stated but also folks who worked in private industry paying into SS and then went to work for a state government and not paying into SS.

You know a lot about everything but not everything about everything. I stand by my previous post. Thus many who had 19 years in SS before taking a state job will try to work 11 more years after retiring from their state job contributing to SS to be able to get the full SS they are entitled to. There is a reason why I posted the link if you bothered to read it! There are multiple rules and provisions and my Links covered both of them if you bothered to read what I wrote and linked.


Notice the rule is effected by the number of years you work.
No, you still don't get it.

What you've just written is an explanation of the Windfall Elimination Provision (WEP), not the Govenment Pension Offset (GPO).

There are two completely separate rules. The offset does not pertain to an individual's own work history.

The WEP reduces an individual's own Social Security benefit. The GPO completely can completly eliminate any spousal benefit.

The GPO has absolutely nothing to do with how long someone may or may not have worked under Social Security.

You may have posted a link, but you're still misintepreted the information contained therein. I'm sorry that you resent the fact that I've pointed out your error.

I've never claimed to know everything, but I do know this subject like the back of my hand. I used to travel around the country giving seminars to federal employees on this subject.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-05-2009, 07:55 AM
 
29,782 posts, read 34,880,403 times
Reputation: 11705
Quote:
Originally Posted by MadManofBethesda View Post
No, you still don't get it.

What you've just written is an explanation of the Windfall Elimination Provision (WEP), not the Govenment Pension Offset (GPO).

There are two completely separate rules. The offset does not pertain to an individual's own work history.

The WEP reduces an individual's own Social Security benefit. The GPO completely can completly eliminate any spousal benefit.

The GPO has absolutely nothing to do with how long someone may or may not have worked under Social Security.

You may have posted a link, but you're still misintepreted the information contained therein. I'm sorry that you resent the fact that I've pointed out your error.

I've never claimed to know everything, but I do know this subject like the back of my hand. I used to travel around the country giving seminars to federal employees on this subject.
I wasn't limiting my reponse to one situation or any one person. There are broad implicatios for someone who works in private industry and then goes to work for a local or state government that doesn't participate in SS. This isn't your forum or your thread and not everyone is responding to YOUR world or your response. I gave the situation of someone who worked and had time in SS prior to working in a non participating government job. You get into arguments with people because you think everything posted is related to you. It isn't! The situation I gave is covered by MULTIPLE provisions and I gave two of them in links. No one is disputing that. I was not limiting my contribution to your world interpretation of the thread! Just like others have done and then have you argue with them. Folks can read the links and think about their situation and ignore us going back and forth. End users often use the term windfall to apply to their situation and don't parse the various titles of provisions that apply to them. It is common in some areas to have people in the situation I presented. Any number of career changers who get jobs teaching in DC find themselves in that situation. They worked in private industry in the metro area and then took a job teaching in DC and not participating in SS. They try to work to get in 20 years of SS either after they retire from teaching or while teaching. Some will try to get to 30 years and be free. Both provisions impact them and they aren't parsing words. Thats why I gave links for people to READ specifics. Perhaps if you just contributed and let people evaluate without your moral judgements of who is right and wrong you would not keep getting into thread arguments with folks. Thats why I link so much so people can read for themselves. So let this thread be about the topic and not our emotional need to be right or prove someone else wrong. Others can read for themselves without us lobbying for our righteousness.
On that note I am done with the thread!

Last edited by TuborgP; 10-05-2009 at 08:11 AM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-06-2009, 08:17 AM
 
8,204 posts, read 11,921,160 times
Reputation: 18020
You wrote a comment providing an incorrect interpretation of the offset provisions of Social Security.

I corrected you and provided the accurate information.

You took offense.

End of story.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-06-2009, 09:20 PM
 
4,948 posts, read 16,530,115 times
Reputation: 2866
Quote:
Originally Posted by TuborgP View Post
I wasn't limiting my reponse to one situation or any one person. There are broad implicatios for someone who works in private industry and then goes to work for a local or state government that doesn't participate in SS. This isn't your forum or your thread and not everyone is responding to YOUR world or your response. I gave the situation of someone who worked and had time in SS prior to working in a non participating government job. You get into arguments with people because you think everything posted is related to you. It isn't! The situation I gave is covered by MULTIPLE provisions and I gave two of them in links. No one is disputing that. I was not limiting my contribution to your world interpretation of the thread! Just like others have done and then have you argue with them. Folks can read the links and think about their situation and ignore us going back and forth. End users often use the term windfall to apply to their situation and don't parse the various titles of provisions that apply to them. It is common in some areas to have people in the situation I presented. Any number of career changers who get jobs teaching in DC find themselves in that situation. They worked in private industry in the metro area and then took a job teaching in DC and not participating in SS. They try to work to get in 20 years of SS either after they retire from teaching or while teaching. Some will try to get to 30 years and be free. Both provisions impact them and they aren't parsing words. Thats why I gave links for people to READ specifics. Perhaps if you just contributed and let people evaluate without your moral judgements of who is right and wrong you would not keep getting into thread arguments with folks. Thats why I link so much so people can read for themselves. So let this thread be about the topic and not our emotional need to be right or prove someone else wrong. Others can read for themselves without us lobbying for our righteousness.
On that note I am done with the thread!
Hi, S.S. said I may collect
B4 age 66 so I did! 10.00 per month was not working on the wait plan! I did work under the plan 35 years and had to retire!
Thank You! That would be the ad on til age 66! S.S. told me it would take 13 or 14 years to get this back. So sure why not!
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
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.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Retirement
Similar Threads
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6.

2005-2019, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top