Lennie: There is also the other side of the argument that their SS benefit will now be too big because their other earnings weren't calculated into their SS benefit.
If we can send billions to other countries, our country can and should paid the benefits people have EARNED! Where did the money go when they took it from those 2.8 million workers? Seniors should not have to work until they die!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Bad: Foreign aid has nothing to do with Social security. The money received through FICA from those 2.8 million people was used to pay benefits or is in the trust fund.
Congress must do everything it can to firewall social security and medicare benefits. I do not want to see a billionaire eliminating my benefits on a whim. It would have a catastrophic effect on my survival as well as the survival of millions of other seniors. We should not be considered collateral damage. 👋👱♀️🇺🇲
@RetirementTalk43 from your lips to God's ears. Terra firma is being redefined. After the abortion issue and women continuing to die of sepsis you have to wonder. 👋👱♀️🇺🇲
Just remember Republicans don't want Social Security or Medicare / Medicaid to continue. They are for giving the 1%ers & Corporations Huge Tax cuts not for keeping social programs for the American Blue collar workers. Read the Project 2025 its Trump's plan for keeping the Rich pockets filled while putting the hard working American retirees on the street !
The solution to SS is really simple; just take the earnings cap off completely so all income levels pay into the system. The cap is at around 170K this year.
@@RetirementTalk43 Yes, the Cap should be just outright removed, I believe. It's the only just way to go. Forget the age raising nonsense! Cutting benefits nonsense! Or other hair-brained schemes. The other one I hear are the Means-Testing schemes. That's ludicrous for Social Security, because that method is used for 'welfare' and social security is NOT Welfare, it's something we "paid in" it's ours. The money comes from all of us! Some from gop side always try that sucker punch on that side of the isle. It's always in their best interest to make Social Security work, because the consequences of it not working are just unimaginable it it doesn't. Imagine what would happen to the US economy around the country both urban, suburban, and rural/small town if it were to stop. Rural communities and towns economies would collapse without Social Security. Not to mention the human cost.
@@RetirementTalk43 So what. It'll still benefit a lot more people and don't forget, those higher wage earners will probably game the system so they don't have to pay it anyway.
@@thethirdgeneration1738 Again, if you remove the cap on taxes and don't cap benefits, that scheme does not work. You would have to cap benefits and make the high earners supplement the low earners. That way, someone paying $50,000/year in FICA would receive the same benefit as someone paying $10,000/year in FICA. Does that sound fair? As for means testing, it is already happening. That is the point of levying income taxes on Social Security benefits.
@@RetirementTalk43 So what? I am so sick and tired of people who say, ¨If something helps me, but also helps you, I´m against it!¨ That´s the attitude that got T´Rumphole Thinskin elected both times. Lift the cap on Social Security taxes so everyone earning more than $170k pays on all of their earnings. Sure, the rich will game the system and pay way less than their fair share, but at least they will have to pay something on their full income.
I’m affected by WEP. I’m a retired teacher and I had to work part time and summer jobs to support my family. My teacher salary did not pay into SS. All my other jobs for 40 years did. I think I earned my full SS benefits.
The amount of SS we each receive is based on our 5 years highest earnings. Yes, those whose regular employment exempted them from SS but whose part time employment paid FICA should get benefits but those benefits based on their incomes that they were taxed upon not total incomes including the exempted jobs.
I'm curious. How is your teacher's pension funded? Taxes or did you contribute to it? I hear how pubic pensions break state and municipal budgets. Everyone knows active workers support retired workers on SS. I know the system got screwed up a long time ago.
We’re you not able to save to offset your SS? I know between my SS check and modest pension check, I wouldn’t be able to survive. My rent is going up again this spring. I have savings, but is it enough? Don’t know. It scares me to think, I could be living in my car in the next 7-8 years.
@@MargaretGSmith-c1q the company i worked for got bought out and i used my 401K and pension buy out to pay off any debt i had after a divorce.i now have serious arthritis and can't work. after living expenses for 7 yrs when i was able to draw SS, its all used up and now i am at the 125% poverty level and am able to live until something breaks.not exactly how i had drawn this up.
I worked hand to mouth, the lovely working poor. I too am surviving on SS and food assistance. Way below poverty level. I have MS, chronic pain ,pretty debilitating. Like a lot of other people.
So sorry. Hard for many. My husband and I are newly retired. In our late 60s, and we both get SS. My husband gets a small pension. But if we both weren't getting SS, we would have to make some changes. We don't travel or spend outside our needs. We own our home and have no debt. So no rent payment. Upkeep, taxes, and insurance are reasonable so far.
I’m 68 years old and I’ve been paying FICA since I was 16 years old. Let me tell you, that’s a lot of money over 52 years. SSI is not a entitlement. It’s a deal that taxpayers have with the government in 1935 with Franklin Roosevelt. It’s a done deal.🤔👍🇺🇸
Ken: Since you paid into SS for 52 years, you are now "entitled" to a benefit. It is not a bad word. Also, "SSI" is not Social Security. It is a completely different, needs based, program (Supplemental Security Income).
I spent 20 years working at a FICA deductable job after retiring on CSRS. Its about time we get to fully collect what we paid into. BTW the Reagan administration gave us "Windfall " law. Windfall my hinder. Reagan collected annuities from SAG,California's system and Federal. If was good for him, but not for peon, waiting for "trickle down"
He said they are penalized. If they pay, they should not be penalized. Next step is to penalize people with a certain amount in 401k. If they pay SS. They should get full benefit.
I have been retired for 15 years now. Could I have a drum roll of how much has been stolen from me after I have paid 44 Quarters into SS., I am now 78 and will never receive the amount back I was cheated out of. Let me enjoy my remaining years with a little dignity, please and thank you.
We were required to pay into this system with the promise of benefits. We had no choice. To then deny those benefits is simply based on your employment is stealing. Period. Those Senators and Congress certainly accept their SS.
@@RetirementTalk43 which they offset with all the sweet $ deals they get from their donors and lobbyists. The majority retire (if they ever do) as millionaires. They do not depend on SS to survive.
@@JeanLeite-d1eif I remember right Retirement was called a 3-Legged Stool model to guide towards retirement income. With SS being one leg of the Stool .
There NEEDS to be a law prohibiting Govt from " BORROWING" from Social Security because THAT'S why the fund is SO seriously depleted. They have done it for YEARS and NEVER repaid a penny . They won't " BORROW " from Welfare because THAT is State and Govt money while Social Security is primarily public funds... Just saying..
chicken: The Social Security Act REQUIRES the government to borrow all money in the SS trust fund. That is the law. In return, the SSA gets treasury securities, for which they receive regular interest. Also as required by law, the government pays back the principal to the SSA as it is needed to pay benefits. That has been happening for the last three years. There is no welfare fund from which to borrow.
I’m a retired firefighter. I hired on the job at 22 years old. I put 31 years into my state pension system. All of my jobs that I worked in the private sector before and the moonlighting jobs I worked, I am still a Qtr short of getting any Social security money. If POTUS signs the bill, I guess better go find a job for 3 months so I can get some beer money once I turn 65? Or will be when I get to 75 years old, after the congress changes the retirement age to that?
You only have to earn about $1,600 in one quarter to file that Quarter, and you can file that as a self employed person. Self employed quarter requires you pay 15.3% FICA tax (which is both sides). This is one of the problems as a Government Employee can pay his own minimum to qualify.
@@francieanneriley7349 You misunderstand the risks. The risk is not dying early and leaving money on the table. the risk is living to an old age and trying to survive on a tiny SS benefit or depleted savings.
Why not take SS at 62? Because there is a 30% penalty attached. Some people who have done that cheated their SS check by a few hundred. If a person continues to work after taking SS they can sock some money away until they retire altogether.
So let me get this straight. The party that wants to raise the retirement age, and save taxpayers money and make other changes towards lower spending, have now proposed a bill to not do that and increase spending. All without providing any meaningful legislation to prevent the collapse of SS . But it will be ok to spend more money that they claim they don’t have. I’m confused
@@wabd5 Bingo ! The Republicans have ALWAYS been after Social Security benefits & Ronald Reagan was the President to put TAXES on them. Republicans are not for the American working class. The sooner people understand this the faster it will get fixed by not voting their asses in !
@@ag4allgood Republicans cannot end SS without the help of Democrats in the senate. While Reagan was President when we first started taxing SS in 1984, it did pass with a bipartisan vote.
This bill is a sham. The employees that didn’t contribute are NOT eligible. They are planning to cut eligible benefits for those that DID contribute and redistribute to the non-contributors. It’s not about what their job is/was… it matters that it will cost those of us who have paid in for decades.
Thank you for this info. I really hope this passes in the Senate. I worked for the US Postal Service for 30 years. Most of that time I was under the Civil Service Offset retirement system. I had 30 quarters paid until SS so that wasn't affected, but my postal pension was debited over $900/month. I have always thought it was SO unfair since every check I received had deductions for SS and my pension. We live on a lower middle income and that extra money would help us enormously! Would it help for those affected by this to write a senator or President Biden?? I need to know more about what I can do to encourage this. Thank you!
