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.
That's why I answered the way I did. For most people, what they pay in is somewhat irrelevant because- if you live long enough- you will get back a lot more than you paid in.
Naturally monthly amounts will vary as to the individual. And you're right that if a person really wants to check for their immediate circumstance, they should log in to Social Security.
But again, SS depends on whether a person dies tomorrow or lives to 103 as to an overall pay out.
That is why it is essentially like an annuity although the payments are more means based than what would be sold commercially - similar risk of getting less or more than put in after account for investment gains, based on your situation.
And social security is NOT a Ponzi scheme because it will NEVER run out of money because it isn't other peoples money it is money that is printed by the federal government and therefore will never run out
Do you really believe this?
When our government prints or borrows money they our taking money from our future taxes. It will have to be paid back at some point!
Simple economics; you can't just print money it has to be backed up with something!
I contributed to SS starting in middle school; every summer for decades; and full-time for years. I then taught school in California for 32 years but SS was not collected for that job. I continued to pay into SS every summer, and with my new job teaching in Hawaii for the past 8 years. I have well over 40 quarters.
I receive a California pension (CALSTRS) but will receive a much-reduced SS check because of the Windfall Elimination Provision, which Congress enacted in 1983.
I think it's unfair and would still think so even if it didn't affect me.
I earned it!
If they did not have WEP it would put you at an unfair advantage as a double-dipper. WEP stops that and provides for low income earners to get a decent social security check. It is fair. It stops people sliding through a loop hole and getting more from the system.
If they did not have WEP it would put you at an unfair advantage as a double-dipper. WEP stops that and provides for low income earners to get a decent social security check. It is fair. It stops people sliding through a loop hole and getting more from the system.
I EARNED Social Security by working two jobs for most of my life. How is it a "loophole" or fair that the retirement I EARNED is reduced???
Would it also be fair to take away the income from my second job and give it to someone who doesn't work? (Socialism/communism.)
How is this any different?
Repeal of WEP would not cause "low-income earners" to receive less, and affects less than 1% of the US population.
What WEP means for me is that at age 69, I am STILL working to supplement my retirement income.
Last edited by Futuremauian; 10-04-2022 at 01:24 PM..
Reason: Edit
If you had 35 years paying into SS you would not be WEP’d. You did not, Your choice.
I worked in UK and Germany in my youth, but I still had 35 years of SS.Therefore not WEP’d.
So you must receive a public pension? Otherwise, you couldn't have been subject to this law.
You do realize that the majority of retired teachers in America receive a State Pension AND Social Security? I just happened to be born in one of the few states (California) that chose not to participate. I volunteered to join but was refused.
Again, less than 1% of Americans are affected by this unfair law. There have been endless efforts to overturn it, but it hasn't happened and may never.
The best thing about Social security is that you are forced to put the money aside. Otherwise we would ignore saving for future needs when we are elderly.
Not everyone ignores savings and relies on social security to fund their retirment years.
And social security is NOT a Ponzi scheme because it will NEVER run out of money
Not true.
Quote:
Americans are having fewer children and living longer, trends contributing to an aging population.
As a result, there will be fewer workers to support each retiree in the future. The ratio of workers paying Social Security taxes per beneficiary is projected to decline from 2.8 in 2021 to 2.3 by 2035. Social Security's trust fund for retirement benefits is projected to deplete its reserves in 2034, when tax receipts are expected to cover 77% of the scheduled benefits
I EARNED Social Security by working two jobs for most of my life. How is it a "loophole" or fair that the retirement I EARNED is reduced???
Would it also be fair to take away the income from my second job and give it to someone who doesn't work? (Socialism/communism.)
How is this any different?
Repeal of WEP would not cause "low-income earners" to receive less, and affects less than 1% of the US population.
What WEP means for me is that at age 69, I am STILL working to supplement my retirement income.
We spoke to a financial planner yesterday and he explained it like this...
Schools get federal money, and that money helps pay your salary. When you get a paycheck, some of that federal money is going into your teacher retirement and zero of it going into social security. Therefore, they say, you'd be double dipping.
If you think about it, they let you off the hook, whereas other workers had to support social security, so there needs to be some correction. Maybe it's like when you salt money away in a 401k or 403b and it's not taxed, but when you take it out, you have to pay taxes on it.
However, as a former teacher in the Texas pension system, WEP would not cause me to get zero dollars for the (social security) work I did prior to moving to Texas and teaching. Rather, it would reduce the amount I'd expect to get, cutting it roughly in half. I knew a woman who retired before me and she makes more than me because she was always a Texas teacher. If I take my pension amount plus what I anticipate from social security, I think I'd get about 10% less, partly due to shifting economics. She is single and probably took the highest option whereas I'm married and took a lesser amount that will pay either spouse. If I drop dead tomorrow, my wife continues to collect my pension until she dies. If she drops dead, my benefit gets bumped up.
But even better, the advisor said, since my wife's going to be getting social security, when I apply for social security I should take the "spousal provision." I don't totally get why but it seems I can get half of her benefit instead of what I calculated, which is better.
We spoke to a financial planner yesterday and he explained it like this...
Schools get federal money, and that money helps pay your salary. When you get a paycheck, some of that federal money is going into your teacher retirement and zero of it going into social security. Therefore, they say, you'd be double dipping.
If you think about it, they let you off the hook, whereas other workers had to support social security, so there needs to be some correction. Maybe it's like when you salt money away in a 401k or 403b and it's not taxed, but when you take it out, you have to pay taxes on it.
However, as a former teacher in the Texas pension system, WEP would not cause me to get zero dollars for the (social security) work I did prior to moving to Texas and teaching. Rather, it would reduce the amount I'd expect to get, cutting it roughly in half. I knew a woman who retired before me and she makes more than me because she was always a Texas teacher. If I take my pension amount plus what I anticipate from social security, I think I'd get about 10% less, partly due to shifting economics. She is single and probably took the highest option whereas I'm married and took a lesser amount that will pay either spouse. If I drop dead tomorrow, my wife continues to collect my pension until she dies. If she drops dead, my benefit gets bumped up.
But even better, the advisor said, since my wife's going to be getting social security, when I apply for social security I should take the "spousal provision." I don't totally get why but it seems I can get half of her benefit instead of what I calculated, which is better.
You should look into the GPO: Government Pension Offset law. I'm not as familiar with it as with WEP but I'm pretty sure that if you are subject to WEP, the "spousal provision" is reduced by GPO.
QUOTE from Google: How do I calculate Government Pension Offset?
The Government Pension Offset
The reduction is 2/3 of your pension amount! For example, if your pension is $3,000, the SSA will subtract nearly $2,000 from any spousal or survivor benefits before you are paid. This large reduction often completely wipes out any benefit for which you are eligible.
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.
(Socialism/communism.)