This bill is a terrible idea! Fancy name for those who did not pay into Social Security but would get benefits from Social Security. They knew they were not paying into when the too the job because it had a higher pension to offset the lower SS benefit. Now they will double their SS benefit at the expense of those who did pay into for their working life. Fancy name for act is deceiving (surprise!--not). paying out the benefits will reduce the life of the current social security benefit by at least one year to current recipients. Let your senator now to vote no on this bil, if it comes up for a vote.
dennis: They DID pay into Social Security but had part of their benefit taken away because of pensions they received at other jobs. It is easy to disagree with the formula used to calculate the benefit they will now receive but they certainly deserve something more than what they were getting.
@@RetirementTalk43 The formula you are talking about is for low wage earners. It establishes a floor benefit. This bill would apply that low wage calculation to people who were not low wage earners.
I just love how this helps so few people 😢. All of us disabled are still forced to live off less than 1200 on average. Nobody's out there trying to help us at all. As a matter of fact, Congress has said they want to fund the SS Fairness Act by reducing every SSDI recipient's benefit. So ask me why this bill completely sucks and I hope it doesn't pass...
SS has a floor benefit for low income wage earners. This floor benefit uses a special calculation based on SS wages. Some government employees have considerable wage income that is not subject to SS contributions and a much smaller amount of income that is subject to SS contributions. These government employees want their SS benefit calculation to be based on the benefit for a low income earner even though they are not a low income earner. Hence the WEP/GPO. If HR 82 becomes law, then I want my SS benefit calculated this way as well.
One of the things that many do not know, is teachers are forced to continue their education, or lose their Teaching Certificates. It is also how we get raises, by years of service and college credits. After paying into Social Security for almost 4 decades, I think I paid my dues. The Evil Rich need tp pay their share too!
You did us a favor by providing us this useful information. I’d like to return the favor and inform you that I think your dog may have just slobbered on your couch.
This is the opposite of that. Passing this will make Social Security insolvent much sooner.
2 дня назад+9
Thank you for the information.Just want to mention the fact that most if not all of the money being paid out goes into the economy. Social security and medicare hopefully will be funded for future generations to come.
The money being paid out goes into the economy anyway so what's the problem. But where does the money come from? And when money is paid out and little or no production happens that adds to the inflation level so in effect, we all pay for the government people on the payrolls that produce nothing of value. Money is stolen from people that work and given to people that game the system and help the coming financial collapse that we will all suffer from.
As a person who has spent 23+ years in public service working for one of the 3 letter agencies that every state has and the public vilifies, I am pleased that this is being moved forward. I have been payed on average 33% below what a private sector employee earns doing a similar job. I know this because the agency has done studies every few years and reports this to me. I started my job because I wanted to be of service to the public not for the money. The carrot at the end of the stick was the pension waiting for me at the end of my career. The employer that I work for has continually decreased the size and nature of the pension waiting for me at retirement. This could be of great help to me, perhaps I will be able to afford something other than canned dog food in my golden years.
Larson has justified concerns. No additional revenues in the Bill only expedites SS running out of funds. Then recipients dependent exclusively on SS are totally out of luck while the civil servants benefited by this Bill will still have their various public pensions. This is an example of a good concept to correct an unfair condition being set right at the creation of an even greater unfairness to the larger segment of recipients. The Bill title need be changed to the Fairness for Some Unfairness for Most Act. The real solution as Larson said is to properly fund the cost of this Act without adverse impact to current beneficiaries.
I was in printing, food services, teaching in private school, retail sales and many other jobs where I only earned ss. When I started teaching in public school my retirement wasn’t as large as it would have been if I had not worked those other jobs. I earned my ss benefit. I’m praying this passes in the senate.
As irony would have it, Trump and the GOP are determined to, as Senator Mike Scott, put it, "...pull Social Security up by the roots." So, don't hold your breath for anything good happening for seniors.
@@RetirementTalk43 What makes you think that Trump and the GOP won't just pull the plug on Social Security? It's not like they have to worry about elections anymore.
@@RetirementTalk43 I don't think you fully realize what happened on November 5th of this year. That was the day the US became a fascist dictatorship and the Constitution stopped having any meaning. Trump and the GOP just gained total control of the government - including the House, the Senate, the White House, and the Supreme Court. So, tell me, what can the Democrats do to stop Trump and the GOP from doing whatever they want to do without regard to the Constitution?
@@richardowens9061 Republicans don't have the 60 vote supermajority they need in the Senate. They could try to eliminate the filibuster and lower that threshold to 50 votes but I'm not sure they want to do that.
It shortens the total life of the pot of monies. It gives more to those that likely doubled their income their last year which is typical of government employees. And It does not affect the majority of those that paid in.
@@RetirementTalk43 It would seem, as I have been told, That there is a practice of Gov workers, in the last year of their employment, to work extreme overtime hours to double their income on paper. And therefore double their retirement payments.
@@jayfarber3559 It depends on the structure of their pension. there have been cases where some workers have "packed" their pensions in both government and private companies but, i am unaware of that being a widespread pattern.
@@RetirementTalk43 Most government pensions are calculated on your highest earnings in three consecutive years. I currently have several friends that are about to retire and they max out their overtime and are making $175K+ in their last three years. It's one of the best kept secrets for public employees in these types of pensions.
@@daveb2280 Every state, city, county and municipality has a different formula for their employees and may also vary by job. I have seen the stories about pension "packing" for decades. It is no secret.
I’ve worked 2 jobs my entire life and part of my employment was as a school counselor. I will only receive 1/2 of my social security benefits if this doesn’t pass. There is already a teacher/counselor and police shortage. The starting salaries of these professionals is low and that is why so many have 2nd jobs. I’ve written to my senators and asked them to vote yes on repealing the Windfall Act. Please reach out to your senators.
One question for clarity. I have worked for both a pension job and a non-pension SSI contributing job. Correct me if I am wrong, but the crux of this bill still only effects the decades I worked the non-pension job, correct? So, I don't get punished for having a pension by having my allotted time of SSI contributions cut down. So, my SSI payout is based on the years put in without having it cut via the current 1983 law. Thanks. I appreciate the video.
bryan: First, we are not talking about SSI. We are talking about Social Security, to be clear. Yes, this bill will result in the SSA figuring your benefit based solely on what you paid into the SS system.
I am on a teacher's pension, $30,000/year. Not rich. I worked in the private sector before teaching. My earned SS is $1,200/month, which is reduced to $500/month ($6,000 per year) because of the WIP that this law would reverse. I think that it is fair to make this change. How many folks here are living on $36,000/year? I am. It isn't easy. I am far from being a rich gov't employee.
@@pj-fx7gx New POTUS is committed to enacting no taxes on SS income. Most in the Senate will consider a SS problem already "fixed." So this current bill is a moot point.
I am one of those affected by the bill, as I have only worked for the state of Illinois (teaching) for19 years, having paid into social security before that. For me, it would make a big difference in terms of financial security. In addition to my small pension (which I need) I only get 40% of a small social security check, due to the Windfall Elimination Provision. Were that taken away, which this bill does, I can collect all of my earned social security, while taking my pension. I paid into both at different times. Many people that I know are in similar circumstances. I do agree that, of course, it has to be paid for. If the cap on the social security tax were raised (not even totally eliminated) beyond the approximately $168,600 of income currently taxed, not only could this change be paid for, but social security could be saved for the present and future.
I worked for 21 years for the state of Hawaii as a hospital nurse, and receive a pension, but I had SS withheld from my check. So some government workers with pensions paid in and some didn’t? How does that work?
@@merrywalsh2809 Not all public employers get the deal you got. This whole WEP was a scam so many public employers could avoid paying the contributions into SS by claiming they already provide a pension system for the employees so SS isn't necessary (in their minds). These public employers that elected not to contribute are saving A LOT of money by this current system.
We in SSA do not get paid by the Social Security Administration. It is my understanding Social Security is broke/bankrupt. The US Treasury is now paying the retirement. Check where it is coming from each month on your bank statement. A huge raise is needed by people on the retirement plan. A simple 2.5 raise is a drop in the bucket with the inflation.
joy: Current SS benefits are paid by incoming revenue (~94%) and money from the SS trust fund (~6%). The SS trust fund still holds about $2.7 trillion. The government does not pay for SS benefits. The treasury departments manages the money for the SSA and checks are cut by them but come out of the SSA's account.
Some how people come to think ss is supposed to be for livening on its not it’s supposed to be supplemental income to help with your 401k and your savings .NOT TO LIVE ON !!!! Illegal immigrants should not get a penny for security or any other governmental support How much would that help?
I’m shocked to hear that. They been fighting for this for many years. I once fell under the windfall elimination, but since Germany and USA has a treaty that they honor others working history, so I was exempt, and they paid me the money back that they took. I’m happy to hear that and hope the law gets passed. Thank you for the info!!
My father retired from military with a disability pension and also worked over 30 years as a civil service employee with a pension but his social security is around $300 a month. Would this law increase his SS benifits if it passes?
My question is do the years worked in non SS jobs count towards their 40 quarters. They should get credit from quarters the paid into SS. If the rule somehow changes the non SS quarters differently we might have issues arise.
I worked under social security full time for 15 years but because I changed jobs and worked under a state pension fund for 20 years, after the 15, I have been told I will receive nothing or next to nothing from social security. So any social security benefit I had was forfeitted when I changed jobs. This is where the disparagement comes in. People who worked a long time under social security are treated like they worked part time or just enough to get their 40 quarters. I worked for years under social securiity and I'm not alone. Where else can you invest in a pension, change pension funds and then not be allowed to collect what you contributed because you changed jobs? Free money for social security. I don't know what will happen in the senate but I hope even with some modification, something passes based on fairness alone.
When people get more from the Government Pension than social security pays they are blocked from double dipping with a second Government Pension called Social Security.
They can fix SS fairly easily by raising the income limit on what gets charged, which is currently around $168,600.00; it is raised yearly. No income limit exists for Medicare.
WEP will change my social security by a couple hundred a month. The government offset could potentially really help depending on what happens in my wife and my lives. If she passes before me, it would be very helpful financially with that government offset (as in one spouse claiming the higher SS payment as a surviving spouse). Thanks for the info.
@@RetirementTalk43my husband, who worked outside of civil service enough years to qualify for SS, gets a reduced amount of SS due to the Windfall Elimination act and then of course he gets a pension check from civil service. I worked in the private sector for 38 years and get a substantially good social security income. I receive no pension. He was told that he cannot draw from my social security at a reduced windfall Elimination amount. It is strictly based on his social security. Is this correct? Also, if I pass before he does, Social Security told him he could never draw off of my social security. Is the person you commented to thinking they will be able to?
We need to start looking at military bases to close, NOT taking benefits from people that actually EARNED THEM! We seem to be a very lost country anymore. The US has around 800 military bases in other countries, which costs an estimated $100 billion annually, a number that could be much higher depending on whether you count the bases still open in Iraq and Afghanistan.
colbert: Certainly something that should be looked at but keep in mind, despite what Trump says, those bases serve us in the end, not just the countries where we put those bases.
WEP doesn’t only apply to US government and federal employees. It also applies to foreign pension recipients. I was born in the UK and for many years paid into the UK state pension system with deductions from my paycheck. I then emigrated to the US and became a citizen, I worked and paid into the social security system for 17 years before I retired. When I retired I had to declare that I was in receipt of a UK state pension so $543 per month was deducted from my social security pension. Is that fair? I think not! Why should I be penalized when I paid fully into both state pension systems. Makes me feel like a second hand citizen.
As it stands currently. Said teacher needs 30 years of 30k yearly in earnings (outside of teaching) to remove any penalty. To collect their rightful deserved 1200 a month SS.
I hope that thay are able to get it to the president and sign,d into law the rule has been reducing my,n and my fathers SSI for about 5 years now and neither one of us even gets a pension from work just a ssa check and a SSI check😢
No they shouldn't. The system is meant to lift people out of poverty not be a savings account. If your suggestion was operational, most people on Social Security would be fucked.
@@punkagrrlzero that is bs. I'm not responsible for you welfare nor you for mine. I get penalized for you welfare?. I dont think so. Pay me what I'm entitled
@@RetirementTalk43 oh yea means test my you know what? Give me what I'm entitled to. No more no less. ( if you have nothing have me pay for it. If your rich have me pay for it. That welfare shit should be a separate matter. Not mine!!)
They should make it where any branch of government gets a raise social security does to of the same percentage, social security is way behind the economy.
This bill,passing allows people to get full SSI in addition to their other retirement. This means that Social Security will become insolvent even sooner.
Not : SSI is a different program, not related to Social Security. But, yes, it means that the SS trust fund will deplete a few months sooner. Social Security will no become insolvent.
Everyone who works should pay into social security and medicare from their paychecks throughout their working lives , whether or not they also have a pension plan with their employer government or private sector.
stephen: even if the pension plan requires them to make payments? Can you imagine giving up 6.2% of your salary to SS and then another 5%, for your pension?
Is this not the same bill that would Open up allowing these individuals to double their social security checks which would kill the social security system sooner than later?
Howdy hi hi, I think, in the end, that the Social Security trust fund will have to be directly funded, or at least subsidised via the fed printing the funds needed and simply adding that money to our economy regardless of the secondary consequences. Because if you let grandma and grandpa lose those benefits and they end up homeless, and starving. We're just not going to go down that road. However, I think a better system would be to print an enormous amount of money for investment in high yield dividend stocks wherein the dividends paid become the SS funding source. And yes that too would require changing some of our existing laws to make it happen. If we don't take one of those two pathways, then the only remaining option is to raise taxes on those who make enough to actually produce the revenue needed to keep the program going. Otherwise, homeless and starving grandparents are the realities we will have to live with for the remainder of our days.
Empathy: First, it would be illegal for the Fed to fund SS. Second, they would not print money for that purpose even if they could. Your second idea would require an investments of trillions of dollars and would explode the stock market ( although I wouldn't be adverse to investing a large portion of the SS trust fund in stocks going forward). It will take a combination of a higher FRA, higher payroll tax a higher tax cap and possible a different benefit formula, to save the trust fund.
@@RetirementTalk43 That's the thing about congress. They write the laws, and can change the laws. So I was referring to this being an act of congress to achieve. I'd say, as far as the tax cap goes, just eliminate it. Why does making more money mean paying less into social security? On a percentage of income calculation. FRA? Tried looking that one up, but nothing seems to fit. Federal retirement age? Typo and just means retirement age? Not sure but I assume that's what you're saying there. And that one's a hard sell in the best of circumstances. And there is kind of a natural limit to how high that can go depending on the physicality of the job. As far as it taking trillions to fund the SS via dividends. Not sure that's really accurate. But given our GDP is 25 trillion per annum. You also have to remember that we're talking about filling the short fall, not fully funding everything by this methodology alone. And it's why I suggested dividends. At worst it would drive up stock prices. Not really sure what you mean by exploding the stock market. It is certainly a better option than simply cutting taxes on corporate entities. At least this way the people get something out of the deal.
@@empathyisonlyhuman7816 If you remove the tax cap and then cap benefits, you could end up with some people paying $20,000, 30,000, $50,000/year and more into the SS system but yet get a benefit equal to the one earned by the person paying $11,000/year into the system. It is simply wealth redistribution. FRA is Full Retirement Age. The age at which everyone receives their full Social Security Benefit (soon to be 67 years old for everyone). It is not the age of retirement, as anyone can retire whenever they want, regardless of when they start taking Social Security benefits. Social Security currently pays out about $1.5 trillion annually in benefits. To generate that much money in dividends, say in stocks paying out an average of 4% in dividends (the S&P 500 pays about 1.8%), you would need to invest over $37 trillion dollars, which would be far more than twice the value of those stocks currently. Could you imagine a doubling or tripling of stock prices overnight? Of course, once you did that, the dividend yield would drop to 1%-2%.
It’s a bad idea because it does nothing to strengthen and extend the time Social Security is solvent as a matter of a fact it shortens it!!! Raise the yearly income cap to 500k or 1 million dollars that would help everyone on Social Security and those coming to retirement age for years to come!!!!!
@@edhindle9131 It certainly wouldn't go very far in saving the trust fund. The only way it works is if you remove the tax cap but cap benefits. In other words, the higher earners would be supplementing the other SS recipients.
It should be for the credits earned when not working for a pension job, many of these people are complaining because they before they got their careers they worked at Domino’s. They were waitresses working in construction, etc., and have W-2 jobs. However, they eventually went to things like teachers, police officers, anybody of that nature who gets a pension and did not pay into Social Security for the majority of their career. They should not get Social Security for any of the years they worked under the pension plan and only credited for the time they actually earned W-2 wages. Disgruntled pension earners are irritated because they want to double dip. They should not be allowed to double dip. You should not get Social Security for the 30 years you worked as a police officer or the 25 years you worked as a teacher because you get a pension that nobody else gets guaranteed for life.
The way you described in your message is exactly the way this new bill will make it work. Those with a pension that NEVER PAID into SS will still not qualify for SS. Many pension workers worked multiple jobs to pay the bills because of the low pay in that pension job. Those multiple side jobs had a requirement to pay into SS. Those workers will be able to collect SS benefits if they have accumulated at least 10 years in this new bill. Nobody is double dipping. They only want what they were forced under tax law to pay into.
Many who receive teacher, fireman and police pensions did not pay into Social Security and those funds were paid into the pensions. They have no right to any Social Security during those years they already have pensions you get what you pay, no free ride. Social Security is already in deep trouble. We don’t need to push it further into trouble.
Give me a break! Since when are government pensioners low income wage earners. HR 82 is unfair to other firefighters, teachers, and police officers and all other SS payers/recipients. This bill offers 5% of government pensioners a SS benefit that uses a calculation meant for LOW INCOME WAGE EARNERS. Except these folks are not low income wage earners. Hence WEP and GPO. put in place to make the calculation fair. If we are going to calculate their benefit in this manner then you better calculate my benefit that way as well.
There should be some top income limitations. I have seen millionaires with over 100,000 in interest & dividend income on their 1040 receiving social security benefits.
If they are getting a pension funded by non social security and are not paying into SS why do they deserve it? And if they are paying into both they should be limited to the amount of SS they get.
With a staggering deficit continually climbing I doubt this bill will pass the Senate. There aren't that many days Congress will be in session giving the upcoming holidays and a new POTUS and Congress will be in place in less than two months. And with the new administration already publicly committed to no taxes on SS income, I highly doubt they will also be any interest in pursuing the elimination of WEP.
On average 3.3% of people age 62 - 84 die without ever receiving their social security benefits, annually. Where did the uncollected benefits go? Not all of it went to former spouses.
@@RetirementTalk43 He means they shifted the burden into the FICA tax collection, thus reducing the disability, welfare, etc paid out of general tax revenue. It is not 100% this or that but a blending of multiple streams. If a 50 year becomes disabled, he stays in the SSA system daily until his minimum SS age, as opposed to welfare from age 50 to age 67.
Social Security will not go away in 2035 or whatever date/year has been decided. IMO, they Social Security Administration will penalize 75% early withdrawal at that time. This will keep more people in the workforce. After all, who can afford to lose that penalized amount?
@@RetirementTalk43No, by law, SSI must pay out whatever percentage of their income they take in. If a shortfall, the government gives “everyone” an equal haircut. Right now, when the so called trust fund runs out, it’s expected that SSI will take in from active workers 75% of what’s promised, so “everyone’s” benefit gets cut 25 “across the board”. Congress will have to change the law or supplement SSI. As to expending more money on benefits, it matters little. The trust fund simply runs out faster and the percentage cut increases.
For people that worked for gov and private....for the needed time in each... are getting 66% of their SS amount. This will give them 100% of their SS??
The majority of those affected by this got to retire at age 50 with a nice healthy pension and healthcare benefits. The rest of us have to work 35-40yrs and no health benefits. So if this negatively affects my SS that I’m waiting 50yrs to collect on they should at least not be able to collect early on it. They should have to wait till FRA to get it.
@@RetirementTalk43 Yeh I’m just thinking those getting SS as part of the WEP illumination should at least have to wait till FRA to help the funding issue.
I’m curious, of course, has this WIP, been applied, in a State by State basis … @in, would it be applied differently in Texas, to a Texas teacher, than it was applied to a New York State Teacher…? I don’t have any background on this law, but, my understanding in the past, has been, some southern States refused to apply FICA rules so a school teacher had no opportunity to have payroll deduction…
@@speedwagon7562 They always get a better deal. States can easily beat the SS returns, it isn't even close. Often the standards are the State system pays at least double the SS rate.
@ , there’s a great deal more to SS, than pay-off… is, disability better..? Is, long term assistance for your wife and kids better, if you die on the job…? I’ve worked on tall steeples, tall smoke stacks…, and, in rail yards.. those can be dangerous jobs… 4 men have died, “ on the job”, during my work career… men, I knew…
@@speedwagon7562 This is a common misunderstanding. A worker can draw disability on himself, however his dependents draw from SSI which is from general tax dollars. "Although Social Security manages the program, the SSI program is funded by general tax revenues and is not paid for from Social Security taxes." -SS Website
![Ice On My Teeth - ATEEZ エイティーズ 에이티즈 [Music Bank] | KBS WORLD TV 241115](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/c-n92OgbbwA/mqdefault.jpg)
Its the only fair way to go and should have never been enacted in 1983! we all deserve what we have worked for in retirement
Lennie: There is also the other side of the argument that their SS benefit will now be too big because their other earnings weren't calculated into their SS benefit.
If we can send billions to other countries, our country can and should paid the benefits people have EARNED! Where did the money go when they took it from those 2.8 million workers? Seniors should not have to work until they die!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Bad: Foreign aid has nothing to do with Social security. The money received through
FICA from those 2.8 million people was used to pay benefits or is in the trust fund.
@@RetirementTalk43 IMO it does because the money could have been used at home! Take care of your citizens FIRST
@@BadBearU812 Isn't SNAP, VA benefits, the various forms of welfare, school lunch programs, etc., taking care of citizens?
You don’t understand SS funding or distributions.
It sounds like you want to make SS part of the general revenue fund. I would highly discourage that.
@@RetirementTalk43 not if you're a republican
Congress must do everything it can to firewall social security and medicare benefits. I do not want to see a billionaire eliminating my benefits on a whim. It would have a catastrophic effect on my survival as well as the survival of millions of other seniors. We should not be considered collateral damage. 👋👱♀️🇺🇲
vickie: It takes far more than a whim. It takes congressional approval.
@RetirementTalk43 from your lips to God's ears. Terra firma is being redefined. After the abortion issue and women continuing to die of sepsis you have to wonder. 👋👱♀️🇺🇲
All they need to do raise the cap for contributing….
Just remember Republicans don't want Social Security or Medicare / Medicaid to continue. They are for giving the 1%ers & Corporations Huge Tax cuts not for keeping social programs for the American Blue collar workers. Read the Project 2025 its Trump's plan for keeping the Rich pockets filled while putting the hard working American retirees on the street !
@@judilutz-woods3825 let's hope it happens and sooner than later. 👋👱♀️🇺🇲
The solution to SS is really simple; just take the earnings cap off completely so all income levels pay into the system. The cap is at around 170K this year.
chuck: If you lift the tax cap, that also increases benefits for those higher earners.
@@RetirementTalk43 Yes, the Cap should be just outright removed, I believe. It's the only just way to go. Forget the age raising nonsense! Cutting benefits nonsense! Or other hair-brained schemes. The other one I hear are the Means-Testing schemes. That's ludicrous for Social Security, because that method is used for 'welfare' and social security is NOT Welfare, it's something we "paid in" it's ours. The money comes from all of us! Some from gop side always try that sucker punch on that side of the isle.
It's always in their best interest to make Social Security work, because the consequences of it not working are just unimaginable it it doesn't. Imagine what would happen to the US economy around the country both urban, suburban, and rural/small town if it were to stop. Rural communities and towns economies would collapse without Social Security. Not to mention the human cost.
@@RetirementTalk43 So what. It'll still benefit a lot more people and don't forget, those higher wage earners will probably game the system so they don't have to pay it anyway.
@@thethirdgeneration1738 Again, if you remove the cap on taxes and don't cap benefits, that scheme does not work. You would have to cap benefits and make the high earners supplement the low earners. That way, someone paying $50,000/year in FICA would receive the same benefit as someone paying $10,000/year in FICA. Does that sound fair?
As for means testing, it is already happening. That is the point of levying income taxes on Social Security benefits.
@@RetirementTalk43 So what? I am so sick and tired of people who say, ¨If something helps me, but also helps you, I´m against it!¨ That´s the attitude that got T´Rumphole Thinskin elected both times. Lift the cap on Social Security taxes so everyone earning more than $170k pays on all of their earnings. Sure, the rich will game the system and pay way less than their fair share, but at least they will have to pay something on their full income.
Congress needs to stop using Social Security as their private cash cow. We’ve paid into this for our entire careers, it’s our damned money!
D: Neither Congress nor any other part of the government uses SS funds for any other program.
I’m affected by WEP. I’m a retired teacher and I had to work part time and summer jobs to support my family. My teacher salary did not pay into SS. All my other jobs for 40 years did. I think I earned my full SS benefits.
If affected that means the earnings were not "substantial" by the legal standard.
Dun: Yep.
The amount of SS we each receive is based on our 5 years highest earnings. Yes, those whose regular employment exempted them from SS but whose part time employment paid FICA should get benefits but those benefits based on their incomes that they were taxed upon not total incomes including the exempted jobs.
@@markdwest1Your SS benefit is based on your highest 35 years of earnings, not 5. You need 40 quarters to qualify for benefits.
I'm curious. How is your teacher's pension funded? Taxes or did you contribute to it? I hear how pubic pensions break state and municipal budgets. Everyone knows active workers support retired workers on SS. I know the system got screwed up a long time ago.
Hope it passes, when and if. I been watching about this for years- so Thanks for keeping us informed.😊
Thanks for watching CR.
good for those that get it. i am 65, living on SS and food stamps and it is a slow death for me.good luck everyone.
Right on.
We’re you not able to save to offset your SS? I know between my SS check and modest pension check, I wouldn’t be able to survive. My rent is going up again this spring. I have savings, but is it enough? Don’t know. It scares me to think, I could be living in my car in the next 7-8 years.
@@MargaretGSmith-c1q the company i worked for got bought out and i used my 401K and pension buy out to pay off any debt i had after a divorce.i now have serious arthritis and can't work. after living expenses for 7 yrs when i was able to draw SS, its all used up and now i am at the 125% poverty level and am able to live until something breaks.not exactly how i had drawn this up.
I worked hand to mouth, the lovely working poor. I too am surviving on SS and food assistance. Way below poverty level. I have MS, chronic pain ,pretty debilitating.
Like a lot of other people.
So sorry. Hard for many. My husband and I are newly retired. In our late 60s, and we both get SS. My husband gets a small pension. But if we both weren't getting SS, we would have to make some changes. We don't travel or spend outside our needs. We own our home and have no debt. So no rent payment. Upkeep, taxes, and insurance are reasonable so far.
I’m 68 years old and I’ve been paying FICA since I was 16 years old. Let me tell you, that’s a lot of money over 52 years. SSI is not a entitlement. It’s a deal that taxpayers have with the government in 1935 with Franklin Roosevelt. It’s a done deal.🤔👍🇺🇸
Ken: Since you paid into SS for 52 years, you are now "entitled" to a benefit. It is not a bad word. Also, "SSI" is not Social Security. It is a completely different, needs based, program (Supplemental Security Income).
I spent 20 years working at a FICA deductable job after retiring on CSRS. Its about time we get to fully collect what we paid into. BTW the Reagan administration gave us "Windfall " law. Windfall my hinder. Reagan collected annuities from SAG,California's system and Federal. If was good for him, but not for peon, waiting for "trickle down"
carl: Don't stand under that trickle.
If they paid into SS. They should get it.
Okay.
Very simple, if they held other employment and paid into S.S. they should get the benifit.
They do get the benefit. It is calculated just like everyone else’s based on income. Including the income that was not subject to SS contributions.
He said they are penalized. If they pay, they should not be penalized.
Next step is to penalize people with a certain amount in 401k.
If they pay SS. They should get full benefit.
@@lancehunter386 they are NOT penalized .
I have been retired for 15 years now. Could I have a drum roll of how much has been stolen from me after I have paid 44 Quarters into SS., I am now 78 and will never receive the amount back I was cheated out of. Let me enjoy my remaining years with a little dignity, please and thank you.
charlie: How exactly was money stolen from you?
Right on brother I’ve been retired 10 years and I started working at 12 and Clinton’s started most of the big stealing from SS.
nonsense
How is this the taxpayers problem
@@danharkins5673 Do you have any evidence or proof of that Clinton crime?
We were required to pay into this system with the promise of benefits. We had no choice. To then deny those benefits is simply based on your employment is stealing. Period. Those Senators and Congress certainly accept their SS.
don: Senators and Congress are also subject to WEP and GPO provisions.
@@RetirementTalk43 which they offset with all the sweet $ deals they get from their donors and lobbyists. The majority retire (if they ever do) as millionaires. They do not depend on SS to survive.
I’m all for this. This has cost me, as a retired policeman, a lot of money.
KCD: Good luck.
We live on our SS income and are just barely meeting ends.
sandra: Will this bill affect you?
SS was never meant to be a retirement account! It has always been a supplemental income hedge. Should have saved up.
@@JeanLeite-d1e That’s easy to say but hard to do sometimes! Life happens!!!
@@JeanLeite-d1eI guess you’ve never had a major set back in life. Good for you
@@JeanLeite-d1eif I remember right Retirement was called a 3-Legged Stool model to guide towards retirement income. With SS being one leg of the Stool .
Thanks, Otter. Great info. Newly subscribed.
Thank you, CG.
There NEEDS to be a law prohibiting Govt from " BORROWING" from Social Security because THAT'S why the fund is SO seriously depleted. They have done it for YEARS and NEVER repaid a penny . They won't " BORROW " from Welfare because THAT is State and Govt money while Social Security is primarily public funds... Just saying..
chicken: The Social Security Act REQUIRES the government to borrow all money in the SS trust fund. That is the law. In return, the SSA gets treasury securities, for which they receive regular interest. Also as required by law, the government pays back the principal to the SSA as it is needed to pay benefits. That has been happening for the last three years.
There is no welfare fund from which to borrow.
That's the way it was originally set up. That prohibition was dropped around the tine of Reagan
I’m a retired firefighter. I hired on the job at 22 years old. I put 31 years into my state pension system. All of my jobs that I worked in the private sector before and the moonlighting jobs I worked, I am still a Qtr short of getting any Social security money.
If POTUS signs the bill, I guess better go find a job for 3 months so I can get some beer money once I turn 65? Or will be when I get to 75 years old, after the congress changes the retirement age to that?
high: Get that quarter in.
You only have to earn about $1,600 in one quarter to file that Quarter, and you can file that as a self employed person. Self employed quarter requires you pay 15.3% FICA tax (which is both sides). This is one of the problems as a Government Employee can pay his own minimum to qualify.
It affects both my husband and myself. Makes us feel we were being punished for working.
pat: Well, maybe you'll start collecting more money soon.
I was going to wait till 70 but now with the GOP crazies in charge, I'm thinking of taking it now at age 65.
Why wait take it at 62
No one is guaranteed tomorrow, take it asap.
@@francieanneriley7349 You misunderstand the risks. The risk is not dying early and leaving money on the table. the risk is living to an old age and trying to survive on a tiny SS benefit or depleted savings.
@@RetirementTalk43Well-said‼️👍🏻
Why not take SS at 62? Because there is a 30% penalty attached. Some people who have done that cheated their SS check by a few hundred. If a person continues to work after taking SS they can sock some money away until they retire altogether.
Many thanks for this information. Much appreciated.
Thank you for watching.
Yup, WEP has reduced my social security by 40%!
rjahn: the you are in for a windfall if this bill passes.
@@RetirementTalk43 Does the bill have any retro provisions?
@@rjahn3000 I believe it covers 2024.
If you did not pay in for those years you should not be credited amounts for the years you did not. That seems fair.
It will make social security run out much sooner.
I’ll believe it when I see it in my bank account.
Tom: Well, first it has to pass the senate and then be signed into law by the President.
@@RetirementTalk43Until it does pass, this disabled senior lady is very scared.
So let me get this straight. The party that wants to raise the retirement age, and save taxpayers money and make other changes towards lower spending, have now proposed a bill to not do that and increase spending. All without providing any meaningful legislation to prevent the collapse of SS . But it will be ok to spend more money that they claim they don’t have. I’m confused
russell: To be clear, this does not increase government spending. It increases the amount of benefits paid out of the SS trust fund.
They want to run out the money sooner to ending social security.
@@wabd5 Bingo ! The Republicans have ALWAYS been after Social Security benefits & Ronald Reagan was the President to put TAXES on them. Republicans are not for the American working class. The sooner people understand this the faster it will get fixed by not voting their asses in !
@@ag4allgood Republicans cannot end SS without the help of Democrats in the senate. While Reagan was President when we first started taxing SS in 1984, it did pass with a bipartisan vote.
@@RetirementTalk43that's the problem he was pointing out I'm sure.
This bill is a sham. The employees that didn’t contribute are NOT eligible. They are planning to cut eligible benefits for those that DID contribute and redistribute to the non-contributors. It’s not about what their job is/was… it matters that it will cost those of us who have paid in for decades.
sid: This bill is about people who DID contribute.
Thank you for this info. I really hope this passes in the Senate. I worked for the US Postal Service for 30 years. Most of that time I was under the Civil Service Offset retirement system. I had 30 quarters paid until SS so that wasn't affected, but my postal pension was debited over $900/month. I have always thought it was SO unfair since every check I received had deductions for SS and my pension. We live on a lower middle income and that extra money would help us enormously!
Would it help for those affected by this to write a senator or President Biden?? I need to know more about what I can do to encourage this. Thank you!
roach: I'm happy you'll get more money now.
This bill is a terrible idea! Fancy name for those who did not pay into Social Security but would get benefits from Social Security. They knew they were not paying into when the too the job because it had a higher pension to offset the lower SS benefit. Now they will double their SS benefit at the expense of those who did pay into for their working life. Fancy name for act is deceiving (surprise!--not). paying out the benefits will reduce the life of the current social security benefit by at least one year to current recipients. Let your senator now to vote no on this bil, if it comes up for a vote.
@@dennislyons3095 You are exactly right.
dennis: They DID pay into Social Security but had part of their benefit taken away because of pensions they received at other jobs. It is easy to disagree with the formula used to calculate the benefit they will now receive but they certainly deserve something more than what they were getting.
@@RetirementTalk43 The formula you are talking about is for low wage earners. It establishes a floor benefit. This bill would apply that low wage calculation to people who were not low wage earners.
@@johnnyretires Correct.
I just love how this helps so few people 😢. All of us disabled are still forced to live off less than 1200 on average. Nobody's out there trying to help us at all. As a matter of fact, Congress has said they want to fund the SS Fairness Act by reducing every SSDI recipient's benefit. So ask me why this bill completely sucks and I hope it doesn't pass...
punk: Who mentioned funding the bill through reduction of SSDI benefits?
SS has a floor benefit for low income wage earners. This floor benefit uses a special calculation based on SS wages.
Some government employees have considerable wage income that is not subject to SS contributions and a much smaller amount of income that is subject to SS contributions.
These government employees want their SS benefit calculation to be based on the benefit for a low income earner even though they are not a low income earner. Hence the WEP/GPO.
If HR 82 becomes law, then I want my SS benefit calculated this way as well.
Johnny: don't hold your breath.
One of the things that many do not know, is teachers are forced to continue their education, or lose their Teaching Certificates. It is also how we get raises, by years of service and college credits. After paying into Social Security for almost 4 decades, I think I paid my dues. The Evil Rich need tp pay their share too!
Knitter: What do you think their "fair share" should be?
@RetirementTalk43 At the same rate that all the majority of us paid!
You did us a favor by providing us this useful information. I’d like to return the favor and inform you that I think your dog may have just slobbered on your couch.
Tom: Hahahahahaha!!! Those are the risks we take when giving couch access.
Thank you for the feedback. I have been paying into SS all the way back to the Early 1960’s. So anything that does not stop the program is good news
Thanks, Chet.
This is the opposite of that. Passing this will make Social Security insolvent much sooner.
Thank you for the information.Just want to mention the fact that most if not all of the money being paid out goes into the economy.
Social security and medicare hopefully will be funded for future generations to come.
I'm hoping with you.
The money being paid out goes into the economy anyway so what's the problem. But where does the money come from? And when money is paid out and little or no production happens that
adds to the inflation level so in effect, we all pay for the government people on the payrolls that
produce nothing of value. Money is stolen from people that work and given to people that game the system and help the coming financial collapse that we will all suffer from.
@@ka-peach7945 Do you think teachers, cops and firefighters produce nothing of value?
I paid SS tax for 30 years but was a teacher for 18 years. My SS is cut by 2/3rds. Not fair.
Fig: If this passes the Senate and gets signed by the President, it sounds like you have much more money coming.
As a person who has spent 23+ years in public service working for one of the 3 letter agencies that every state has and the public vilifies, I am pleased that this is being moved forward. I have been payed on average 33% below what a private sector employee earns doing a similar job. I know this because the agency has done studies every few years and reports this to me. I started my job because I wanted to be of service to the public not for the money. The carrot at the end of the stick was the pension waiting for me at the end of my career. The employer that I work for has continually decreased the size and nature of the pension waiting for me at retirement. This could be of great help to me, perhaps I will be able to afford something other than canned dog food in my golden years.
The: I hope you get whatever you have coming to you.
Larson has justified concerns. No additional revenues in the Bill only expedites SS running out of funds. Then recipients dependent exclusively on SS are totally out of luck while the civil servants benefited by this Bill will still have their various public pensions. This is an example of a good concept to correct an unfair condition being set right at the creation of an even greater unfairness to the larger segment of recipients. The Bill title need be changed to the Fairness for Some Unfairness for Most Act. The real solution as Larson said is to properly fund the cost of this Act without adverse impact to current beneficiaries.
mark: You aren't wrong.
I was in printing, food services, teaching in private school, retail sales and many other jobs where I only earned ss. When I started teaching in public school my retirement wasn’t as large as it would have been if I had not worked those other jobs. I earned my ss benefit. I’m praying this passes in the senate.
ace: Good luck.
As irony would have it, Trump and the GOP are determined to, as Senator Mike Scott, put it, "...pull Social Security up by the roots." So, don't hold your breath for anything good happening for seniors.
richard: those under age 55 will likely bear the brunt of SS changes.
@@RetirementTalk43 What makes you think that Trump and the GOP won't just pull the plug on Social Security? It's not like they have to worry about elections anymore.
@@richardowens9061 They can't do that without the help of democrats in the senate. I don't think that's going to happen.
@@RetirementTalk43 I don't think you fully realize what happened on November 5th of this year. That was the day the US became a fascist dictatorship and the Constitution stopped having any meaning.
Trump and the GOP just gained total control of the government - including the House, the Senate, the White House, and the Supreme Court. So, tell me, what can the Democrats do to stop Trump and the GOP from doing whatever they want to do without regard to the Constitution?
@@richardowens9061 Republicans don't have the 60 vote supermajority they need in the Senate. They could try to eliminate the filibuster and lower that threshold to 50 votes but I'm not sure they want to do that.
It shortens the total life of the pot of monies. It gives more to those that likely doubled their income their last year which is typical of government employees. And It does not affect the majority of those that paid in.
jay: "Doubled their income in the last year?"
@@RetirementTalk43 It would seem, as I have been told, That there is a practice of Gov workers, in the last year of their employment, to work extreme overtime hours to double their income on paper. And therefore double their retirement payments.
@@jayfarber3559 It depends on the structure of their pension. there have been cases where some workers have "packed" their pensions in both government and private companies but, i am unaware of that being a widespread pattern.
@@RetirementTalk43 Most government pensions are calculated on your highest earnings in three consecutive years. I currently have several friends that are about to retire and they max out their overtime and are making $175K+ in their last three years. It's one of the best kept secrets for public employees in these types of pensions.
@@daveb2280 Every state, city, county and municipality has a different formula for their employees and may also vary by job. I have seen the stories about pension "packing" for decades. It is no secret.
If $ was not paid in by them or on behalf of them into the SS system - not entitled to withdraw additional, in my opinion.
charles: They will only get a benefit based on what they paid into the SS system.
I’ve worked 2 jobs my entire life and part of my employment was as a school counselor. I will only receive 1/2 of my social security benefits if this doesn’t pass. There is already a teacher/counselor and police shortage. The starting salaries of these professionals is low and that is why so many have 2nd jobs. I’ve written to my senators and asked them to vote yes on repealing the Windfall Act. Please reach out to your senators.
grown: Thanks for that message.
That’s great news for me as I paid SS while working in the fire service for 22 years and then had money deducted from SS when I retired in April.
Good for you!
One question for clarity. I have worked for both a pension job and a non-pension SSI contributing job. Correct me if I am wrong, but the crux of this bill still only effects the decades I worked the non-pension job, correct? So, I don't get punished for having a pension by having my allotted time of SSI contributions cut down. So, my SSI payout is based on the years put in without having it cut via the current 1983 law. Thanks. I appreciate the video.
bryan: First, we are not talking about SSI. We are talking about Social Security, to be clear. Yes, this bill will result in the SSA figuring your benefit based solely on what you paid into the SS system.
@RetirementTalk43 Lol, that's on me. I didn't mean the insurance. Thanks.
We have to get the Senate to vote on this before the December recess. They are focused on confirming judges and we need them to get this done soon.
stacey: It may roll over to the next administration.
the judges are wayyyyyy more important
@@SueIsRetiringToFranceI have to agree with you. Lets get going on confirming as many judges as there are vacancies.
No thank you. This bill will destroy disabled people.
I am on a teacher's pension, $30,000/year. Not rich. I worked in the private sector before teaching. My earned SS is $1,200/month, which is reduced to $500/month ($6,000 per year) because of the WIP that this law would reverse. I think that it is fair to make this change. How many folks here are living on $36,000/year? I am. It isn't easy. I am far from being a rich gov't employee.
coast: What about your personal savings or retirement accounts?
I’d really like to hear from the ~70 GOP members who were opposed - specifically what is their position on reducing benefits
pj: I haven't looked at the person-by=person roll call so I don't know who they are or what their positions are.
In all likelihood they opposed some pork provisions that always get stuck in these bills. Probably$50mil to build a bridge in Utah.
@ Ah, the kinda stuff that they never do 👍🏻
@@pj-fx7gx New POTUS is committed to enacting no taxes on SS income. Most in the Senate will consider a SS problem already "fixed." So this current bill is a moot point.
@@daveb2280 Eliminating tax on SS will require that revenues for the program come from an alternate source, would it not? 👍
I am one of those affected by the bill, as I have only worked for the state of Illinois (teaching) for19 years, having paid into social security before that. For me, it would make a big difference in terms of financial security. In addition to my small pension (which I need) I only get 40% of a small social security check, due to the Windfall Elimination Provision. Were that taken away, which this bill does, I can collect all of my earned social security, while taking my pension. I paid into both at different times. Many people that I know are in similar circumstances. I do agree that, of course, it has to be paid for. If the cap on the social security tax were raised (not even totally eliminated) beyond the approximately $168,600 of income currently taxed, not only could this change be paid for, but social security could be saved for the present and future.
Arlene: I hope the bill passes for you.
Just increased problems with social security being secure.
A little bit.
I worked for 21 years for the state of Hawaii as a hospital nurse, and receive a pension, but I had SS withheld from my check. So some government workers with pensions paid in and some didn’t? How does that work?
merry: Very well. you can collect both.
@ Yes, I do collect both. I just don’t understand why SS is not taken out of everyone’s checks, or is it?
@@merrywalsh2809 Not in state in local government jobs.
@@merrywalsh2809 Not all public employers get the deal you got. This whole WEP was a scam so many public employers could avoid paying the contributions into SS by claiming they already provide a pension system for the employees so SS isn't necessary (in their minds). These public employers that elected not to contribute are saving A LOT of money by this current system.
It was funded because they already took the money. I lose about $400 a month. Believe me, I could use that money. That was taken out of my paychecks.
EH: Sorry, even with the 2.8 million people who had their benefits cut due to WEP and GPO, the trust fund will still run dry in about 9 years.
We in SSA do not get paid by the Social Security Administration. It is my understanding Social Security is broke/bankrupt. The US Treasury is now paying the retirement. Check where it is coming from each month on your bank statement. A huge raise is needed by people on the retirement plan. A simple 2.5 raise is a drop in the bucket with the inflation.
joy: Current SS benefits are paid by incoming revenue (~94%) and money from the SS trust fund (~6%). The SS trust fund still holds about $2.7 trillion. The government does not pay for SS benefits. The treasury departments manages the money for the SSA and checks are cut by them but come out of the SSA's account.
Some how people come to think ss is supposed to be for livening on its not it’s supposed to be supplemental income to help with your 401k and your savings .NOT TO LIVE ON !!!! Illegal immigrants should not get a penny for security or any other governmental support How much would that help?
louis: There is no federal government program, including SS, that pays anything to people in the country illegally.
My husband, a retired educator, paid into the system but they’ve been stealing over half his earned ss benefits… that is not right!
donna: I don't know that "stealing" is accurate but, he may now get some of that money back.
Looks like a lot of people are gonna be very hungry
j: How so?
I’m shocked to hear that. They been fighting for this for many years. I once fell under the windfall elimination, but since Germany and USA has a treaty that they honor others working history, so I was exempt, and they paid me the money back that they took. I’m happy to hear that and hope the law gets passed. Thank you for the info!!
Thanks for watching, Beauty.
Wow, you were so lucky you got back what they took from you!
My father retired from military with a disability pension and also worked over 30 years as a civil service employee with a pension but his social security is around $300 a month. Would this law increase his SS benifits if it passes?
Glenn: It should.
My question is do the years worked in non SS jobs count towards their 40 quarters. They should get credit from quarters the paid into SS. If the rule somehow changes the non SS quarters differently we might have issues arise.
bones: No, those non-contribution years do not count.
I worked under social security full time for 15 years but because I changed jobs and worked under a state pension fund for 20 years, after the 15, I have been told I will receive nothing or next to nothing from social security. So any social security benefit I had was forfeitted when I changed jobs. This is where the disparagement comes in. People who worked a long time under social security are treated like they worked part time or just enough to get their 40 quarters. I worked for years under social securiity and I'm not alone. Where else can you invest in a pension, change pension funds and then not be allowed to collect what you contributed because you changed jobs? Free money for social security. I don't know what will happen in the senate but I hope even with some modification, something passes based on fairness alone.
fall: Good luck. I hope this happens for you.
Because you are not a low income wage earner, your SS benefit cannot be calculated as a low wage earner. Your SS is calculated correctly.
When people get more from the Government Pension than social security pays they are blocked from double dipping with a second Government Pension called Social Security.
Those who did not pay in at the same rate should not get the same level of benefits if no one is willing to shore up the system.
That's not what is happening. they will get benefits based on what they paid in.
They can fix SS fairly easily by raising the income limit on what gets charged, which is currently around $168,600.00; it is raised yearly. No income limit exists for Medicare.
Gal: That only helps if you put a cap on benefits and doesn't totally solve the trust fund problem.
WEP will change my social security by a couple hundred a month. The government offset could potentially really help depending on what happens in my wife and my lives. If she passes before me, it would be very helpful financially with that government offset (as in one spouse claiming the higher SS payment as a surviving spouse). Thanks for the info.
Thanks for watching Edward.
@@RetirementTalk43my husband, who worked outside of civil service enough years to qualify for SS, gets a reduced amount of SS due to the Windfall Elimination act and then of course he gets a pension check from civil service. I worked in the private sector for 38 years and get a substantially good social security income. I receive no pension. He was told that he cannot draw from my social security at a reduced windfall Elimination amount. It is strictly based on his social security. Is this correct? Also, if I pass before he does, Social Security told him he could never draw off of my social security. Is the person you commented to thinking they will be able to?
We need to start looking at military bases to close, NOT taking benefits from people that actually EARNED THEM! We seem to be a very lost country anymore. The US has around 800 military bases in other countries, which costs an estimated $100 billion annually, a number that could be much higher depending on whether you count the bases still open in Iraq and Afghanistan.
colbert: Certainly something that should be looked at but keep in mind, despite what Trump says, those bases serve us in the end, not just the countries where we put those bases.
WEP doesn’t only apply to US government and federal employees. It also applies to foreign pension recipients. I was born in the UK and for many years paid into the UK state pension system with deductions from my paycheck. I then emigrated to the US and became a citizen, I worked and paid into the social security system for 17 years before I retired. When I retired I had to declare that I was in receipt of a UK state pension so $543 per month was deducted from my social security pension. Is that fair? I think not! Why should I be penalized when I paid fully into both state pension systems. Makes me feel like a second hand citizen.
derek: It is considered fair because you got a higher percentage of your wages in SS benefits.
As it stands currently. Said teacher needs 30 years of 30k yearly in earnings (outside of teaching) to remove any penalty. To collect their rightful deserved 1200 a month SS.
????
As a teacher who worked additional jobs to make ends meet, I will get my full SS benefits. To cover SS, increase the cap from $400K to 2 million.
Sharyn: The cap is at $168,000.
@ All the more reason to raise the cap.
Does this mean as a retired postal worker I would now be able to get half off my wifes social security which was elimanted by the offset?
I believe so.
I hope that thay are able to get it to the president and sign,d into law the rule has been reducing my,n and my fathers SSI for about 5 years now and neither one of us even gets a pension from work just a ssa check and a SSI check😢
Smoke: If you don't get a pension, this law would not affect you.
@RetirementTalk43 I know that
SSI is not standard social security payments. Standard payments are OASDI benefits.
Everyone who paid into ss should should get the same % back on what was paid into it.
edwin: I think it works better when it is progressive. It is a way to means test.
No they shouldn't. The system is meant to lift people out of poverty not be a savings account. If your suggestion was operational, most people on Social Security would be fucked.
@@punkagrrlzero that is bs. I'm not responsible for you welfare nor you for mine. I get penalized for you welfare?. I dont think so. Pay me what I'm entitled
@@RetirementTalk43 oh yea means test my you know what? Give me what I'm entitled to. No more no less. ( if you have nothing have me pay for it. If your rich have me pay for it. That welfare shit should be a separate matter. Not mine!!)
@@edwintaylor8771 So do you believe billionaires should get the max SS benefit?
They should make it where any branch of government gets a raise social security does to of the same percentage, social security is way behind the economy.
jameS: mpost government workers get a COLA increase similar to the SS COLA.
This bill,passing allows people to get full SSI in addition to their other retirement. This means that Social Security will become insolvent even sooner.
Not : SSI is a different program, not related to Social Security. But, yes, it means that the SS trust fund will deplete a few months sooner. Social Security will no become insolvent.
Everyone who works should pay into social security and medicare from their paychecks throughout their working lives , whether or not they also have a pension plan with their employer government or private sector.
stephen: even if the pension plan requires them to make payments? Can you imagine giving up 6.2% of your salary to SS and then another 5%, for your pension?
@RetirementTalk43 Yes definitely!
The working middle average class contributed to the Social Security/Medicare we worked for it! It is not a freebee
Paulie: No one is suggesting it is a "freebee."
now contact your US Senator and tell them to pass thsi bill when it comes to the US Senate
Tim: Good advice.
Is this not the same bill that would Open up allowing these individuals to double their social security checks which would kill the social security system sooner than later?
vince: Yes.
Howdy hi hi,
I think, in the end, that the Social Security trust fund will have to be directly funded, or at least subsidised via the fed printing the funds needed and simply adding that money to our economy regardless of the secondary consequences. Because if you let grandma and grandpa lose those benefits and they end up homeless, and starving. We're just not going to go down that road.
However, I think a better system would be to print an enormous amount of money for investment in high yield dividend stocks wherein the dividends paid become the SS funding source. And yes that too would require changing some of our existing laws to make it happen.
If we don't take one of those two pathways, then the only remaining option is to raise taxes on those who make enough to actually produce the revenue needed to keep the program going. Otherwise, homeless and starving grandparents are the realities we will have to live with for the remainder of our days.
Empathy: First, it would be illegal for the Fed to fund SS. Second, they would not print money for that purpose even if they could. Your second idea would require an investments of trillions of dollars and would explode the stock market ( although I wouldn't be adverse to investing a large portion of the SS trust fund in stocks going forward).
It will take a combination of a higher FRA, higher payroll tax a higher tax cap and possible a different benefit formula, to save the trust fund.
@@RetirementTalk43
That's the thing about congress. They write the laws, and can change the laws. So I was referring to this being an act of congress to achieve. I'd say, as far as the tax cap goes, just eliminate it. Why does making more money mean paying less into social security? On a percentage of income calculation.
FRA? Tried looking that one up, but nothing seems to fit. Federal retirement age? Typo and just means retirement age? Not sure but I assume that's what you're saying there. And that one's a hard sell in the best of circumstances. And there is kind of a natural limit to how high that can go depending on the physicality of the job.
As far as it taking trillions to fund the SS via dividends. Not sure that's really accurate. But given our GDP is 25 trillion per annum. You also have to remember that we're talking about filling the short fall, not fully funding everything by this methodology alone. And it's why I suggested dividends. At worst it would drive up stock prices. Not really sure what you mean by exploding the stock market. It is certainly a better option than simply cutting taxes on corporate entities. At least this way the people get something out of the deal.
@@empathyisonlyhuman7816 If you remove the tax cap and then cap benefits, you could end up with some people paying $20,000, 30,000, $50,000/year and more into the SS system but yet get a benefit equal to the one earned by the person paying $11,000/year into the system. It is simply wealth redistribution.
FRA is Full Retirement Age. The age at which everyone receives their full Social Security Benefit (soon to be 67 years old for everyone). It is not the age of retirement, as anyone can retire whenever they want, regardless of when they start taking Social Security benefits.
Social Security currently pays out about $1.5 trillion annually in benefits. To generate that much money in dividends, say in stocks paying out an average of 4% in dividends (the S&P 500 pays about 1.8%), you would need to invest over $37 trillion dollars, which would be far more than twice the value of those stocks currently. Could you imagine a doubling or tripling of stock prices overnight? Of course, once you did that, the dividend yield would drop to 1%-2%.
It’s a bad idea because it does nothing to strengthen and extend the time Social Security is solvent as a matter of a fact it shortens it!!! Raise the yearly income cap to 500k or 1 million dollars that would help everyone on Social Security and those coming to retirement age for years to come!!!!!
ed: If you raise the tax cap, the benefits would also rise.
@ So is that a bad thing!! It’s not going to rise equally to the extra money that would come into the Social Security funds.
@@edhindle9131 It certainly wouldn't go very far in saving the trust fund. The only way it works is if you remove the tax cap but cap benefits. In other words, the higher earners would be supplementing the other SS recipients.
It should be for the credits earned when not working for a pension job, many of these people are complaining because they before they got their careers they worked at Domino’s. They were waitresses working in construction, etc., and have W-2 jobs. However, they eventually went to things like teachers, police officers, anybody of that nature who gets a pension and did not pay into Social Security for the majority of their career. They should not get Social Security for any of the years they worked under the pension plan and only credited for the time they actually earned W-2 wages. Disgruntled pension earners are irritated because they want to double dip. They should not be allowed to double dip. You should not get Social Security for the 30 years you worked as a police officer or the 25 years you worked as a teacher because you get a pension that nobody else gets guaranteed for life.
fire: their SS benefit is based on what they paid in.
@@RetirementTalk43 Yes, but the ones who didn't are still complaining!
The way you described in your message is exactly the way this new bill will make it work. Those with a pension that NEVER PAID into SS will still not qualify for SS.
Many pension workers worked multiple jobs to pay the bills because of the low pay in that pension job. Those multiple side jobs had a requirement to pay into SS. Those workers will be able to collect SS benefits if they have accumulated at least 10 years in this new bill.
Nobody is double dipping. They only want what they were forced under tax law to pay into.
Many who receive teacher, fireman and police pensions did not pay into Social Security and those funds were paid into the pensions. They have no right to any Social Security during those years they already have pensions you get what you pay, no free ride. Social Security is already in deep trouble. We don’t need to push it further into trouble.
Give me a break! Since when are government pensioners low income wage earners.
HR 82 is unfair to other firefighters, teachers, and police officers and all other SS payers/recipients.
This bill offers 5% of government pensioners a SS benefit that uses a calculation meant for LOW INCOME WAGE EARNERS. Except these folks are not low income wage earners. Hence WEP and GPO. put in place to make the calculation fair.
If we are going to calculate their benefit in this manner then you better calculate my benefit that way as well.
You pay in, and you get payback. That's how it should work.
That IS how it works.
@RetirementTalk43 I apologize, it sounded like some people who were paying in.We're not getting it when they retire.Due to double dipping
If the people are getting a public funded pension and did not pay in to Social security then no they should not be able to get Social security.
JBR: If they did not pay into SS they are not and will not get a SS benefit.
There should be some top income limitations. I have seen millionaires with over 100,000 in interest & dividend income on their 1040 receiving social security benefits.
150: If they paid in, shouldn't they get a benefit like everyone else or, are you in favor of means testing?
Your dog is gorgeous 😜
CJ: I'll let her know you said that, thanks.
I think i did hear that he will sign it, I don't have a source, unfortunately
captain: time will tell.
If they are getting a pension funded by non social security and are not paying into SS why do they deserve it? And if they are paying into both they should be limited to the amount of SS they get.
real: If they didn't work another job and didn't pay into SS, they will not get a SS benefit.
Thanks.
Thank YOU.
Of course they did. It will sunset the program earlier.
James: The SS program will never "sunset." Even if and when the SS trust fund is depleted, the program will continue.
Every time I get a raise in social security they take that raise out of my government pension. I’m not sure how this is going to affect me yet.
shelly: I can't help you as it sounds like a different program.
@ thanks for the reply!
With a staggering deficit continually climbing I doubt this bill will pass the Senate. There aren't that many days Congress will be in session giving the upcoming holidays and a new POTUS and Congress will be in place in less than two months. And with the new administration already publicly committed to no taxes on SS income, I highly doubt they will also be any interest in pursuing the elimination of WEP.
dave: This bill does not affect the debt or deficit.
Is railroad has a separate retirement too it's just different than Social Security hell with a double and triple dipping
bernie: But if the person who worked for the railroad also worked for another company and he/she paid FICA, they deserve that benefit too.
Thanks for the info Howard
Thank you, Atilla.
Who voted against this bill? Would those same vote to reinstate slavery?
francis: I didn't look at the roll call but there were 75 representatives who voted against the bill.
LOL you don't understand what you don't understand.
On average 3.3% of people age 62 - 84 die without ever receiving their social security benefits, annually. Where did the uncollected benefits go? Not all of it went to former spouses.
jr: the money stays in the trust fund and is paid out to other SS recipients.
So the poor people are the ones that have to pay so that the rich people can have it easy
roberts: Not sure what you mean by that.
@@RetirementTalk43 He means they shifted the burden into the FICA tax collection, thus reducing the disability, welfare, etc paid out of general tax revenue. It is not 100% this or that but a blending of multiple streams. If a 50 year becomes disabled, he stays in the SSA system daily until his minimum SS age, as opposed to welfare from age 50 to age 67.
@@whatsup3270 I really doubt he meant that.
Social Security will not go away in 2035 or whatever date/year has been decided. IMO, they Social Security Administration will penalize 75% early withdrawal at that time. This will keep more people in the workforce. After all, who can afford to lose that penalized amount?
Margaret: What is early withdrawal, in terms of Social Security?
@@RetirementTalk43No, by law, SSI must pay out whatever percentage of their income they take in. If a shortfall, the government gives “everyone” an equal haircut. Right now, when the so called trust fund runs out, it’s expected that SSI will take in from active workers 75% of what’s promised, so “everyone’s” benefit gets cut 25 “across the board”. Congress will have to change the law or supplement SSI.
As to expending more money on benefits, it matters little. The trust fund simply runs out faster and the percentage cut increases.
@@johnluiten3686 SSI has nothing to do with Social Security.
Still has to get past the senate, don't hold your breath.
skippy: Who knows?
Eliminate Medicare. F old people
scott: Why so crude and mean?
For people that worked for gov and private....for the needed time in each... are getting 66% of their SS amount. This will give them 100% of their SS??
Yes.
If they worked the required amount in the second job to draw SS they should receive their SS.
They already do. It is just a reduced amount.
The majority of those affected by this got to retire at age 50 with a nice healthy pension and healthcare benefits. The rest of us have to work 35-40yrs and no health benefits. So if this negatively affects my SS that I’m waiting 50yrs to collect on they should at least not be able to collect early on it. They should have to wait till FRA to get it.
52: It doesn't change SS rules for them.
Yes and then many of them took another job until they were 65, so they paid into social security for 15 years.
@@RetirementTalk43 Yeh I’m just thinking those getting SS as part of the WEP illumination should at least have to wait till FRA to help the funding issue.
Letting government control any retirement accounts or tax revenues is absolutely ludicrous.
Govr pension. It's a bullshit pension kick back. Ems fire cops fine. All those woke AZZ teachers. Fk u.
Time to examine taxing types of robotic labor.
Roy: You are certainly not the first person to suggest that.
I’m curious, of course, has this WIP, been applied, in a State by State basis … @in, would it be applied differently in Texas, to a Texas teacher, than it was applied to a New York State Teacher…? I don’t have any background on this law, but, my understanding in the past, has been, some southern States refused to apply FICA rules so a school teacher had no opportunity to have payroll deduction…
speed: Yes, there can be differences. Like NY school teachers take part in SS while Texas school teachers do not.
@ , thank you.. that means, thousands, perhaps hundreds of thousands had no choice…
@@speedwagon7562 They always get a better deal. States can easily beat the SS returns, it isn't even close. Often the standards are the State system pays at least double the SS rate.
@ , there’s a great deal more to SS, than pay-off… is, disability better..? Is, long term assistance for your wife and kids better, if you die on the job…? I’ve worked on tall steeples, tall smoke stacks…, and, in rail yards.. those can be dangerous jobs… 4 men have died, “ on the job”, during my work career… men, I knew…
@@speedwagon7562 This is a common misunderstanding. A worker can draw disability on himself, however his dependents draw from SSI which is from general tax dollars.
"Although Social Security manages the program, the SSI program is funded by general tax revenues and is not paid for from Social Security taxes." -SS Website